[2026] SGDC 131

Introduction

The accused person, Koh Ronald (“the Accused”), claimed trial before me to the following charges:

DAC 906871 of 2024

On 26 February 2024, at about 2 pm, on the left road shoulder of the Pan-Island Expressway towards Changi after the Sims Way exit, Singapore, did voluntarily cause grievous hurt to Quak Wei Quan Fabian (“Fabian”), to wit, by biting him on his left ear with the intention of causing grievous hurt, and thereby causing him to sustain a left superolateral ear pinna amputation resulting from a human bite, hurt which caused Fabian to be, during the space of 20 days, unable to follow his ordinary pursuit, and the Accused has thereby committed an offence punishable under s 325 of the Penal Code 1871 (“the Penal Code”)(hereinafter referred to as “the Grievous Hurt Charge”);

MAC 902999 of 2024

On 26 February 2024, at about 2 pm, on the left road shoulder of the Pan-Island Expressway towards Changi after the Sims Way exit, Singapore, did voluntarily cause hurt to Quak Beng Gim (“Quak Senior”), to wit, by hitting him in the lower back and stepping on his left foot, with the knowledge that you are likely thereby to cause hurt to him, and causing hurt to him, and the Accused has thereby committed an offence punishable under s 323 of the Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “the Hurt Charge”).

After a trial, I found the Accused guilty of the above charges and convicted him. I sentenced him to a global sentence of 20 months’ imprisonment and three strokes of the cane. I also disqualified him from holding or obtaining all classes of driving licences for a period of 12 months from the date of his release from prison. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid decision, the Accused has appealed against the same.

The Prosecution’s Case

(I) The Evidence of the Victims

The victims were Quak Senior and Fabian , who are father and son. On 26 February 2024, at about 1.50 pm to 2 pm, Quak Senior was driving his car along the Pan-Island Expressway (“PIE”) towards Changi direction. Fabian was seated in the front passenger seat. As Quak Senior was filtering from the 4th lane from the right of the expressway (which leads to Sims Way exit) to the 3rd lane to travel towards Changi, he heard a honk from a van at the adjacent lane at a motorcycle. As the motorcycle cut into his lane from the right, he also honked at the motorcycle. The motorcyclist, who was the Accused, then gestured to Quak Senior and Fabian to wind down the window of the car door. Fabian then wound down the window of the car door on the front passenger side and asked the Accused what he wanted. An altercation then ensued between the Accused and Fabian where vulgarities were exchanged.

The Accused then gestured to Quak Senior to stop his car by waving his hand. Quak Senior then decided to stop his car on the left road shoulder of the PIE just after the Sims Way exit to try to find out what the Accused wanted. The Accused stopped his motorcycle first and Quak Senior stopped his car about two to three metres in front of the Accused’s motorcycle. Quak Senior told Fabian to stay in the car while he left his car to talk to the Accused. During the exchange, Quak Senior asked the Accused in the Hokkien dialect “what do you want to do?”. Just before this, Fabian had also got out of the car as he was worried about his father’s safety and managed to use his mobile phone to video his father asking the Accused what he wanted to do. As can be seen in the video, just after Quak Senior had asked the Accused what he wanted to do, the Accused noticed that Fabian was filming the incident with his mobile phone and moved aggressively towards Fabian and uttered an expletive.

The Accused then pushed Fabian hard on the chest with both hands which caused Fabian to fall onto the road. As a result, Fabian dropped the mobile phone onto the road and video footage in P3A stopped abruptly. At this moment, seeing that the Accused was approaching Fabian in an aggressive manner, Quak Senior decided to hold on to the Accused by hugging him from the front with both his hands. The Accused struggled to break free with both his hands. Quak Senior said that the Accused must have punched him on his back and stepped on his foot as he could not see what the Accused was doing as he was hugging the Accused. The bruise on his back as shown in the photograph in P5 and the swelling on his big toe on his left foot as shown in the photograph in P6 only appeared subsequently when he went home.

