Sue Chang v Public Prosecutor: Sentencing Framework for Road Traffic Act s 65(3)(a) Offences
Sue Chang appealed against a six-month imprisonment sentence and a five-year disqualification order imposed by the District Court for driving without due care and attention, causing grievous hurt to Nur Farahin Binti Roslaili, an offence under s 65(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act. The High Court, in Sue Chang v Public Prosecutor [2022] SGHC 176, dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence not manifestly excessive and establishing a sentencing framework for offences under s 65(3)(a) of the Road Traffic Act.
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 sentence for driving without due care causing grievous hurt. The court establishes a sentencing framework for RTA s 65(3)(a) offences.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Judgment Upheld | Won | Ryan Lim of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Sue Chang (Xu Zheng) | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Vincent Hoong | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Ryan Lim | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Nirmal Singh s/o Fauja Singh | CrossBorders LLC |
4. Facts
- On 5 December 2020, Sue Chang drove a car along the Central Expressway towards Seletar Expressway.
- Chang failed to keep a proper lookout and collided into the rear of Nur Farahin Binti Roslaili's motorcycle.
- The collision caused extensive damage to the motorcycle and injuries to Nur Farahin.
- Chang's car swerved and collided into the rear of another vehicle.
- Nur Farahin sustained severe injuries, including head injury, intracranial haemorrhages, and lung contusions.
- Nur Farahin was intubated and underwent multiple medical procedures.
- Nur Farahin was medically repatriated to Malaysia in an unresponsive state.
5. Formal Citations
- Sue Chang v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9174 of 2021, [2022] SGHC 176
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Accident occurred along Central Expressway towards Seletar Expressway. | |
| Surgery for insertion of intracranial pressure monitors. | |
| Surgery for insertion of intracranial pressure monitors. | |
| Tracheostomy creation. | |
| Exploration and haemostasis of the tracheostomy wound. | |
| First victim moved from Intensive Care Unit to acute care wards. | |
| First victim medically repatriated to Hospital Sultanah Aminah in Johor Bahru, Malaysia. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Sentencing for driving without due care causing grievous hurt
- Outcome: The court determined that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and established a sentencing framework for offences under s 65(3)(a) of the Road Traffic Act.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Appropriateness of imprisonment sentence
- Manifest excessiveness of sentence
- Application of sentencing framework
- Related Cases:
- [2021] SGDC 192
- [2020] SGDC 88
- [2018] 4 SLR 609
- [2021] SGHC 261
- [2018] 4 SLR 813
- Sentencing Framework for offences under s 65(3)(a) of the Road Traffic Act
- Outcome: The court adopted the Logachev-hybrid approach and formulated a sentencing framework for offences under s 65(3)(a) of the Road Traffic Act.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Appropriateness of setting out a sentencing framework
- Choice of sentencing approach (sentencing bands vs. Logachev-hybrid)
- Factors to be considered in sentencing
- Related Cases:
- [2020] SGDC 88
- [2018] 4 SLR 609
- [2021] SGHC 261
- [2018] 4 SLR 813
- [2017] 2 SLR 449
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Driving without due care and attention causing grievous hurt
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Road Traffic Accidents
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Sue Chang | District Court | Yes | [2021] SGDC 192 | Singapore | The District Judge's grounds of decision in the case being appealed. |
| Public Prosecutor v Cullen Richard Alexander | District Court | Yes | [2020] SGDC 88 | Singapore | Cited for the sentencing framework used by the District Judge, which was based on the Logachev framework. |
| Logachev Vladislav v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 609 | Singapore | Cited for the two-stage, five-step sentencing framework used as a model in Cullen. |
| Wu Zhi Yong v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2021] SGHC 261 | Singapore | Cited for the sentencing bands approach used for offences under s 64(2C)(a) read with s 64(2C)(c) of the RTA. |
| Tang Ling Lee v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 813 | Singapore | Cited for the sentencing bands approach used for offences under s 338(b) of the PC. |
| Kwan Weiguang v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC 121 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it is not wise to formulate a framework when there is an insufficient body of case law. |
| Huang Ying-Chun v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2019] 3 SLR 606 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a lack of reasoned decisions can be a reason to adopt a sentencing framework. |
| Public Prosecutor v Pang Shuo | High Court | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 903 | Singapore | Cited for the function of sentencing frameworks. |
| Public Prosecutor v Chuah Choon Yee | District Court | Yes | [2021] SGDC 264 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case that declined to follow the Cullen approach. |
| Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 449 | Singapore | Cited for the sentencing bands approach. |
| Poh Boon Kiat v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 892 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a sentencing matrix approach. |
| Koh Yong Chiah v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2017] 3 SLR 447 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the sentencing matrix approach is dependent on the availability of a set of principal facts. |
| Ye Lin Myint v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2019] 5 SLR 1005 | Singapore | Cited for explaining the Logachev-hybrid approach. |
| Public Prosecutor v BDB | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 27 | Singapore | Cited for the expansiveness of the types of injuries that are captured in s 320 of the PC. |
| Muhammad Khalis bin Ramlee v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2018] 5 SLR 449 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it is less useful to delineate the types of harm caused by an accused person into two broad categories. |
| Stansilas Fabian Kester v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2017] 5 SLR 755 | Singapore | Cited for dividing the category of harm into four levels. |
| Edwin s/o Suse Nathen v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 1139 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an offender’s conduct that is “belligerent or violent” upon arrest would constitute an aggravating factor. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lee Meng Soon | High Court | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 240 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where the offender fails to stop in an attempt to evade arrest or to avoid apprehension by the authorities, this should also weigh against him. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mohammed Liton Mohammed Syeed Mallik | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 601 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in the absence of very exceptional or extreme circumstances, little, if any, weight should be attached to the fact that the accused’s family will suffer if the accused is imprisoned for a substantial period of time. |
| Mohamed Shouffee bin Adam v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 998 | Singapore | Cited for the totality principle. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) s 65(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) s 65(3)(a) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) s 65(6)(d) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 320(h) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Sentencing framework
- Road Traffic Act
- Grievous hurt
- Careless driving
- Culpability
- Harm
- Logachev-hybrid approach
- Sentencing bands
- Disqualification order
15.2 Keywords
- Road traffic accident
- Grievous hurt
- Sentencing
- Appeal
- Singapore
- Road Traffic Act
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Road Traffic Act | 95 |
| Criminal Procedure and Sentencing | 85 |
| Statutory offences | 80 |
| Criminal Law | 75 |
| Criminal Procedure | 70 |
| Sentencing Principles | 70 |
| Sentencing Guidelines | 65 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Road Traffic Law
- Sentencing