Close

HEADLINES

Headlines published in the last 30 days are listed on SLW.

CJ rejects man's argument against jail for drink driving

CJ rejects man's argument against jail for drink driving

Source: Straits Times
Article Date: 12 Nov 2021
Author: Selina Lum

Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon said downstream consequences that could befall an offender cannot be taken into account in sentencing.

A retired Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) warrant officer who was given a week's jail for drink driving appealed for a fine, arguing that he risked losing a payout of more than $273,000 he was entitled to get upon retirement if a custodial sentence was imposed.

This argument was rejected by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, who said downstream consequences that could befall an offender cannot be taken into account in sentencing.

"Taking account of extrinsic factors could result in a fundamental assault on the criminal justice system," he said in written grounds issued yesterday.

"If the court were to place weight on factors such as the financial consequences of a particular sentence, and reduce an offender's sentence on that basis, it would result in the more favourable treatment of certain individuals."

However, the Chief Justice partly allowed the appeal by 55-year-old M. Raveendran and cut his jail term to five days after comparing the facts of the case with those of past similar cases.

Raveendran was driving home after midnight on Sept 9, 2018, after having beers with friends at Newton Food Centre, when he lost control of his car along Thomson Road towards Upper Thomson Road.

His car mounted the centre divider and hit the guard railings.

A police officer came across the accident while on patrol. He conducted a preliminary breath test, which Raveendran failed. A further test showed that he had 91 mcg of alcohol per 100ml of breath, which exceeded the prescribed limit of 35mcg. Raveendran later paid the bill of $1,438.50 for repairs to the railings.

Last year, he pleaded guilty to a charge of drink driving. A second charge of driving without due care and attention was taken into consideration.

He had sought a $4,000 fine before the district court, arguing that he risked losing bonus and gratuity payments if he were to be jailed.

The district judge said this did not justify a reduction in his sentence. The judge imposed a week's jail and a two-year driving ban, taking into account the damage caused, level of alcohol and loss of control.

In his appeal to the High Court this year, Raveendran said he retired in November last year and was entitled to emoluments amounting to $273,694.02.

He said the payout might be forfeited if he were to be jailed, yet he was unable to provide confirmation from the Defence Ministry.

In August, CJ Menon disregarded this argument but partly allowed the appeal.

In written grounds yesterday to explain his reasons, he said: "If the courts were to take such consequences into account, there would be no logical limits as to when or how these consequences should be factored into sentencing."

He said it was impossible for the court to place a value on such consequences and translate potential financial losses into an appropriate reduction in sentence.

He added that the different potential financial losses that could be faced by offenders cannot meaningfully be compared, given the varied consequences that one could suffer as a result of being sentenced.

CJ Menon noted that under the Singapore Armed Forces Act, any military punishment may be taken into consideration as a mitigating circumstance.

However, in this case, no military punishment has as yet been imposed on Raveendran.

Source: Straits Times © Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. Permission required for reproduction.

Print
2363

Latest Headlines

No content

A problem occurred while loading content.

Previous Next

Terms Of UsePrivacy StatementCopyright 2021 by Singapore Academy of Law
Back To Top