Lee Shin Nan v Public Prosecutor: Drink Driving, Repeat Offender, Sentencing
Lee Shin Nan appealed to the High Court of Singapore against his sentence for a third drink driving offense under Section 67(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act. The Chief Justice dismissed the appeal, affirming the original sentence of eight weeks' imprisonment, a $10,000 fine, and a lifetime driving ban. The court also provided a sentencing framework for repeat drink driving offenses.
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
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal against sentence for repeat drink driving. The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the sentence, providing a sentencing framework.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lee Shin Nan (Li Xunnan) | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Narayanan Vijya Kumar |
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Original Sentence Affirmed | Won | John Lu, J Jayaletchmi |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Narayanan Vijya Kumar | Vijay & Co |
| John Lu | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| J Jayaletchmi | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tai Ai Lin | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
4. Facts
- Lee Shin Nan consumed four small glasses of beer at a coffeeshop on 25 June 2022.
- He drove his car around midnight to shift it to a nearby carpark.
- He was stopped at a police roadblock at 12:02 am on 26 June 2022.
- A breathalyser test revealed 89µg of alcohol per 100ml of breath, exceeding the limit.
- Lee Shin Nan had two prior convictions for drink driving in 2009 and 2012.
- Lee Shin Nan claimed he intended to engage a valet but drove due to a confrontation.
- The District Court sentenced him to eight weeks' imprisonment, a $10,000 fine, and lifetime disqualification.
5. Formal Citations
- Lee Shin Nan v Public Prosecutor, , [2023] SGHC 354
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Lee Shin Nan convicted of drink driving. | |
| Lee Shin Nan convicted of drink driving. | |
| Lee Shin Nan consumed beer at a coffeeshop. | |
| Lee Shin Nan stopped at a police roadblock. | |
| Lee Shin Nan disqualified from driving. | |
| Lee Shin Nan's imprisonment began. | |
| Appeal heard in High Court. | |
| Grounds of Decision issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Sentencing for Repeat Drink Driving Offences
- Outcome: The court established a four-stage sentencing framework for repeat drink driving offenses.
- Category: Substantive
- Special Reasons for Reducing Lifetime Disqualification
- Outcome: The court clarified the criteria for 'special reasons' to justify reducing a lifetime disqualification order.
- Category: Substantive
- Application of Enhanced Penalty Provision
- Outcome: The court outlined considerations for invoking the enhanced penalty provision under Section 67A of the Road Traffic Act.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Reversal or Reduction of Imprisonment Term
- Reversal or Reduction of Lifetime Disqualification Order
9. Cause of Actions
- Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Traffic Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rafael Voltaire Alzate v Public Prosecutor | General Division of the High Court | Yes | [2022] 3 SLR 993 | Singapore | Established a sentencing framework for first-time drink driving offenders. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lai Teck Guan | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 5 SLR 852 | Singapore | Cited for the approach taken in sentencing repeat offenders in possession of diamorphine for the purpose of trafficking. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lee Shin Nan (Li Xunnan) | District Court | Yes | [2023] SGDC 66 | Singapore | The decision below that was being appealed. |
| Public Prosecutor v Kenneth Tham Wei Cheow | District Court | Yes | [2023] SGDC 190 | Singapore | The court appeared to have taken a holistic approach, considering the circumstances surrounding the offence, the offenders’ previous drink driving conviction(s) together with the offenders’ alcohol levels in assessing the overall gravity of the offence and the aggravating and mitigating factors specific to the offenders for the purpose of sentencing. |
| Public Prosecutor v Sinnathamby s/o Arumoh | District Court | Yes | [2022] SGDC 261 | Singapore | The court appeared to have taken a holistic approach, considering the circumstances surrounding the offence, the offenders’ previous drink driving conviction(s) together with the offenders’ alcohol levels in assessing the overall gravity of the offence and the aggravating and mitigating factors specific to the offenders for the purpose of sentencing. |
| Public Prosecutor v Vijayan Mahadevan | District Court | Yes | [2022] SGDC 52 | Singapore | The court determined the starting sentence based on the offender’s Alcohol Level Band alone, and then assessed an uplift based on the circumstances of the offence (including the fact that the offender had previously been convicted of the offence of drink driving). |
| Public Prosecutor v Tan Kok Liang, Shawn | District Court | Yes | [2023] SGDC 141 | Singapore | The court first considered the offender’s Alcohol Level Band and because this fell in the upper end of the lowest Alcohol Level Band, a sentence at the lower end of the sentencing range for repeat offences was excluded; the court then moved on to consider the various aggravating and mitigating offence-specific and offender-specific factors (such as the increase in potential harm and whether there were extenuating circumstances that might account for the accused person having driven). |