Fabian testified that initially, he did not get out of the car when his father did so. However, he got worried when he noticed that things were getting a bit heated up between his father and the Accused. So he decided to also step out of the car and started videoing the exchange between the Accused and his father as shown in P3A. After the Accused had pushed Fabian onto the road as stated in [5] above, Fabian saw that his father was hugging the Accused to prevent the Accused from approaching him. Fabian could see that the Accused was being very aggressive and had used his elbow to hit his father sideway at least once. Fearful that the situation might escalate, Fabian walked towards the Accused and his father. At this point, Fabian said that he was punched three times on his face by the Accused and he also decided to hug the Accused to prevent him from being more aggressive. The punches broke his spectacles and they fell off. At this point in time, both Fabian and his father were hugging the Accused- Fabian from the front and his head was beside the Accused’s head. His father was hugging the Accused from the side.

Fabian testified that the Accused then bit his ear. He could hear that there was a “crunch” sound and the Accused spat out a piece of his ear with the sound “pui”. Fabian said he knew then his ear was bitten off by the Accused. He could feel something dripping but not much pain. His father saw that there was a lot of blood and he told Fabian that his ear was bitten off. After about a minute later, both Fabian and his father released their hugs of the Accused, and asked if he wanted to stop. The Accused did not respond.

Both Fabian and his father then searched the surrounding for his bitten off ear fragment. Fabian found it on the ground on the road shoulder. He then covered it with a towel. Quak Senior then drove Fabian to Ng Theng Fong General Hospital (“NTFGH”) for treatment of his injured ear. Fabian testified that it was then that the sharp pain started to set in slowly. At NTFGH, he asked a nurse to take a photograph of his bitten off left ear. He had to undergo a surgery to reattach the ear fragment and was warded in NTFGH for about a week. His face also hurt from the punches. Before the Quaks drove off to NTFGH, Fabian managed to video the Accused and his motorcycle before he rode off, in order to identify the Accused to the police. Fabian testified that although the doctor managed to successfully reattach his bitten off ear fragment, his left ear was now permanently disfigured and it still hurt if he were to sleep on his left side. There was also loss of sensation in the reattached part of the ear.

Cross-Examination

In cross-examination, the Accused put to Quak Senior that he “did not intentionally bite off a piece of (Fabian)’s ear because he was half blind in the middle of the scuffle as there were gouging of his eyes and pushing of appendages into his mouth.” When asked what he meant by “appendages”, the Accused said that although he cannot confirm, he was referring to the ear or finger. Quak Senior disagreed with the Accused’s put question.

For Fabian, the Accused merely put to him that there was no video evidence of him biting off Fabian’s ear, to which Fabian agreed.

(II) The Evidence of the Doctor

Dr Low O-Wen (Dr Low) was a plastic surgeon in the Department of General Surgery at NTFGH for plastic surgery. He was the main doctor in charge of Fabian’s surgery to reattach his bitten off left ear fragment. He prepared the medical report in P12. In the medical report, Dr Low noted, inter alia, that Fabian sustained a left superolateral ear pinna amputation resulting from a human bite. Dr Low reported that Fabian’s left ear partial amputate measured approximately 3.5 cm by 1.5 cm in dimensions and consisted of skin, fat and cartilage. A replant of this amputated part was attempted on 26 February 2024 evening. The amputated part was then tagged in its anatomical position as best as he could site it and the surrounding ear lacerations were sutured. Fabian was warded from 26 February to 4 March 2024 for about a week. Dr Low reported that when Fabian was seen by him after the operation, he noted that a good proportion of the amputated part was viable.

Dr Low testified that a significant amount of force would be required for Fabian’s amputated part of his left ear to be bitten off, as the human ear is made up of cartilage and as the cartilage in adult is calcified, it was not so easy for it to be bitten off. In Fabian’s case, Dr Low estimated that there was a 50-60 percent loss of the amputated part. Dr Low decided to give 33 days of medical leave to Fabian as his ear needed oxygen therapy for the wound to heal. There was also risk of infection to the wound and Fabian needed rest after the long surgery.

