Wu Zhi Yong v Public Prosecutor: Drink Driving & Reckless Driving Sentencing
Wu Zhi Yong appealed to the General Division of the High Court of Singapore against his sentence for drink driving and reckless driving under the Road Traffic Act. The High Court, presided over by Sundaresh Menon CJ, dismissed the appeal, finding the original sentence not manifestly excessive. The court examined the sentencing frameworks for these offenses, especially considering recent legislative amendments and the 'serious offender' provisions.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal against Wu Zhi Yong's sentence for drink driving and reckless driving. The court examines sentencing frameworks after Road Traffic Act amendments.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Judgment Upheld | Won | Norine Tan of Attorney-General’s Chambers Winston Man of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Wu Zhi Yong | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Norine Tan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Winston Man | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Chooi Jing Yen | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
| Joel Wong En Jie | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
4. Facts
- Wu drove under the influence of alcohol at 4.05am on 11 February 2020.
- Wu had 46 microgrammes of alcohol per 100ml of breath, exceeding the limit.
- Wu attempted to evade a police roadblock by making a three-point turn.
- Wu drove against the flow of traffic for at least 140m to evade the roadblock.
- Wu pleaded guilty to charges of drink driving and reckless driving.
5. Formal Citations
- Wu Zhi Yong v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9865 of 2020, [2021] SGHC 261
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Wu Zhi Yong drove a motorcar at about 4.05am. | |
| Wu pleaded guilty to both charges. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Judgment delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Sentencing for Drink Driving
- Outcome: The court provided a framework for sentencing under s 67 of the Road Traffic Act.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2021] SGHC 224
- Sentencing for Reckless Driving
- Outcome: The court provided a framework for sentencing under s 64 of the Road Traffic Act, especially considering the serious offender provisions.
- Category: Substantive
- Application of Serious Offender Provisions
- Outcome: The court clarified how the serious offender provisions should be applied in tandem with sentencing for separate offenses under ss 64 and 67.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Drink Driving
- Reckless Driving
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Traffic Law
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public Prosecutor | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 449 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the task of developing an appropriate sentencing framework falls to the judiciary. |
| Poh Boon Kiat v Public Prosecutor | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 892 | Singapore | Cited to explain the sentencing matrix approach. |
| Stansilas Fabian Kester v Public Prosecutor | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 5 SLR 755 | Singapore | Cited for the sentencing matrix approach with harm and culpability as the principal elements. |
| Mohd Akebal s/o Ghulam Jilani v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 266 | Singapore | Cited as an example of offences where the multiple starting points approach would be appropriate. |
| Edwin s/o Suse Nathen v Public Prosecutor | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 1139 | Singapore | Cited as an example of drink driving under s 67 of the RTA where no harm has materialised. |
| Rafael Voltaire Alzate v Public Prosecutor | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2021] SGHC 224 | Singapore | Cited for the sentencing framework for an offence under s 67. |
| Public Prosecutor v Koh Thiam Huat | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2017] 4 SLR 1099 | Singapore | Cited for the consideration of potential harm that can result from the act of dangerous or reckless driving. |
| Neo Chuan Sheng v Public Prosecutor | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2020] SGHC 97 | Singapore | Cited for the assessment of the level of potential harm. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lee Meng Soon | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 240 | Singapore | Cited for the failure to stop in an attempt to evade arrest or to avoid apprehension should also weigh against an offender. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lechimanan s/o G Sangaran | Singapore District Court | Yes | [2007] SGDC 229 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case that might fall within Band 1. |
| Public Prosecutor v Benedict Goh Whei-Cheh | Singapore District Court | Yes | [2007] SGDC 304 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case that might fall within Band 1. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lee Soon Lee Vincent | Singapore High Court | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 84 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case that might fall within Band 1. |
| Public Prosecutor v Cheong Chin Swee Jerry | Singapore District Court | Yes | [2015] SGDC 194 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case that might fall in Band 2. |
| Public Prosecutor v Park Jeoung Sang | Singapore District Court | Yes | [2015] SGDC 311 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case that might fall in Band 2. |
| Public Prosecutor v Leong Kum Seng | Singapore District Court | Yes | [2015] SGDC 52 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case coming within the higher end of Band 2. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ching Ling Ka @ Lincoln Cheng | Singapore District Court | Yes | [2017] SGDC 326 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case that might fall within Band 3. |
| Seng Foo Building Construction Pte Ltd v Public Prosecutor | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2017] 3 SLR 201 | Singapore | Cited for the imposition of concurrent sentences when the court is dealing with multiple imprisonment terms. |
| Public Prosecutor v Raveen Balakrishnan | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2018] 5 SLR 799 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that double counting would arise where a factor is expressly or implicitly taken into account in sentencing. |
| Zeng Guoyuan v Public Prosecutor | Singapore High Court | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR(R) 999 | Singapore | Cited for s 308(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) (“CPC”), which applies to the sentencing of an offender liable for multiple offences under different provisions arising out of the same set of facts. |
| Tay Boon Sien v Public Prosecutor | Singapore High Court | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR(R) 39 | Singapore | Cited for the court considered that the now-repealed s 71(2) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) (“1985 Penal Code”) (upon which s 308(2) of the CPC is based) applies “where the act, in itself an offence, might constitute different offences because it became either an aggravated form of that offence or a different offence when combined with other acts” |
| Xia Qin Lai v Public Prosecutor | Singapore High Court | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR(R) 257 | Singapore | Cited for Yong Pung How CJ in Xia Qin Lai v Public Prosecutor [1999] 3 SLR(R) 257 (“Xia Qin Lai”) gave the following illustration at [20], in respect of s 71(2) of the 1985 Penal Code and ss 170(2) and 170(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) (now repealed and replaced by ss 135 and 136 of the CPC respectively) |
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 64(2C)(c) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) s 64(2C)(a) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) s 64(2D)(i) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) s 64(8) | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) s 40 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 308(2) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Drink Driving
- Reckless Driving
- Road Traffic Act
- Sentencing Framework
- Serious Offender
- Disqualification Order
- Legislative Amendments
15.2 Keywords
- Drink Driving
- Reckless Driving
- Sentencing
- Singapore
- Road Traffic Act
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Drink Driving | 95 |
| Road Traffic Act | 95 |
| Sentencing | 90 |
| Reckless Driving | 90 |
| Criminal Law | 75 |
| Civil Procedure | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Traffic Law
- Sentencing Principles