| Public Prosecutor v Song Chee Kiong | District Court | Yes | [2023] SGDC 129 | Singapore | An upward calibration was applied to the offender’s previous sentence. It was only in calibrating the uplift to be applied that the court considered the level of alcohol together with factors such as the damage caused to another vehicle and that the offender had not pleaded guilty. |
| Ong Beng Soon v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR(R) 453 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that culpability is determined in the first instance primarily by reference to the offender’s alcohol level, with a higher alcohol concentration indicating a more flagrant violation of the law. |
| Edwin s/o Suse Nathen v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 1139 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that culpability is determined in the first instance primarily by reference to the offender’s alcohol level, with a higher alcohol concentration indicating a more flagrant violation of the law. |
| Wu Zhi Yong v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2022] 4 SLR 587 | Singapore | Cited for the sentencing framework for an offence of reckless driving where no injury is caused under s 64(1) punishable under s 64(2C)(a) read with s 64(2C)(c) of the RTA. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lee Soon Lee Vincent | High Court | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 84 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a custodial sentence is only mandatory under s 67(1) for repeat offences. |
| Xu Yuanchen v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHC 217 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the impact of custodial sentences (especially the fact that they deprive one of liberty) cannot be understated. |
| Chong Pit Khai v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2009] 3 SLR(R) 423 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the length of imprisonment will be determined primarily by the need for deterrence (both general and specific) and the need to punish especially culpable behaviour. |
| Public Prosecutor v Balasubramaniam | High Court | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR(R) 88 | Singapore | Established principles for 'special reasons' in disqualification orders. |
| Roland Joseph George John v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR(R) 562 | Singapore | Established principles for 'special reasons' in disqualification orders. |
| Cheong Wai Keong v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR(R) 570 | Singapore | Outlined factors for determining 'special reasons' in disqualification orders. |
| Whittall v Kirby | King's Bench Division | Yes | [1946] 2 All ER 552 | England and Wales | Suggests that ignorance of the fact that a drug had been administered to oneself would be a special reason. |
| Adams v Bradley | Crown Court at Leeds | Yes | [1975] RTR 233 | England and Wales | States that while it is the duty of a driver to observe the quantity and quality of drink he consumes, a situation where he was induced to take a stronger drink that he normally would, by reason of someone having misled him or given false information, may constitute a special reason. |
| Muhammad Faizal bin Rahim v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2012] 1 SLR 116 | Singapore | The court noted the narrowness of the existing interpretation of “special reasons” (albeit in the context of the offence of using a motorcycle without valid insurance coverage under s 3(1) Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (Cap 189, 2000 Rev Ed)). |
| Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Nurashik Bin Mohd Nasir | District Court | Yes | [2017] SGDC 261 | Singapore | Generally considered whether an offender’s actions demonstrated a lack of regard for road safety or other road users, or a lack of respect for the law and authority of the courts, and/or was undeterred by his past sentences. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ng Peng Han | District Court | Yes | [2009] SGDC 307 | Singapore | Generally considered whether an offender’s actions demonstrated a lack of regard for road safety or other road users, or a lack of respect for the law and authority of the courts, and/or was undeterred by his past sentences. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lim Teck Leng Roland | District Court | Yes | [2004] SGDC 104 | Singapore | Generally considered whether an offender’s actions demonstrated a lack of regard for road safety or other road users, or a lack of respect for the law and authority of the courts, and/or was undeterred by his past sentences. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ng Yeow Kwang | District Court | Yes | [2007] SGDC 130 | Singapore | Generally considered whether an offender’s actions demonstrated a lack of regard for road safety or other road users, or a lack of respect for the law and authority of the courts, and/or was undeterred by his past sentences. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Road Traffic Act 1961 Section 67(1)(b) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act 1961 Section 67(1) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act 1961 Section 67(2A) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act 1961 Section 67A(1) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Drink Driving
- Repeat Offender
- Sentencing Framework
- Lifetime Disqualification
- Special Reasons
- Enhanced Penalty
- Road Traffic Act
- Alcohol Level Band
- Deterrence
- Culpability
15.2 Keywords
- Drink Driving
- Repeat Offender
- Sentencing
- Disqualification
- Singapore
- Road Traffic Act
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Traffic Law
- Sentencing
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Procedure and Sentencing
- Road Traffic Law
- Sentencing Principles
- Sentencing Appeals
- Drink Driving Offences