M Raveendran v Public Prosecutor: Drink Driving Sentence Appeal
M Raveendran appealed to the High Court of Singapore against his sentence for drink driving, imposed by the District Judge. Raveendran sought to reduce his one-week imprisonment term, arguing it would impact his Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) retirement emoluments. Sundaresh Menon CJ reduced the imprisonment sentence to five days, but disregarded the potential loss of SAF benefits as a relevant sentencing factor. The court considered mitigating factors such as Raveendran's remorse.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed in Part
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal against M Raveendran's drink driving sentence. The High Court reduced the imprisonment term, disregarding potential loss of SAF emoluments.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Partially Denied | Partial | Theong Li Han of Attorney-General’s Chambers Adrian Loo of Attorney-General’s Chambers Regina Lim of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| M Raveendran | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Allowed in Part | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Theong Li Han | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Adrian Loo | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Regina Lim | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Markus Kng | I.R.B Law LLP |
| Caryn Lee | I.R.B Law LLP |
4. Facts
- Raveendran consumed alcohol with friends at Newton Food Centre on 8 September 2018.
- On 9 September 2018, Raveendran drove along Thomson Road and lost control of his car.
- The car mounted the centre divider and collided into twelve pieces of guard railings.
- A police officer found Raveendran, who failed a breath test.
- A Breath Analysing Device test showed 91 microgrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath.
- Raveendran compensated the Land Transport Authority $1,438.50 for the damaged railings.
- Raveendran retired from the SAF on 21 November 2020 after 38 years of service.
5. Formal Citations
- M Raveendran v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9883 of 2020, [2021] SGHC 254
- Public Prosecutor v M Raveendran, , [2020] SGDC 289
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Raveendran consumed alcohol at Newton Food Centre. | |
| Raveendran lost control of his car and collided into guard railings. | |
| Raveendran failed a preliminary breath test and was arrested. | |
| Raveendran retired from the SAF. | |
| First hearing of the appeal. | |
| Further submissions were filed. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Drink Driving
- Outcome: The court upheld the conviction for drink driving but reduced the sentence.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2017] 5 SLR 755
- Sentencing Principles
- Outcome: The court clarified the principles to be applied when considering mitigating factors, including the potential loss of employment benefits.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2017] 5 SLR 755
- [2016] 2 SLR 78
- Judicial Mercy
- Outcome: The court held that the potential loss of emoluments did not warrant the exercise of judicial mercy.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2016] 2 SLR 78
- Equal Impact Principle
- Outcome: The court held that the equal impact principle does not extend to factors that are extrinsic to an offender, such as financial consequences.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2016] 2 SLR 78
- Principle of Parsimony
- Outcome: The court rejected the general applicability of the parsimony principle in sentencing.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2003] 3 SLR(R) 576
8. Remedies Sought
- Reduction of imprisonment term
- Maximum fine of $4,000
9. Cause of Actions
- Driving under the influence of drink
- Driving without due care and attention
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- Government and Defence
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stansilas Fabian Kester v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2017] 5 SLR 755 | Singapore | Established indicative sentencing ranges for drink driving offences and held that financial consequences are not relevant mitigating factors. |
| Public Prosecutor v Vilashini d/o Nallan Rajanderan | State Courts | Yes | [2018] SGDC 142 | Singapore | Compared to the present case to determine the appropriate sentence, considering the harm caused. |
| Public Prosecutor v Solomon Seah | State Courts | Yes | [2018] SGDC 106 | Singapore | Compared to the present case to determine the appropriate sentence, considering the harm caused and blood alcohol level. |
| Chew Soo Chun v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 2 SLR 78 | Singapore | Discussed the principle of judicial mercy and its application in sentencing, particularly in cases involving ill health. |
| Public Prosecutor v Saiful Rizam bin Assim and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 495 | Singapore | Cited for the principle of proportionality in sentencing. |
| Public Prosecutor v ASR | High Court | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 941 | Singapore | Cited for the sentencing principles and interests that the court will have regard to. |
| Public Prosecutor v Tan Fook Sum | High Court | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR(R) 1022 | Singapore | Cited for the sentencing principles and interests that the court will have regard to. |
| Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 449 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of offender-specific factors in sentencing. |
| A Karthik v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2018] 5 SLR 1289 | Singapore | Discussed the principle of equal impact in the context of sentencing young offenders. |
| Public Prosecutor v UI | High Court | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 500 | Singapore | Discussed the principle of equal impact in the context of sentencing elderly offenders. |
