Haleem Bathusa v Public Prosecutor: Road Rage, Voluntarily Causing Hurt, Sentencing Principles
In [2023] SGHC 41, the High Court of Singapore heard the appeal of Haleem Bathusa Bin Abdul Rahim against his conviction and sentence for voluntarily causing hurt to Gabriel Heng Jing Heng in a road rage incident. The District Judge had found Haleem guilty of attacking Heng after a traffic dispute. The High Court, presided over by Vincent Hoong J, dismissed the appeal, increased the imprisonment sentence to seven weeks, and imposed a nine-month driving disqualification order, citing Haleem's lack of remorse and past traffic violations.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed; sentence increased to seven weeks' imprisonment and a nine-month driving disqualification order imposed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Ex Tempore Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Haleem Bathusa appeals conviction and sentence for voluntarily causing hurt in a road rage incident. The High Court dismisses the appeal, increasing the sentence.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Tin Shu Min of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Haleem Bathusa Bin Abdul Rahim | 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 |
|---|---|
| Tin Shu Min | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Sarbrinder Singh s/o Naranjan Singh | Sanders Law LLC |
| Tay Yu E | Sanders Law LLC |
4. Facts
- Appellant swerved his car across lanes on the Bukit Timah Expressway.
- Victim sounded his car horn and flashed his headlight at the Appellant.
- Appellant and Victim stopped their cars near Appellant’s residence.
- An altercation ensued, with the Appellant attacking the Victim.
- A security officer witnessed the fight and extracted CCTV footage.
- A taxi driver arrived and saw the Victim bleeding heavily.
- The Victim sought medical attention for his injuries.
5. Formal Citations
- Haleem Bathusa bin Abdul Rahim v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9184 of 2022/01, [2023] SGHC 41
- Public Prosecutor v Haleem Bathusa Bin Abdul Rahim, , [2022] SGMC 63
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant swerved car on Bukit Timah Expressway | |
| Altercation occurred between Appellant and Victim | |
| Statement recorded from Victim by PW5 | |
| Statement recorded from Appellant by PW5 | |
| Magistrate’s Appeal No 9184 of 2022/01 | |
| Judgment delivered |
7. Legal Issues
- Voluntarily Causing Hurt
- Outcome: The court found that the Appellant did voluntarily cause hurt to the Victim.
- Category: Substantive
- Sentencing Principles
- Outcome: The court determined that the sentence should be increased due to the Appellant's fleeing the scene and past traffic violations.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2019] 5 SLR 526
- Road Rage
- Outcome: The court determined that the incident was a case of road rage violence.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2017] SGHC 308
- Self-Defence
- Outcome: The court rejected the Appellant's argument that he acted in self-defence.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Voluntarily Causing Hurt
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low Song Chye v Public Prosecutor | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 5 SLR 526 | Singapore | Cited for the framework for sentencing in voluntarily causing hurt cases, adjusted for inflation of sentencing bands. |
| Public Prosecutor v Oon Joo Seng | State Courts of Singapore | Yes | [2021] SGMC 23 | Singapore | Distinguished from the present case due to less egregious facts in terms of duration of assault and extent of injuries. |
| Public Prosecutor v Shi Ka Yee | State Courts of Singapore | Yes | [2018] SGMC 21 | Singapore | Distinguished from the present case due to the more aggravated nature of the assault by the Appellant. |
| M Raveendran v Public Prosecutor | High Court of Singapore | Yes | [2021] SGHC 254 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that potential loss of employment should not be a mitigating factor. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lim Yee Hua and another appeal | High Court of Singapore | Yes | [2017] SGHC 308 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of road rage and the deterrent sentencing policy for road rage offenders. |
| Public Prosecutor v Tan Zhenyang | High Court of Singapore | Yes | [2018] SGHC 209 | Singapore | Compared to the present case, noting that the accused person was untraced and there was no indication that they had intentionally fled the scene. |
| Public Prosecutor v Fatahurhman bin Bakar | High Court of Singapore | Yes | [2019] SGHC 232 | Singapore | Compared to the present case, noting that the accused person was untraced and there was no indication that they had intentionally fled the scene. |
| Teo Seng Tiong v Public Prosecutor | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 2 SLR 642 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that past traffic offences are relevant factors in sentencing. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lee Meng Soon | High Court of Singapore | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 240 | Singapore | Cited in the context of s 84(3) of the Road Traffic Act for the principle that the extent to which the offender's decision to flee was a deliberate attempt to evade enforcement, rather than merely motivated by fear or confusion. |
| Goh Ngak Eng v Public Prosecutor | High Court of Singapore | Yes | [2022] SGHC 254 | Singapore | Cited for the position that the court will consider enhancing sentences in cases of plainly unmeritorious appeals, even in the absence of a cross-appeal by the Prosecution. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 323 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act 1893 s 32(1)(j)(i) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 22 | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act 1961 s 42 | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act 1961 s 69(4) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act 1961 s 69(5) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act 1961 s 84(1) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act 1961 s 84(2) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Road rage
- Voluntarily causing hurt
- CCTV footage
- Self-defence
- Sentencing
- Disqualification order
- Traffic violations
15.2 Keywords
- Road rage
- Voluntarily causing hurt
- Criminal law
- Singapore
- Appeal
- Sentencing
- Traffic dispute
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Road Rage | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Voluntarily Causing Hurt | 85 |
| Sentencing | 80 |
| Criminal Procedure | 70 |
| Personal Injury | 30 |
| Torts | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Road Rage
- Sentencing