Kester v. Public Prosecutor: Drunk Driving Sentencing & Injury
In Stansilas Fabian Kester v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal against the sentence imposed on Mr. Kester for drunk driving under s 67(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act. Mr. Kester's drunk driving resulted in injuries to a pedestrian and a motorcyclist. The Chief Justice considered whether causing injury while drunk driving automatically crosses the custodial threshold and the mitigating value of the appellant's contributions to the Singapore Armed Forces. The court reduced the imprisonment sentence from two weeks to one week, while maintaining the three-year driving disqualification.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal allowed in part. The imprisonment sentence was reduced from two weeks to one week, while the three-year driving disqualification remains.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Stansilas Fabian Kester appeals his drunk driving sentence. The key issue is whether causing injury mandates a custodial sentence.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Partial Loss | Partial | Wong Woon Kwong of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Stansilas Fabian Kester | Appellant | Individual | Appeal allowed in part | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Wong Woon Kwong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| K. Muralidharan Pillai | Rajah & Tann LLP |
| Jonathan Lai | Rajah & Tann LLP |
4. Facts
- The appellant consumed three mugs of beer at a lunch gathering.
- The appellant drove despite consuming alcohol, believing he was sober enough.
- The appellant accelerated towards a traffic junction as the light turned amber.
- The appellant entered the junction after the traffic light had turned red.
- The appellant's car brushed a pedestrian crossing with the green man signal.
- The appellant's car collided with a motorcyclist who had the green light.
- The appellant's breath alcohol level was 43μg per 100ml of breath, exceeding the prescribed limit of 35μg.
5. Formal Citations
- Stansilas Fabian Kester v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9320 of 2016/01, [2017] SGHC 185
- Public Prosecutor v Stansilas Fabian Kester, , [2016] SGDC 361
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant drove under the influence of alcohol and caused an accident. | |
| Appellant was arrested. | |
| Breath Evidential Analyser test conducted on the appellant. | |
| Victims conveyed to Singapore General Hospital. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| High Court heard the appeal. | |
| Judgment delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Drunk Driving Causing Hurt or Injury
- Outcome: The court determined that causing injury while drunk driving generally crosses the custodial threshold, but mitigating factors can warrant a departure from this starting point. The court reduced the imprisonment sentence due to the appellant's compensation to the victims.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Sentencing benchmarks
- Custodial threshold
- Mitigating factors
- Mitigating Value of Public Service
- Outcome: The court held that past contributions to society might be a relevant mitigating factor because it is indicative of his capacity to reform and it tempers the concern over the specific deterrence of the offender, but this would carry modest weight and can be displaced where other sentencing objectives assume greater importance.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Contributions to the Singapore Armed Forces
- Good character
- Rehabilitative potential
- Relevance of Disciplinary Proceedings
- Outcome: The court held that professional or contractual consequences should not be relevant to the sentencing court.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- SAF disciplinary proceedings
- Loss of employment
- Hardship
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against the sentence of imprisonment
- Substitution of imprisonment with a fine
9. Cause of Actions
- Drunk Driving
- Dangerous Driving
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Traffic Law
11. Industries
- Legal
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Edwin s/o Suse Nathen v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 1139 | Singapore | Established the sentencing framework for drunk driving offences, focusing on the relationship between alcohol level and punishment. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lee Meng Soon | High Court | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 240 | Singapore | Discussed the legislative intent behind amendments to the Road Traffic Act regarding drunk driving. |
| Public Prosecutor v Stansilas Fabian Kester | District Court | Yes | [2017] SGDC 361 | Singapore | The District Judge's decision that was being appealed. |
| Knight Glenn Jeyasingam v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR(R) 523 | Singapore | Cited by the appellant to support the argument that contributions to public service should be considered as a mitigating factor. |
| Public Prosecutor v Koh Thiam Huat | High Court | Yes | [2017] SGHC 123 | Singapore | Discussed the parameters for evaluating the seriousness of a crime, including harm caused and culpability of the offender. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ong Beng Hock | District Court | Yes | [2011] SGDC 330 | Singapore | A drunk driving case where a fine was imposed despite injury to a pedestrian. |
| Public Prosecutor v Yim Kheen Kwun | High Court | Yes | MA 9256/2016/01 | Singapore | A drunk driving case where a fine was imposed despite injuries to two victims. |
| Public Prosecutor v Kim Seung Shik | District Court | Yes | [2009] SGDC 327 | Singapore | A drunk driving case where a short imprisonment term was imposed. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mohamed Nawaz Kamil | District Court | Yes | DAC 930727/2014 & Ors | Singapore | A drunk driving case where a short imprisonment term was imposed. |
| Public Prosecutor v Selvakumar s/o Paneer Selvam | District Court | Yes | [2008] SGDC 48 | Singapore | A drunk driving case where a short imprisonment term was imposed. |
| Public Prosecutor v Chan Ee | District Court | Yes | [2010] SGDC 165 | Singapore | A drunk driving case where a short imprisonment term was imposed. |
| Public Prosecutor v Sim Yew Jen Jonathan | District Court | Yes | [2008] SGDC 272 | Singapore | A drunk driving case where a short imprisonment term was imposed. |
| Public Prosecutor v Wong Yew Foo | High Court | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 1198 | Singapore | A drunk driving case where a substantial imprisonment term was imposed. |
| Public Prosecutor v Nur Azhar Bin Sulaiman | District Court | Yes | [2013] SGDC 79 | Singapore | A drunk driving case where a substantial imprisonment term was imposed. |
| Public Prosecutor v Koh Chin Leong | District Court | Yes | [2014] SGDC 11 | Singapore | A drunk driving case where a substantial imprisonment term was imposed. |
| Siah Ooi Choe v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1988] 1 SLR(R) 309 | Singapore | Provides an illustration of relevant contributions outside the public sector. |
| Public Prosecutor v Kang Seong Yong | District Court | Yes | [2004] SGDC 230 | Singapore | The district judge gave weight to the offender’s contributions to the Korean community in Singapore. |
| Public Prosecutor v Kang Seong Yong | High Court | Yes | [2005] 2 SLR(R) 169 | Singapore | Yong CJ allowed the Prosecution’s appeal, enhancing the sentence to one month’s imprisonment for each charge, partly on the ground that these factors were “not so exceptional as to justify a departure from the sentencing norm |
| Public Prosecutor v Foo Jong Kan and another | District Court | Yes | [2005] SGDC 248 | Singapore | The district judge held that the first offender’s positions on public bodies such as the Strata Titles Board and his philanthropy, as well as the second offender’s active community work in Community Development Councils and in various temples and his National Day Award in 2003, “merit[ed] consideration in sentencing as they showed good character and tangible contribution to the welfare of society |
| Public Prosecutor v Lim Beng Cheok | High Court | Yes | [2003] SGHC 54 | Singapore | The High Court accepted that the appellant, who was a mathematics home tutor and had pleaded guilty to committing numerous sexual offences on his students, had had “tremendous beneficial influence … on the lives of many of his students” and that this “was a strong mitigating factor”, although this was ultimately outweighed by his abuse of his position of trust and authority. |
| Ang Peng Tiam v Singapore Medical Council and another matter | High Court | Yes | [2017] SGHC 143 | Singapore | That case involved an appeal by a prominent oncologist against his conviction on charges of professional misconduct by a disciplinary tribunal. The court held at [93] that in the specific context of disciplinary proceedings for professional misconduct, the offender’s eminence and seniority would be regarded as an aggravating factor because those characteristics amplify the negative impact on public confidence in the integrity of the profession when the offender is convicted. |
| Ryan v The Queen | High Court of Australia | Yes | [2001] HCA 21 | Australia | In the High Court of Australia’s decision in Ryan v The Queen [2001] HCA 21 (“Ryan”), Gummow J held at [68] that an offender’s good character “may indicate the capacity of the person to appreciate the censure inherent in the outcome of the criminal process and may suggest that repetition of the criminal conduct is unlikely |
| Public Prosecutor v Loqmanul Hakim bin Buang | High Court | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 753 | Singapore | As explained in Public Prosecutor v Loqmanul Hakim bin Buang [2007] 4 SLR(R) 753 at [46], the concept of retribution is based on the notion that “the punishment meted out to an offender should reflect the degree of harm and culpability that has been occasioned by such conduct |
| Thong Sing Hock v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2009] 3 SLR(R) 47 | Singapore | The focus of the second sentencing objective – that of prevention – is on the protection and safety of the public through the incapacitation of dangerous or persistent offenders |
| Public Prosecutor v Law Aik Meng | High Court | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 814 | Singapore | The aim of specific deterrence is to discourage a particular offender from reoffending by instilling in him the fear of the consequences of re-offending through the potential threat of re-experiencing a similar sanction as previously imposed (or perhaps even a more serious one) |