The Defence’s Case

The Evidence of the Accused

The Accused testified that on the day of the incident, he was working as delivery worker for Lalamove. At the material time of the incident, he signalled to filter to the left along the PIE. As the Quaks’ (Quak Senior and Fabian) car was really close to his motorcycle at the back on the left side, he accelerated a bit to avoid a collision. He said he cannot recall any honks by the Quaks or from any van. He said the Quaks then veered to his right at the back and the next time he noticed them, they were in front of him on the right side at the “two o’clock” position. The front passenger then wound down the car window at the front passenger side of the car and there was a “flailing of the hands” from the front passenger side. The Accused said it was “discomforting” and he was wary of the car. Be that as it may, he stopped his motorcycle on the road shoulder. To his “dismay”, the Quaks also stopped their car on the road shoulder. The Accused said that he was hoping that they would go away. He said he wanted to “escape” from them but he was fearful.

The Accused claimed that after coming out from his car, Quak Senior raised his arm towards him but this was not captured in the video footage in P3A. The Accused denied pushing Fabian on the chest causing him to fall but claimed that it was Fabian who shoved him first. He then “slapped” Fabian on the stomach to stop him from filming and the Accused uttered the expletive “what the fuck”, as can be heard on P3A. The Accused said the Quaks then grabbed him. He said Quak Senior also punched him on the face and Fabian headbutted him on his mouth. I would pause here to note that during the cross-examination of Fabian, the Accused did not put this allegation that Fabian had headbutted him on his mouth to Fabian. In any event, the Accused tendered photographs taken by himself showing the injuries that he said he had suffered during the incident, namely to his upper inner lip and upper nose bridge.

The Accused also claimed that the Quaks grabbed his neck, gouged his eyes and “stuffed things into my mouth”. He kept pushing and shoving the Quaks back. The scuffle came to a stop when Fabian fell onto the road, and Quak Senior also stopped. The Accused said he did not do anything else and he moved towards his motorcycle. At this point, as the Quaks were in front of him, he grabbed Quak Senior’s throat “to keep him at bay” and grabbed Fabian’s wrist. Thankfully, he said the Quaks stopped. He also stopped. However, it was at this moment that the Accused alleged that Quak Senior said to him that “nobody is getting out of this alive” and he responded “what the hell?”. Notwithstanding that, the Quaks then went to look for Fabian’s bitten off ear. The Accused also went to look for his visor which he claimed had been ripped off by the Quaks during the scuffle. After he found a visor, although it was not his, he rode off to complete his delivery job.

When asked by the Court what his response was to the Quaks’ allegations that he had bitten off a part of Fabian’s left ear, the Accused at first said “what I did was all in self-defence”. When asked what exactly did he do, he denied biting off a part of Fabian’s ear. When asked further by the Court in that case who had bitten off a part of Fabian’s ear, the Accused said that as he was “lost in the attack”, when Fabian “smashed his head” on his (the Accused’s) mouth, he (the Accused) “was triggered to bite down”. What asked to elaborate what he meant when he said “to bite down”, the Accused had this to say:

“So, I mean, you are forcing things into my mouth and gouging my eyes, I was fearful already. And just to make a note, like, when I fear, I will defend myself. Most especially when it’s a physical thing, you know, I don’t want to lose an eye, I don’t want to lose a limb, or I don’t want to know, right, what was stuffed into my mouth suddenly, you know, stuffed like that.”

Cross-Examination

In cross-examination, when the learned deputy public prosecutor (DPP) asked the Accused whether he did bite Fabian’s ear, the Accused at first said that he was not “clear” if he did. When pressed by the DPP, he said that:

“Things happened during the altercation. Whether or not I bit his ear, right, I’m unsure.”

When asked if he would accept that Fabian’s ear was bitten off during the altercation, the Accused would only say that the ear “dropped off”. When pressed by the DPP, the Accused then denied that Fabian’s ear was bitten off during the altercation. However, when probed further by the DPP, the Accused then accepted that it was bitten off during the altercation. Finally, when it was pointed out to him that there were only three of them who were present at the altercation and since Fabian could not have bitten off his own ear, and asked if he was saying that it was Quak Senior who had bitten off his own son’s ear, the Accused conceded as follows:

“I highly doubt that would be possible because the one that did bite during the altercation, right, that I can recall of is me.” [Emphasis added]

After being refreshed with his own statement to the police, the Accused also conceded that he believed he did hear a honk from the Quaks, contrary to his evidence in chief as referred to in [13] above. He further conceded that Quak Senior did not raise his arm at him when Quak Senior first approached him, contrary to his allegation in his evidence in chief referred to in [14] above. Finally, after being confronted with the video footage in P3A, the Accused also conceded that Fabian did not shove him as he had alleged in his evidence in chief as referred to in [14] above.

