Driver who severed pedestrian’s body appeals for less jail; prosecution seeks longer sentence
The man had driven drunk at high speed without noticing a retiree crossing the road, barrelling into the victim and killing him on the spot.
A view of Singapore’s Supreme Court on Jul 1, 2019. (File photo: Reuters/Edgar Su)
New: You can now listen to articles.
This audio is generated by an AI tool.
Read a summary of this article on FAST.
Get bite-sized news via a new
cards interface. Give it a try.
Click here to return to FAST
Tap here to return to FAST
FAST
Warning: This story contains graphic descriptions
SINGAPORE: A man who hit a pedestrian at high speed while driving drunk with his children in his car, severing the body into three, appealed on Tuesday (Aug 11) for a lower sentence.
Lawyers for the 46-year-old Australian, who is a Singapore permanent resident, sought a sentence of six years and four months to eight years’ jail, lower than the current sentence of 11 years.
The prosecutors, on the other hand, are pushing for an increase in the jail term to 12 years and nine months. They asked that the existing fine of S$12,000 (US$9,430) and driving ban of 15 years remain.
CNA is not naming the man as doing so could identify his two children, then aged three and four, who are protected by a gag order.
He had pleaded guilty to one count of dangerous driving causing death as a “serious repeat-repeat offender” and a second charge of repeat drink driving.
A third charge for dangerous driving involving his children was considered in sentencing.
On Apr 23, 2023, he was on his way home from a child’s birthday party where he drank wine, and had placed his two kids in booster seats in the back.
He failed to spot a 64-year-old Singaporean retiree crossing Dunearn Road towards Bukit Timah Canal and barrelled into him at a speed of between 111kmh and 122kmh along a road with a limit of 70kmh.
The force of the crash severed the victim’s body into three parts, with the torso and head crashing through the windscreen and into the offender’s lap.
The impact also shattered the windscreens of the offender’s silver BMW M3 Coupe and injured his two children.
The court heard that the man was lethargic as he had stayed up the night before to look after his newborn child. He had also taken an antihistamine, cetirizine, for a runny nose and cough that morning. However, he said he felt no effects of the antihistamine that morning.
APPEAL ARGUMENTS
The arguments before Justice Christopher Tan on Tuesday touched at length on a 30 per cent sentencing “discount” given to the man by the lower court judge.
This was based on plead-guilty guidelines, where a 30 per cent “discount” is imposed on those who indicate they intend to plead guilty early, in what is known as Stage 1.
Stage 1 is from the first mention of the case when the person is charged, until 12 weeks after the hearing when the prosecution informs the court and the accused person that the case is ready for the plea to be taken.
The lower court judge, Principal District Judge Toh Han Li, had given the offender the full 30 per cent discount.
A team of prosecutors led by Mr Andre Chong on Tuesday said this was done in error, because the offender had indicated he would plead guilty only within Stage 2 of the guidelines.
Stage 2 is after Stage 1 and until the court first gives directions for the filing of the prosecution’s case, for cases subject to criminal case disclosure procedures, or until the court first fixes trial dates for cases not subject to these procedures.
The man’s lawyers, Mr Shashi Nathan and Ms Harjeet Kaur of Withers KhattarWong, urged Justice Tan not to change the 30 per cent discount.
Mr Nathan said that it was always understood that his client would plead guilty. However, he acknowledged on questioning by the judge that this was never expressly stated before a certain date.
Justice Tan also questioned both sides about the purpose of a criminal case resolution (CCR) session, on whether it was for liability, that is, the man’s legal accountability, or for sentencing.
He concluded after hearing their answers that it was not for liability. Mr Nathan had explained that his client wanted to get guidance on the sentencing range at the CCR.
The man had indicated he would plead guilty in Stage 2, after the CCR was held.
Justice Tan said the nub of locking down the guilty-plea discount was the indication of the guilty plea, and not the guilty plea itself, questioning why the offender did not indicate he was going to plead guilty (PG) even before the CCR.
“This can be looked at as – I’m going to hold back my PG, and once I get the all-clear, sentence is okay, then I PG,” said the judge.
Mr Nathan said it was a “huge element” of his client’s life and he had to think about it carefully as it affected his career and family.
Justice Tan also asked if both sides were aware of any road traffic case where abuse of trust came into play, referring to the relationship between the man and his children in his vehicle.
The defence and prosecution were not aware of any such case, but the prosecution said abuse of trust could apply.
Mr Nathan said his client was “not just remorseful” but wanted to do the right thing. He has paid a five-figure sum to the victim’s family.
“This is a terrible accident,” said the lawyer. “My client never intended it to happen, but it did happen. It has shocked him and his family to the core.”
He said the sentence would take his client away from his family for “a good part of their lives” and he will not get to see them growing up.
“He knows he’s done wrong, but to impose a higher sentence is not just a punishment for him, but for the whole family,” said Mr Nathan.
“The wife has to look after three kids on her own, he’s no longer going to be able to be the breadwinner for them. He loves his three children, he loves his wife.”
The prosecutor, Mr Chong, said the offender never expressed that he was going to plead guilty within Stage 1, as required by the guidelines in order to get the 30 per cent discount.
Mr Chong, along with fellow prosecutors Dillon Kok and Sean Teh, said the offender’s “selfish and irresponsible acts” of drink driving and driving dangerously had caused “tragic consequences for the deceased and hurt to his own children”.
“There was no reason for him to consume alcohol at the party when he was feeling tired and sleepy, even less so for him to drive home with his young children in tow whilst intoxicated,” said Mr Chong.
“These were exacerbated by his reckless need for speed in travelling at wildly dangerous speeds on a road with moderate traffic flow.”
He added that this was neither the man’s first drink-driving offence nor his first speeding offence.
Justice Tan adjourned the case, saying he would likely “write something to crystallise my thoughts”.
The man’s father stood bail for him.
Source: CNA/ll
Sign up for our newsletters
Get the CNA app
Stay updated with notifications for breaking news and our best stories
Get WhatsApp alerts
Join our channel for the top reads for the day on your preferred chat app
Get bite-sized news via a new
cards interface. Give it a try.
Click here to return to FAST
Tap here to return to FAST
FAST
About The Author
