Lower alcohol limits, jail for first-time drink-driving offenders proposed

The alcohol limit for drivers will be lowered by more than half to deter drink-driving, under legislation proposed on July 7.

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) also plans to recommend jail time for even first-time drink-driving offenders, if they have very high blood alcohol levels.

Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs Sim Ann on July 7 introduced the Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, which will reduce the current alcohol limit of 35 micrograms (mcg) of alcohol per 100ml of breath to 15mcg.

No one accidentally drinks and drives, said MHA, noting that offenders deliberately choose to do so, putting themselves and others in danger.

Blood alcohol limits, which are currently 80 milligrams (mg) of alcohol per 100ml, will be lowered to 30mg.

The ministry said this will bring Singapore in line with jurisdictions such as Japan and South Korea.

It cautioned that there is no “safe” number of alcohol drinks before driving, with the effect of alcohol on a person varying based on factors such as gender, age, health and body composition.

The reduced alcohol limits were first announced by Sim during the debate on MHA’s budget in February.

MHA will also be working with the Sentencing Advisory Panel to come up with guidelines to recommend jail for first-time offenders with very high blood alcohol levels.

At present, first-time offenders in cases without aggravating factors like accidents or injuries are typically given a fine and a two-year driving ban.

The law allows for up to 12 months’ jail on top of the fine and ban.

Jail time in serious cases that involve first-time offenders would recognise the risk drink-driving poses to other road users, said MHA.

If the Bill is passed, the Traffic Police (TP) will be able to use a new breathalyser with readings that can immediately be processed for prosecution.

Currently, TP officers carry out a preliminary breath test at the scene. They have to take the suspect back to the police lock-up to do another test with a bulkier machine.

Only the second test is “evidential grade” and can be used as evidence for prosecution.

This process results in a lower alcohol reading than the one recorded when a driver is first stopped and tested, as time would have elapsed when the suspect is taken from the scene to the police lock-up.

In cases where the suspect disputes the reading of the new breathalyser test, the authorities may fall back on the other traditional checks, including blood tests.

The Bill also introduces a new offence for drug driving – when a person drives after consuming controlled drugs or substances that are intoxicating or psychoactive.

Enforcement is currently taken only if it is proven that the driver was unfit to drive and incapable of properly controlling the vehicle.

This requires proving that the substance or drug is linked to the impairment, which is often challenging as different substances can cause differing types and levels of inability.

The new offence will allow prosecution of drivers as long as controlled drugs, or intoxicating or psychoactive substances, are found in their blood. This is regardless of the quantity of the substance detected or whether there was any observed impairment in their driving.

MHA said, however, that drivers will not be liable for drug driving if the drugs taken were legal, medical prescriptions, and they did not know it would impair driving.

The Bill also proposes revising the process of collecting blood specimens.

Under current laws, blood specimens can be taken from a person in a hospital if a doctor explicitly authorises it. The doctor will have to assess that doing so will not prejudice the patient’s proper care and treatment.

Instead of explicit authorisation from a doctor, the proposed legislation will require anyone overseeing the drawing of the blood sample to be satisfied that doing so does not endanger the patient.

This comes after a recent case, in which a drink-driving suspect who failed to give his blood sample was acquitted because of this little-known provision.

He had refused to provide a sample and the doctor present then had remained silent, appearing to have a mistaken impression that the police held an absolute, independent prerogative to compel a forensic blood sample.

The court said the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the man’s doctor had authorised the taking of a blood sample from the patient, and so acquitted him.

Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

Lim Tean fails to get nod for Court of Appeal hearing, ordered to start jail term on July 20