On the alleged headbutt by Fabian, the Accused also conceded that this allegation was an afterthought as first, he did not mention this in his police statement and second, he did not confront Fabian on this when he was cross-examining Fabian. Eventually, the Accused also agreed that his evidence that the Quaks were stuffing their body parts such as ear or finger into his mouth during the altercation was “absurd”.

At the close of the cross-examination, the Accused conceded that he was the one who had bitten off Fabian’s ear and spat it out from his mouth.

The Prosecution’s Closing Submissions

(I) Prelude to the Altercation

The Prosecution submitted that the Quaks’ version of the events which led to the altercation ought to be preferred for the following reasons:

(a) There was no reason for Fabian to lie in his evidence as he also admitted that he too had used vulgarities against the Accused in the exchange of words after he had wound down his car window;

(b) The Accused’s action in stopping his motorcycle would only be logical if he was the one who had gestured the Quaks to stop as he was ahead of the Quaks at the material time and could have simply ridden if he had no intention of stopping.

(II) The Grievous Hurt and Hurt Charges

For the Grievous Hurt Charge, the Prosecution pointed out that although the Accused had initially denied biting off Fabian’s ear, he conceded in cross-examination that he did so.

For the Hurt Charge, the Prosecution submitted that based on the video footage in P3A, the Accused was clearly the aggressor. As can be seen at the end of the footage, the Accused’s right arm could be seen moving towards Fabian (who was then filming the exchange of words between the Accused and Quak Senior) and this aligned with Fabian’s evidence that the video was cut off abruptly as the Accused had pushed him and caused him to fall.

The Prosecution submitted that the injuries suffered by Quak Senior when he hugged the Accused was consistent with his evidence that the Accused had struggled when he hugged the Accused. Although the Accused had denied that he had struggled or flailed his arms, the Prosecution submitted that it was inconceivable that the Accused would simply stand still and not react to Quak Senior holding on to him.

(III) Credibility

The Prosecution submitted both Fabian and Quak Senior were credible witnesses who gave cogent, compelling and consistent evidence. They did not seek to embellish their evidence. Fabian readily admitted that he had also used vulgarities against the Accused in anger. They also admitted that they had hugged or grabbed onto the Accused during the altercation.

On the other hand, the Prosecution described the Accused as an “obstinately defensive witness”. He had consistently denied doing anything wrong even when his denials did not comport with good sense- this was best exemplified by his denials that he had bitten off Fabian’s ear until late in his cross-examination. The Prosecution submitted that it was fairly obvious that he had done so as there were only three of them at the scene. His evidence of how he was attacked when he had bent over was ridiculous at best. Further, his assertion that he was headbutted by Fabian was an afterthought and clearly not tenable. The Prosecution submitted that the Accused had belatedly come up with this assertion to support his earlier evidence that ears were shoved into his mouth, and his evidence in material aspects was embellished, absurd and unworthy of credit.

The Prosecution therefore submitted that the two charges against the Accused had been proved beyond reasonable doubt and urged the Court to convict the Accused on the charges.

The Defence’s Closing Submissions

In the Accused’s oral closing submissions, notwithstanding him having conceded during cross-examination that he did hear the honk from the Quaks, as highlighted in [18] above, the Accused submitted that the Quaks “should have sounded the horn” at him if they had noticed his signal to filter into their lane.

The Accused next submitted that it would be impossible for him to be riding his motorcycle and gesturing to the Quaks to wind down their window at the same time, even though he did not cross-examine the Quaks on this assertion.

On the video footage in P3A, the Accused submitted that Fabian manipulated the video by stopping the recording abruptly so as to show only the parts he wanted to show. On the Grievous Hurt Charge, the Accused referred to the right of private defence briefly but did not elaborate.

