Pua Hung Jaan Jeffrey Nguyen v Public Prosecutor: Drink Driving Appeal
Pua Hung Jaan Jeffrey Nguyen appealed to the High Court of Singapore against a one-week imprisonment sentence imposed by the District Judge for driving with excessive alcohol in his breath, an offence under Section 67(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act. The Chief Justice, Sundaresh Menon, allowed the appeal, substituting the imprisonment term with the maximum fine of $5,000, while maintaining the disqualification order. The court considered the appellant's prior conviction under Section 68(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act and the absence of harm caused in the current offense.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal against a one-week imprisonment sentence for drink driving. The High Court allowed the appeal, substituting the jail term with the maximum fine.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pua Hung Jaan Jeffrey Nguyen | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | Anand Nalachandran |
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Mark Jayaratnam |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Anand Nalachandran | TSMP Law Corporation |
| Mark Jayaratnam | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- Appellant pleaded guilty to driving with excessive alcohol in his breath.
- Appellant had a prior conviction in 2012 for being in charge of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.
- Appellant's breath alcohol level was 70μg/100ml, exceeding the legal limit of 35μg/100ml.
- Appellant consumed three glasses of champagne prior to driving.
- Appellant was stopped at a police roadblock.
- The District Judge sentenced the Appellant to one week's imprisonment and a 30-month driving ban.
- The High Court allowed the appeal, substituting the jail term with a fine.
5. Formal Citations
- Pua Hung Jaan Jeffrey Nguyen v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9043 of 2017/01, [2017] SGHC 244
- Public Prosecutor v Pua Hung Jaan Jeffrey Nguyen, , [2017] SGDC 63
- Lechimanan s/o G Sangaran v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 136 of 2007/01, Lechimanan s/o G Sangaran v Public Prosecutor
- Public Prosecutor v Tan Wei Jin Alvin, District Arrest Case No 046037 of 2011, Public Prosecutor v Tan Wei Jin Alvin
- Public Prosecutor v Woo Chun Sum, Sam, District Arrest Case No 020338 of 2013, Public Prosecutor v Woo Chun Sum, Sam
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant convicted under s 68(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act | |
| Appellant consumed alcohol at Pan Pacific Hotel | |
| Appellant arrested for drink driving | |
| Appellant pleaded guilty before the District Judge | |
| District Judge sentenced the Appellant | |
| District Judge issued full grounds for her decision | |
| Hearing of the appeal | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Drink Driving
- Outcome: The court allowed the appeal and substituted the imprisonment term with a fine.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Excessive alcohol level
- Prior conviction for similar offence
- Related Cases:
- [2009] 3 SLR(R) 423
- [2013] 4 SLR 1139
- [2017] SGHC 185
- Sentencing
- Outcome: The court determined that the custodial threshold had not been crossed in this case.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Custodial threshold
- Deterrence
- Consistency in sentencing
- Relevance of prior convictions
- Related Cases:
- [2009] 3 SLR(R) 423
- [2013] 4 SLR 1139
- [2017] SGHC 185
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against sentence
- Reduction of imprisonment term
9. Cause of Actions
- Driving under the influence of alcohol
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Pua Hung Jaan Jeffrey Nguyen | District Court | Yes | [2017] SGDC 63 | Singapore | Cited for the District Judge's grounds of decision in the case. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ow Weng Hong | District Court | Yes | [2010] SGDC 284 | Singapore | Cited for the four scenarios that could present themselves in relation to the interplay between ss 67(1) and 68(1) of the RTA. |
| Chong Pit Khai v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2009] 3 SLR(R) 423 | Singapore | Cited as a Scenario 4 precedent where a fine was imposed instead of imprisonment. |
| Mohamad Fairuuz bin Saleh v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 1145 | Singapore | Cited to clarify the meaning of 'mandatory minimum sentence' and 'specified minimum sentence'. |
| Choo Kok Hwee v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 1154 | Singapore | Cited to show that the High Court declined to follow Chong Pit Khai on the point of whether imprisonment is mandatory in Scenarios 1, 2 and 3. |
| Edwin s/o Suse Nathen v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 1139 | Singapore | Cited for setting out the benchmark sentences for first-time offenders under s 67(1)(b) of the RTA. |
| Stansilas Fabian Kester v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2017] SGHC 185 | Singapore | Cited for modifying the framework laid down in Edwin Suse in respect of cases of drunk driving involving first offenders where physical injury and/or property damage has been caused. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lechimanan s/o G Sangaran | District Court | Yes | [2007] SGDC 229 | Singapore | Cited as a District Court decision dealing with Scenario 4 Offenders. |
| Public Prosecutor v Benedict Goh Whei-Cheh | District Court | Yes | [2007] SGDC 304 | Singapore | Cited as a District Court decision dealing with Scenario 4 Offenders. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ng Chun Beng | District Court | Yes | [2008] SGDC 113 | Singapore | Cited as a District Court decision dealing with Scenario 4 Offenders. |
| Amin bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2017] SGHC 215 | Singapore | Cited to show that the court should not proceed on the presumptive basis that once an offender is exempted from caning, his sentence of imprisonment should be enhanced. |
| Public Prosecutor v Hue An Li | High Court | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 661 | Singapore | Cited to show that a fine and a term of imprisonment are, for most intents and purposes, incommensurate. |
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 68(1)(b) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) s 72(1) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) s 68(4) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 337(1)(b) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Drink driving
- Excessive alcohol
- Road Traffic Act
- Custodial threshold
- Disqualification
- Scenario 4 Offender
- Breath Evidential Analyser
- Mandatory imprisonment
15.2 Keywords
- Drink driving
- Singapore
- Appeal
- Road Traffic Act
- Sentencing
- Criminal Law
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Traffic Law
- Sentencing
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Sentencing
- Road Traffic Law