| Krishan Chand v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1995] 1 SLR(R) 737 | Singapore | Cited to show that advanced age does not generally warrant a reduction in sentence. |
| Yap Ah Lai v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 180 | Singapore | Discussed the principle of equal impact in the context of sentencing elderly offenders. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lim Yee Hua and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2018] 3 SLR 1106 | Singapore | Stated that it is not the business of the courts to indirectly alleviate the consequences and severity of any disciplinary action meted out by the SAF by imposing a more lenient court sentence to offset the effects of that disciplinary action on the soldier. |
| R v Rees | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) | Yes | R v Rees (1982) 4 Cr App Rep (S) 71 | England and Wales | Discussed a case where the court substituted an imprisonment term with a fine because the appellant's future in the army would otherwise be at an end. |
| R v Ranu | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) | Yes | R v Ranu [1996] 2 Cr App R (S) 334 | England and Wales | Discussed a case where the court held that the armed forces had some flexibility with regard to the retention of its officers and that it was not a reason why the court should interfere with the sentence. |
| Public Prosecutor v Yue Mun Yew Gary | High Court | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 39 | Singapore | Considered that the adverse impact on an offender’s career or job prospects as a result of his conviction is but a natural consequence of his own acts and ought to be given little or no weight in mitigation. |
| Chow Dih v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1990] 1 SLR(R) 53 | Singapore | Held that the fact that the offender would also be dealt with professionally by the Medical Council was not a mitigating factor. |
| Public Prosecutor v Siow Kai Yuan Terence | High Court | Yes | [2020] 4 SLR 1412 | Singapore | Held that the court is never concerned with the offender’s social status, wealth or other indicia of privilege and position in society. |
| Than Stenly Granida Purwanto v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR(R) 576 | Singapore | Rejected the general applicability of the parsimony principle. |
| Public Prosecutor v Tan Kok Ming Michael and other appeals | High Court | Yes | [2019] 5 SLR 926 | Singapore | Discussed the application of the equal impact principle in cases involving ill health. |
| Goh Chin Soon v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2021] 4 SLR 401 | Singapore | Discussed the application of the equal impact principle in cases involving ill health. |
| Chua Siew Peng v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2017] 4 SLR 1247 | Singapore | Discussed the application of the equal impact principle in cases involving ill health. |
| Chng Yew Chin v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 124 | Singapore | Discussed the application of judicial mercy. |
| Lim Kay Han Irene v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2010] 3 SLR 240 | Singapore | Discussed the application of judicial mercy. |
| Lim Teck Chye v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2004] 2 SLR(R) 525 | Singapore | Discussed the application of judicial mercy. |
| Public Prosecutor v Tang Wee Sung | District Court | Yes | [2008] SGDC 262 | Singapore | Discussed the application of judicial mercy. |
| Ong Beng Leong v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2005] 1 SLR(R) 766 | Singapore | Considered s 108(2) of the SAF Act. |
| PP v D’Crus L Edward Epiphany | High Court | Yes | [1993] 1 SLR(R) 128 | Singapore | Cited to show that there is a distinct dichotomy between the ordinary civil courts and the military courts, and the military courts’ powers of punishment are also different. |
| Public Prosecutor v ATW (A Minor) | Juvenile Court | Yes | [2011] SGJC 2 | Singapore | Observed that the Juvenile Court seeks to act with judicious parsimony with juveniles. |
| Public Prosecutor v GCB (A Minor) | Youth Court | Yes | [2019] SGYC 1 | Singapore | Correctly articulated that the principle of parsimony is not applicable whenever the accused person is a young offender. |
| Public Prosecutor v Law Kok Leong | District Court | Yes | [2009] SGDC 504 | Singapore | Cited as a case where the District Judge incorrectly extended the parsimony principle. |
| Public Prosecutor v Toh Beng Hua | District Court | Yes | [2009] SGDC 506 | Singapore | Cited as a case where the District Judge incorrectly extended the parsimony principle. |
| Public Prosecutor v Hamidah Binte Hanif | District Court | Yes | [2010] SGDC 331 | Singapore | Cited as a case where the District Judge incorrectly extended the parsimony principle. |
| Public Prosecutor v Kulandaivelu Padmanaban | District Court | Yes | [2010] SGDC 407 | Singapore | Cited as a case where the District Judge incorrectly extended the parsimony principle. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ezmiwardi Bin Kanan | District Court | Yes | [2011] SGDC 152 | Singapore | Cited as a case where the District Judge incorrectly extended the parsimony principle. |
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 65(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Singapore Armed Forces Act (Cap 295, 2000 Rev Ed) s 108(2) | Singapore |
| Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) s 6(c) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Drink driving
- Road Traffic Act
- Sentencing
- Mitigating factors
- Judicial mercy
- Equal impact principle
- Principle of parsimony
- Singapore Armed Forces
- Emoluments
- Custodial sentence
- Remorse
- Proportionality
- General deterrence
15.2 Keywords
- Drink driving
- Sentencing appeal
- Singapore Armed Forces
- Emoluments
- Mitigating factors
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Sentencing | 95 |
| Drink Driving | 90 |
| Road Traffic Act | 85 |
| Criminal Law | 75 |
| Civil Procedure | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
- Transportation Law