My Decision

The Victims Were Truthful Witnesses

Having carefully considered and scrutinised the evidence of Fabian and his father, Quak Senior, I have had no difficulty in arriving at the conclusion that they were credible witnesses and that their evidence was reliable.

In coming to this conclusion, I was mindful of the fact they are related to each other as father and son, and hence the possibility of collusion between them in their evidence. However, in my judgement, this possibility can be safely ruled out by the following strong corroborative evidence of their individual testimonies:

(a) The aggressive nature in which the Accused had approached Fabian when he noticed that Fabian was filming him as shown in the video footage in P3A, and thereafter the utterance of the vulgarity by the Accused at Fabian;

(b) The fact that a piece of Fabian’s left ear, measuring 3.5 cm by 1.5 cm in dimension, was severed from his left ear during the altercation;

(c) Dr Low’s evidence that it was caused by a human bite with significant amount of force; and

(d) The Accused’s own concession at the end of his cross-examination that it was him who had bitten off Fabian’s ear.

The Accused Was Not a Credible Witness

On the other hand, I did not find the Accused to be a credible witness for the following reasons:

(a) On the critical issue of whether he did bite off part of Fabian’s left ear, his evidence was not consistent at all. It had evolved from he did not do so during his examination-in-chief, to he was not sure whether he did so at the beginning of his cross-examination, to finally conceding that it was him who did it at the later part of his cross-examination, as summarised in [16], [17] and [20] above;

(b) His denial that he was the one who asked the Quaks to stop their car. His evidence that he decided to stop his motorcycle because he was feeling uncomfortable about the earlier incident between his motorcycle and the Quaks’ car and that he did not signal to the Quaks to stop their car simply did not make any sense at all. If that was the case, the Quaks could have simply continued with their journey without stopping their car since the Accused did not signal to them to stop, and the Accused would have stopped his motorcycle at the road shoulder in vain;

(c) The Accused’s belated claim that Fabian had headbutted him during the altercation in his examination-in-chief but had failed to put this assertion to Fabian when he cross-examined Fabian. The Accused did not even state this in his police statement. This was highlighted in [19] above. Hence, I agreed with the Prosecution that this assertion was a mere afterthought;

(d) The Accused was also being inconsistent on whether he heard the Quaks honked at him before they stopped their vehicles on the road shoulder. After saying in his evidence in court that he did not hear the Quaks’ honk, he conceded in cross-examination that he believed he did after being refreshed with his own police statement. This was highlighted in [18] above;

(e) The Accused also conceded that his evidence that the Quaks were stuffing their body parts such as ear or finger into his mouth during the altercation was “absurd”. This was highlighted in [19] above.

The Grievous Hurt Charge

Under section 320(h) of the Penal Code, any hurt which causes the sufferer to be, during the space of 20 days, unable to follow his ordinary pursuits is designated as “grievous”.

Based on the above findings, I was satisfied beyond any reasonable doubt that the Accused had voluntarily caused grievous hurt to Fabian by biting on his left ear with the intention of causing such grievous hurt, resulting in a piece of Fabian’s left ear, measuring 3.5 cm by 1.5 cm in dimension being bitten off from Fabian’s left ear by the Accused.

I further accepted the evidence of Dr Low that as a result of the above injury suffered by Fabian, he was given 33 days of medical leave as Fabian needed oxygen therapy for the wound in his left ear to heal, because of risk of infection and the need for Fabian to rest after the long surgery to reattach the bitten off piece of the ear. During these 33 days of medical leave, I was satisfied that Fabian was therefore unable to follow his ordinary pursuits, such as going to work.

Although the Accused did not seriously pursue the right of private defence or self-defence at the trial, as he had only put to Quak Senior during cross-examination that he “did not intentionally bite off a piece of (Fabian)’s ear because he was half blind in the middle of the scuffle as there were gouging of his eyes and pushing of appendages into his mouth” (see [9] above) and mentioned this in passing in his oral closing submissions (see [30] above), I was satisfied that the facts of the present case could not give rise to the availability of such a defence to the Accused. What Fabian and his father did to the Accused in the present case, namely hugging or holding on to the Accused in order to stop him from showing further aggression towards, first, Fabian and then, Quak Senior, did not entitle the Accused to exercise any right of private defence or self-defence to the extent of biting off a piece of Fabian’s left ear.

