Agustinus Hadi v Public Prosecutor: Dangerous Driving under Road Traffic Act
In Agustinus Hadi v Public Prosecutor, before the General Division of the High Court of Singapore on 16 October 2024, Agustinus Hadi appealed against his sentence for dangerous driving under s 64(1) of the Road Traffic Act. The High Court, presided over by Vincent Hoong J, dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentence of seven months' imprisonment and a 36-month driving ban was not manifestly excessive. The court considered the harm and culpability factors, as well as offender-specific factors, and found no error in the District Judge's original assessment.
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
Ex tempore judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Agustinus Hadi appeals against a manifestly excessive sentence for dangerous driving. The High Court dismisses the appeal, finding no error in the original sentence.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agustinus Hadi | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Rakesh s/o Pokkan Vasu, Paul |
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Hui Choon Kuen, Krystle Chiang |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Vincent Hoong | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Rakesh s/o Pokkan Vasu | Gomez & Vasu LLC |
| Paul | Cross Street Chambers |
| Hui Choon Kuen | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Krystle Chiang | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- The Appellant pleaded guilty to dangerous driving under s 64(1) of the Road Traffic Act.
- The District Judge sentenced the Appellant to seven months' imprisonment and a 36-month driving ban.
- The Appellant appealed against the sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive.
- The Appellant's dangerous driving involved aggressive vehicular conduct over a long distance.
- The Appellant's actions caused significant damage to another driver's car, costing $13,296.88 in repairs.
- The Appellant claimed provocation by the other driver, but the court found his reaction disproportionate.
- A psychiatric report indicated the Appellant suffered from adjustment disorder, but it was not linked to the offence.
5. Formal Citations
- Agustinus Hadi v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9065 of 2023/01, [2024] SGHC 262
- Public Prosecutor v Agustinus Hadi, , [2023] SGDC 50
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Magistrate’s Appeal No 9065 of 2023/01 | |
| District Judge sentenced Agustinus Hadi to seven months’ imprisonment and disqualified him from holding or obtaining all classes of driving licences for 36 months | |
| High Court dismissed the appeal against sentence |
7. Legal Issues
- Manifestly Excessive Sentence
- Outcome: The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2022] 5 SLR 766
- [2022] 4 SLR 587
- [2017] 5 SLR 1141
- [2017] 4 SLR 1099
- Sentencing Framework for Dangerous Driving
- Outcome: The court declined to establish a sentencing framework due to a lack of sufficient case law.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2022] 5 SLR 766
- [2023] 3 SLR 440
- Assessment of Harm and Culpability
- Outcome: The court upheld the District Judge's assessment of high harm and culpability.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2024] SGHC 129
- [2017] 5 SLR 1141
- [2017] 4 SLR 1099
- Mitigating Factors
- Outcome: The court found that the mitigating factors, including a psychiatric report and provocation, did not sufficiently lower the Appellant's culpability.
- Category: Substantive
- Parity in Sentencing
- Outcome: The court held that the principle of parity was inapplicable and that the Appellant's offence was more serious than that of the other driver involved.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2022] 5 SLR 1075
- [2016] SGHC 25
- [2015] 4 SLR 1120
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against Sentence
- Reduction of Imprisonment Term
- Reduction of Driving Ban
9. Cause of Actions
- Dangerous Driving
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
- Traffic Violations
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kwan Weiguang v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2022] 5 SLR 766 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a sentencing framework should not be established when there is a dearth of reported cases. |
| Sue Chang v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2023] 3 SLR 440 | Singapore | Cited to acknowledge that the lack of a large corpus of case law does not form an absolute bar to the promulgation of a sentencing framework. |
| Chen Song v Public Prosecutor and other appeals | High Court | Yes | [2024] SGHC 129 | Singapore | Cited for the interpretation of s 65(5) of the RTA as a punishment provision concerning “no hurt”. |
| Wu Zhi Yong v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2022] 4 SLR 587 | Singapore | Cited for the offence-specific aggravating factors for offences punishable under s 64(2C)(a) read with s 64(2C)(c). |
| Public Prosecutor v Aw Tai Hock | Unknown | Yes | [2017] 5 SLR 1141 | Singapore | Cited for the harm and culpability factors relevant in determining the severity of an offence punishable under s 64(2C)(a). |
| Public Prosecutor v Koh Thiam Huat | Unknown | Yes | [2017] 4 SLR 1099 | Singapore | Cited for the harm and culpability factors relevant in determining the severity of an offence punishable under s 64(2C)(a). |
| Teo Seng Tiong v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2021] 2 SLR 642 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that provocation by other road users does not entitle an offender to react disproportionately. |
| Toh Suat Leng Jennifer v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2022] 5 SLR 1075 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that limited weight should be given to unpublished decisions as sentencing precedents. |
| Chong Han Rui v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2016] SGHC 25 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there is no strict requirement for co-offenders to be sentenced together before the same judge. |
| Lim Bee Ngan Karen v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2015] 4 SLR 1120 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there is no strict requirement for co-offenders to be sentenced together before the same judge. |
| Public Prosecutor v Agustinus Hadi | District Court | Yes | [2023] SGDC 50 | Singapore | The District Judge’s decision that is being appealed. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ryan Asyraf Bin Mohammad A’zman | District Court | Yes | [2022] SGDC 15 | Singapore | The court distinguished this case from the present case, noting that the dangerous driving charge was less serious than the Appellant’s offence. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) s 64(1) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) s 64(2C)(a) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act (Amendment) Act 2019 (Act 19 of 2019) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act s 65(1) | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act s 65(5) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, Rev Ed 2008) s 337(a) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Dangerous Driving
- Manifestly Excessive Sentence
- Sentencing Framework
- Harm
- Culpability
- Provocation
- Mitigating Factors
- Parity
- Disqualification Order
15.2 Keywords
- Dangerous Driving
- Road Traffic Act
- Sentencing
- Appeal
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Road Traffic Offences
- Sentencing Principles
17. Areas of Law
- Road Traffic Law
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing