Teo Seng Tiong v Public Prosecutor: Sentencing & Compounding of Road Traffic Offences
In Teo Seng Tiong v Public Prosecutor, the Singapore Court of Appeal addressed the question of whether a court may consider compounded offences under the Road Traffic Act as an aggravating factor when determining the appropriate sentence for an offence, whether under the Road Traffic Act or any other law. The court held that it is permissible to consider such compounded offences, clarifying conflicting High Court authorities on the matter. The court dismissed the appeal.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
The Court of Appeal answered in the affirmative that a court may take into account offences compounded under the Road Traffic Act as an aggravating factor when sentencing an offence under the Road Traffic Act or any other law.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore Court of Appeal clarifies whether compounded offences under the Road Traffic Act can be considered an aggravating factor in sentencing.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teo Seng Tiong | Applicant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Tan Hee Joek |
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Upheld | Won | Chua Ying-Hong, Zhou Yang |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | No |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Judith Prakash | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Steven Chong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Tan Hee Joek | Tan See Swan & Co |
| Chua Ying-Hong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Zhou Yang | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- Applicant drove his lorry along Pasir Ris Drive 3.
- Cyclist, Eric, was cycling in the middle of the left lane.
- Applicant swerved the lorry into the path of Eric's bicycle.
- Lorry came into contact with Eric, causing him to fall.
- Applicant stopped and scolded Eric for damaging the lorry's side-view mirror.
- Applicant drove away without exchanging particulars.
- Applicant lodged a police report more than 24 hours after the incident.
5. Formal Citations
- Teo Seng Tiong v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Reference No 2 of 2020, [2021] SGCA 65
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Incident occurred along Pasir Ris Drive 3 | |
| Applicant lodged a police report | |
| Eric pleaded guilty to charges under Road Traffic Rules and Penal Code | |
| Applicant was convicted | |
| Applicant was sentenced | |
| High Court dismissed the applicant's appeal | |
| Applicant was released from prison | |
| Applicant applied for an extension of time to apply for leave | |
| Prosecution indicated consent to reliefs sought in Criminal Motion No 25 of 2020 | |
| Three-Judge Court of Appeal granted the Criminal Motion No 25 of 2020 | |
| Oral arguments heard by five-judge Court of Appeal | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Sentencing
- Outcome: The court held that compounded offences can be considered as an aggravating factor in sentencing.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Consideration of compounded offences
- Aggravating factors in sentencing
- Related Cases:
- [2017] 4 SLR 1099
- [2018] 5 SLR 388
- [2020] SGHC 97
- Compounding of Offences
- Outcome: The court clarified that composition is not necessarily an admission of guilt but has the effect of an acquittal.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Effect of composition on subsequent proceedings
- Whether composition amounts to admission of guilt
- Related Cases:
- [1990] 2 SLR(R) 117
- [1996] 3 SLR(R) 702
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against sentence
- Reduction of disqualification order
9. Cause of Actions
- Rash act endangering human life
- Failure to report an accident within 24 hours
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Traffic Law
11. Industries
- Transportation
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Koh Thiam Huat | High Court | Yes | [2017] 4 SLR 1099 | Singapore | Discusses whether compounded offences may be taken into account for sentencing purposes. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ong Heng Chua and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2018] 5 SLR 388 | Singapore | Held that an offence under the Road Traffic Act that has been compounded may be taken into account for sentencing purposes. |
| Public Prosecutor v Aw Tai Hock | High Court | Yes | [2017] 5 SLR 1141 | Singapore | Accepted the position in Koh Thiam Huat that a compounded offence may be taken into account to give effect to the need for specific deterrence. |
| Neo Chuan Sheng v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2020] SGHC 97 | Singapore | Disagreed with the view that compounded offences may be taken into account for sentencing purposes. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lim Niah Liang | Unknown | Yes | [1996] 3 SLR(R) 702 | Singapore | Discusses whether the composition of straightforward or less serious offences amounts to an admission of guilt. |
| Re Lim Chor Pee | Unknown | Yes | [1990] 2 SLR(R) 117 | Singapore | States that individuals agree to compound offences for a variety of reasons. |
| Rajamanikam Ramachandran v Chan Teck Yuen and another | High Court | Yes | [1998] SGHC 259 | Singapore | States that composition amounts to an acquittal. |
| Emperor v Alibhai Abdul | Unknown | Yes | AIR 1921 Bom 166 | India | Defines composition as an arrangement or settlement of differences between the injured party and the accused. |
| Public Prosecutor v Norzian bin Bintat | Unknown | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR(R) 105 | Singapore | Cited Emperor v Alibhai Abdul with approval. |
| Lim & Yap, “Composition: Legal and Theoretical Foundations” | Unknown | Yes | (2015) 27 SAcLJ 462 | Singapore | Discusses the history of composition in Singapore law. |
| Kee Leong Bee and another v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR(R) 768 | Singapore | Discusses aspects of composition under s 199 of the 1985 CPC. |