The Hurt Charge

Based on the above findings, I was also satisfied beyond any reasonable doubt that the Accused had voluntarily caused hurt to Quak Senior by hitting him in the lower back by way of elbowing him sideway at least once and stepping on his left foot, with the knowledge that he was likely to thereby cause hurt to Quak Senior. Although Quak Senior himself could not see what the Accused was doing to him as he had hugged the Accused to prevent him from approaching Fabian in an aggressive manner, Fabian testified that he saw the Accused was being very aggressive and had used his elbow to hit his father sideway at least once (see [6] above). It was also Quak Senior’s evidence that the bruise on his back as shown in the photograph in P5 and the swelling on his big toe on his left foot as shown in the photograph in P6 must have been caused by the Accused punching his back and stepping on his big toe on his left foot. (see [5] above).

Conclusion

Hence, based on the Quaks’ evidence, as corroborated by the photographs of Fabian’s partially bitten off left ear in P4 and Quak Senior’s injuries in P5 and P6, and the video footage in P3A, and my rejection of the Accused’s evidence in his defence, I was satisfied that the Prosecution had proved the two charges against the Accused beyond reasonable doubt. I found the Accused guilty and convicted the Accused accordingly.

Antecedents

On 21 April 2005, the Accused was placed in a juvenile home for 24 months for two counts of outraging of modesty under s 354 of the Penal Code.

Prosecution’s Submissions on Sentence

The Grievous Hurt Charge

The Prosecution submitted for a sentence of two years’ imprisonment, three strokes of the cane and 12 months’ disqualification order from holding or obtaining all classes of driving licences (“DQ”) to be imposed on the Accused.

The Prosecution relied on the sentencing framework set out by the Court of Appeal in PP v BDB [2018] 1 SLR 127 (“BDB”) for the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt under section 325 of the Penal Code. At Stage 1 of the sentencing framework, the court is to examine the seriousness of the injury sustained to determine the gravity of the offence and indicative sentence, having regarded to the range of possible injuries and possible sentences. At Stage 2, the culpability of the offender, any aggravating and/or mitigating factors are taken into account.

Under Stage 1 of the sentencing framework, the Prosecution referred to the following precedent cases based on the seriousness of the injuries suffered:

S/n

Case Name

Brief Details of the Case

Indicative Starting Sentence

1

Saw Beng Chong v PP

[2023] 3 SLR 424

The victim suffered a mildly displaced nasal bone fracture, an undisplaced fracture of the left anterior eighth rib and a minimally displaced right inferior posterior orbital wall fracture. He was discharged the following day with 6 days’ hospitalisation leave. His facial fractures were managed conservatively.

to 13 months’ imprisonment

2

PP v Hamdan Bin Haji

[2024] SGDC 303

The victim sustained a right radial fracture, right ulnar shaft fracture and left ulnar shaft fracture. He underwent surgery for his injuries and was given seven days’ hospitalisation leave.

months’ imprisonment (Appeal dismissed)

3

PP v Cai Linghui

[2022] SGDC 242

The victim sustained multiple right-sided facial fractures which were treated conservatively. He was warded for one day and given seven days' hospitalisation leave.

to 14 months’ imprisonment

(Appeal dismissed)

The Prosecution submitted that the injuries sustained by Fabian were far more serious than those in the above precedent cases and hence an indicative starting sentence of 20 months’ imprisonment was warranted.

At Stage 2 of the sentencing framework, the Prosecution submitted that the following aggravating factors were present:

(a) Road rage- the grievous hurt was caused in the context of road rage, after the Accused had cut into the Quaks’ lane abruptly. The Prosecution referred to the case of PP v Lim Yee Hua [2018] 3 SLR 1106 where the High Court made it clear that the law takes a dim view of road rage users engaging in violence over disputes that arise from the shared use of roads, and that deterrent sentences are warranted for those who lose their tempers and resort to violence over such incidents;

(b) Degree of force- the Accused had used significant force in biting off part of Fabian’s left ear;

(c) Biting an indicator of greater potential harm- the Prosecution submitted that biting was a dangerous manner of causing hurt due to the risk it carried. In Ho Mei Xia Hannah v PP [2019] SGHC 211, the High Court acknowledged that biting “carries with it risk of transmission of bacteria and infectious diseases” and noted that stiffer sentences were ordinarily imposed for biting cases dealt with under s 332 of the Penal Code (for the offence of voluntarily causing hurt to public servant in the discharge of their official duties).