| Public Prosecutor v Mok Ping Wuen Maurice | High Court | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 439 | Singapore | In this regard, an offender who has done good works or shown himself to be of generally good character may possess a higher potential for correction and therefore the “corrupt influence of a prison environment and the bad effects of labelling and stigmatisation” (Public Prosecutor v Mok Ping Wuen Maurice [1998] 3 SLR(R) 439 at [21]) may lessen rather than promote his chances of reformation. |
| Khoo Kee Yoong v Public Prosecutor | District Court | Yes | [2002] SGDC 273 | Singapore | In Khoo Kee Yoong v Public Prosecutor [2002] SGDC 273, the offender, a Staff Sergeant with the Singapore Navy, was convicted of a charge of drunk driving under s 67(1)(b) of the RTA. He argued in mitigation that he would be subjected to SAF internal disciplinary proceedings should he be fined more than $1,000 by a civil court, which might lead to him losing his job. The district judge rejected this submission |
| Chow Dih v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1990] 1 SLR(R) 53 | Singapore | By way of example, the author refers to the decision of Chao Hick Tin JC (as he then was) in Chow Dih v Public Prosecutor [1990] 1 SLR(R) 53, where the appellant, a doctor, was convicted of cheating his patients by deceiving them into believing that they were suffering from various diseases and therefore required treatment from him. Chao JC held at [59] that while he appreciated that following the conclusion of the case, the appellant would be dealt with professionally by the Singapore Medical Council, “a doctor who cheats his patients, like the appellant, must expect to be dealt with according to law as well as the disciplinary rules of his profession”. Thus Chao JC was “unable to accept this as a mitigating factor |
| Ramanathan Yogendran v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR(R) 471 | Singapore | In Ramanathan Yogendran v Public Prosecutor [1995] 2 SLR(R) 471, the appellant was a solicitor who was convicted of various charges involving the fabrication of evidence, criminal breach of trust, criminal intimidation and furnishing false information to a public servant. In considering the appropriate sentence to be imposed on the appellant, Yong CJ expressed his disagreement (at [125]) with a decision of the Malaysian High Court in Lee Yew Siong v Public Prosecutor [1973] 1 MLJ 37, where the Malaysian court had held that it “cannot ignore the fact that [the offender] will face disciplinary proceedings and the high probability that he will be struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors”. Yong CJ held that this logic was “questionable” and noted that the decision had not subsequently been followed by the Malaysian courts. |
| Yeo Kwan Wee Kenneth v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2004] 2 SLR(R) 45 | Singapore | And in Yeo Kwan Wee Kenneth v Public Prosecutor [2004] 2 SLR(R) 45, where the offender was convicted of voluntarily causing grievous hurt, the High Court took into account (at [44]) the fact that he “ha[d] been punished in other ways”, given that his conviction would prevent him from serving his bond with the Republic of Singapore Air Force and he would therefore face potential legal action from his employer. |
| Public Prosecutor v Kwong Kok Hing | High Court | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 684 | Singapore | A person who breaches the criminal law can expect to face the consequences that follow under the criminal law. Whether or not such an offender has already or may as a result suffer other professional or contractual consequences should not be relevant to the sentencing court. |
| Ong Ah Tiong v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2004] 1 SLR(R) 587 | Singapore | The Prosecution refers to Ong Ah Tiong v Public Prosecutor [2004] 1 SLR(R) 587 at [27] and argues that because the appellant’s payment of compensation arose out of civil suits instituted against him by the victims, this qualifies the mitigating value of his act of compensation. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) s 67(1)(b) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) s 64(1) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) s 67(2) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) s 72(1) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 1994 Rev Ed) s 67(1) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 1994 Rev Ed) s 70 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 337(a) | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 304A(a) | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 304A(b) | Singapore |
| Companies Act (Cap 50, 1985 Rev Ed) s 406(a) | Singapore |
| Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Immigration Act (Cap 133, 1997 Rev Ed) s 57(1)(k) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Drunk driving
- Breath alcohol content
- Custodial threshold
- Mitigating factors
- Sentencing framework
- General deterrence
- Specific deterrence
- Rehabilitation
- Public service
- Contributions to society
15.2 Keywords
- Drunk driving
- Sentencing
- Road Traffic Act
- Singapore
- Appeal
- Imprisonment
- Disqualification
- Mitigation
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Sentencing | 95 |
| Road Traffic Act | 90 |
| Drunk driving | 85 |
| Criminal Procedure | 75 |
| Automobile Accidents | 60 |
| Personal Injury | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Road Traffic Law
- Sentencing