Rafael Voltaire Alzate v Public Prosecutor: Drink Driving Appeal - Disqualification Order
Rafael Voltaire Alzate appealed to the High Court of Singapore against the District Judge's decision to impose a disqualification order for drink driving. Alzate was found intoxicated while attempting to ride his motorcycle in a carpark. Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon dismissed the appeal, holding that there were no special reasons to justify displacing the disqualification order. The court upheld the fine of $4,000 and a disqualification period of 30 months.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal against disqualification order for drink driving. The court dismissed the appeal, finding no special reasons to displace the order.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Judgment upheld | Won | Chng Luey Chi of Attorney-General’s Chambers Chong Yong of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Rafael Voltaire Alzate | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Chng Luey Chi | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Chong Yong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Luke Lee Yoon Tet | Luke Lee & Co |
4. Facts
- Alzate consumed three to four glasses of whiskey with a former student.
- Alzate attempted to ride his motorcycle home from ITE College East.
- Alzate failed a preliminary breath test.
- Alzate's breath contained 62 microgrammes of alcohol in every 100 millilitres of breath.
- Alzate pleaded guilty to drink driving under s 67(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act.
- Alzate was sentenced to a fine of $4,000 and a disqualification period of 30 months.
- Alzate appealed against the disqualification order.
5. Formal Citations
- Rafael Voltaire Alzate v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9001 of 2021, [2021] SGHC 224
- Public Prosecutor v Rafael Voltaire Alzate, , [2021] SGDC 32
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Alzate met with a former student at ITE College East. | |
| Alzate was found intoxicated in a carpark while attempting to ride his motorcycle. | |
| Alzate was arrested for drink driving. | |
| BAD test revealed Alzate’s breath contained 62 microgrammes of alcohol in every 100 millilitres of breath. | |
| Hearing date. | |
| Judgment date. |
7. Legal Issues
- Drink Driving
- Outcome: The court held that there were no special reasons to displace the disqualification order.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Special reasons for not imposing disqualification order
- Sentencing
- Outcome: The court upheld the District Judge's sentencing, finding it to be within the appropriate range.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Removal of disqualification order
9. Cause of Actions
- Drink Driving
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- Education
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 | Relied upon by the Prosecution for the imposition of a fine and disqualification period. |
| Toh Yong Soon v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 147 | Singapore | Cited by the Defence but found to be of no assistance as no special reasons were found. |
| Prathib s/o M Balan v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2018] 3 SLR 1066 | Singapore | Cited by the Defence but found to be of no assistance as no special reasons were found; District Judge was correct in holding that “special reasons” should be narrowly construed. |
| Muhammad Faizal Bin Rahim v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2012] 1 SLR 116 | Singapore | Cited by the Defence but found to be of no assistance as no special reasons were found; “special reasons” should be narrowly interpreted. |
| Coombs v Kehoe | Not specified | Yes | [1972] 1 WLR 797 | England | Cited by the Defence but found to be of no assistance as no special reasons were found. |
| Chatters v Burke | Not specified | Yes | [1986] 1 WLR 1321 | England | Cited by the Defence but was not binding and could be distinguished on the facts. |
| Roland Joseph George John v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1995] SGHC 245 | Singapore | Cited by the District Judge; accused persons in those cases had driven on public roads. |
| Sivakumar s/o Rajoo v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2002] SGHC 28 | Singapore | Cited by the District Judge; accused persons in those cases had driven on public roads. |
| Cheong Wai Keong v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2005] SGHC 126 | Singapore | Cited by the District Judge; a person who is convicted of drink driving should presumptively be disqualified. |
| Stansilas Fabian Kester v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2017] 5 SLR 755 | Singapore | The Edwin Suse framework is only applicable where no harm to person or property has eventuated. |
| Public Prosecutor v Balasubramaniam | High Court | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR(R) 88 | Singapore | The Legislature, in giving the court discretion not to impose the prescribed disqualification period on account of “special reasons”, recognised that an offence could be committed under “certain extenuating or pressing circumstances which may prevail upon the driver to take the risk of driving knowing that he was not fit to drive due to the presence of alcohol in his body” |
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 67(2)(a) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act s 67 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Drink driving
- Disqualification order
- Special reasons
- Road Traffic Act
- Breath Analyzing Device
- Carpark
- Intoxication
15.2 Keywords
- Drink driving
- Disqualification
- Appeal
- Singapore
- Road Traffic Act
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Drink Driving | 95 |
| Road Traffic Act | 95 |
| Sentencing | 90 |
| Criminal Law | 75 |
| Automobile Accidents | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Road Traffic
- Sentencing