| Wong Sin Yee v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR(R) 63 | Singapore | Discusses aspects of composition under s 199 of the 1985 CPC. |
| Wham Kwok Han Jolovan v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 1370 | Singapore | Held that a warning was not binding on its recipient and did not affect his legal rights, interests or liabilities. |
| Public Prosecutor v Raveen Balakrishnan | High Court | Yes | [2018] 5 SLR 799 | Singapore | Cited Wham Jolovan with approval. |
| GCO v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2019] 3 SLR 1402 | Singapore | Held that the receipt of a conditional stern warning or a breach of that condition was not an aggravating factor in sentencing. |
| Public Prosecutor v Bong Sim Swan Suzanna | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 1001 | Singapore | Discusses the relevance of uncharged past conduct that could constitute a separate offence for the purpose of sentencing. |
| Chua Siew Peng v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2017] 4 SLR 1247 | Singapore | Approved the principles stated by the High Court in Chua Siew Peng. |
| Re Salwant Singh s/o Amer Singh | Unknown | Yes | [2019] 5 SLR 1037 | Singapore | Explains the relevant principles regarding charges taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing. |
| PP v Mok Ping Wuen Maurice | Unknown | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 439 | Singapore | States that the effect of taking into consideration outstanding offences is generally to enhance the sentence. |
| PP v UI | Unknown | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 500 | Singapore | Explains the rationale for and the effect of charges taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing. |
| Iskandar bin Muhamad Nordin v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 265 | Singapore | States that an offender who has a criminal record is likely to receive a heavier punishment. |
| Sim Yeow Seng v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR(R) 466 | Singapore | States that an offender’s criminal record may attest to his bad character, poor attitude and low likelihood of rehabilitation. |
| Public Prosecutor v Fernando Payagala Waduge Malitha Kumar | Unknown | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 334 | Singapore | States that the longer the time span of an offender’s criminal record, the more irrefutable it is that the offender manifests the qualities of a habitual offender. |
| Tan Kay Beng v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 10 | Singapore | States that the longer the time span of an offender’s criminal record, the more irrefutable it is that the offender manifests the qualities of a habitual offender. |
| Public Prosecutor v NF | Unknown | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 849 | Singapore | States that a substantial gap in time between the previous offences and the instant one may be testament to the offender’s genuine effort to change his ways. |
| Public Prosecutor v Kesavan Pillai Govindan | High Court | Yes | [2017] SGHC 44 | Singapore | Case concerning refusal to cooperate with a parking enforcement officer. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lim Keng Chuan | District Court | Yes | [2010] SGDC 233 | Singapore | Case concerning an accused who caused his car to move ahead and then veer to the left in his attempt to drive his car past the police vehicle. |
| Public Prosecutor v Loon Chee Chui | District Court | Yes | [2012] SGDC 216 | Singapore | Case concerning rash acts or dangerous driving. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lim Kok Tiong | District Court | Yes | [2009] SGDC 186 | Singapore | Case concerning rash acts or dangerous driving. |
| Public Prosecutor v Sim En De | District Court | Yes | [2015] SGDC 200 | Singapore | Case concerning rash acts or dangerous driving. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code, Chapter 224, Section 337(a) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act, Chapter 276, Section 84(2) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act, Chapter 276, Section 84(7) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act, Chapter 276, Section 131(2) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed), s 397(3) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic (Amendment) Act 2019 (No. 19 of 2019) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act, section 139AA | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed), s 397(5) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed), s 390(1)(c) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed), s 199(4) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed), s 199A | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, Art 11(2) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code, section 244 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code, section 228(2)(c) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code, section 228(2)(a) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code, section 241 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code, section 242 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code, section 243 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code, section 148 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code, section 2(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code, section 228(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code, section 228(5) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Compounded offences
- Aggravating factor
- Sentencing
- Disqualification order
- Rash act
- Negligent act
- Autrefois acquit
- Double jeopardy
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal Law
- Road Traffic Act
- Sentencing
- Compounding of offences
- Singapore
- Court of Appeal
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Road Traffic Law
- Sentencing
- Criminal Procedure
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Sentencing
- Road Traffic Law