In view of the above aggravating factors, the Prosecution submitted that a four-month uplift at Stage 2 of the sentencing framework was appropriate. The Prosecution pointed out that in Saw Beng Chong (the case in s/n. 1 of [43] above), which involved an assault of a public transport worker, the High Court opined that an upward adjustment of three months was warranted after factoring in the aggravating factors and the offender’s plea of guilt.

The Prosecution also submitted for three stokes of the cane to be imposed for the following reasons:

(a) In BDB, it was held at [76] that for such offence, the courts have invariably imposed, in additional to imprisonment sentences, caning of at least six strokes. It further endorsed the observation by the authors of Sentencing Practice (at p 266) that caning “is also appropriate unless there are exceptional circumstances”. This is because where violence has been inflicted on a victim, retribution is likely to be the principal sentencing consideration that warrants the imposition of caning. In cases where non-fatal serious injury is caused, the Court of Appeal in BDB held that a sentence of between six and 12 strokes of the cane may be considered;

(b) The bite occurred at a time when Fabian was trying to restrain the Accused from the front, and it was a quick one-off reaction by the Accused and there was no further assault.

The Hurt Charge

For the charge of voluntarily causing hurt to Quak Senior under section 323 of the Penal Code, the Prosecution submitted for a sentence of six weeks’ imprisonment to be imposed. The Prosecution relied on the sentencing framework set out in Niranjan s/o Muthupalani v PP [2024] 3 SLR 834 (“Niranjan”), which revised the sentencing framework for such offence first laid down in Low Song Chye v PP [2019] 5 SLR 526 as a result of the enhancement of the punishment for such offence committed after 1 January 2020.

Under Stage 1 of the revised sentencing framework, the court is to identify the applicable indicative sentencing range by considering the hurt caused by the offence as follows:

Band

Hurt Caused

Revised Sentencing Range for First-time Offenders Claiming Trial

1

Low harm: no visible injury or minor hurt such as bruises, scratches, minor lacerations or abrasions.

Fines or custodial term up to eight weeks’ imprisonment.

2

Moderate harm: hurt resulting in short hospitalisation or a substantial period of medical leave, simple fractures, or temporary or mild loss of a sensory function.

Between eight weeks’ and 12 months’ imprisonment

3

Serious harm: serious injuries which are permanent in nature and/or which necessitate significant surgical procedures.

Between 12 months’ and 36 months’ imprisonment

Applying the above revised sentencing framework to the injuries suffered by Quak Senior under Stage 1, the Prosecution submitted that the hurt caused would fall within Band 1 of low harm, as they comprised bruising on the lower side of his left back and swelling on his right foot. The Prosecution submitted that a starting point of two weeks’ imprisonment would be appropriate.

Under Stage 2 of the revised sentencing framework, the court is to make the necessary adjustments to the indicative starting point sentence based on the offender’s culpability as well as all other relevant aggravating and mitigating factors. The Prosecution submitted that an uplift of four weeks’ imprisonment was warranted in light of the following factors:

(a) The hurt was caused in the context of road rage;

(b) Quak Senior testified that he was trying to stop the Accused from further assaulting Fabian when the Accused caused hurt to him. There was no credible evidence that he had attacked or attempted to attack the Accused.

As the two offences took place within a short span of time at the road shoulder of the expressway, the Prosecution submitted for the sentences of both offences to run concurrently.

Finally, the Prosecution submitted that a DQ under section 42(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 should be imposed on the Accused. The qualifying criteria were met in the present case as follows:

(a) The Accused was the rider of a motorcycle on a road:

(b) The offence was committed against the driver and passenger of another vehicle on the road; and

(c) The offence arose from a dispute between the Accused and the Quaks over the use of the road.

The Prosecution submitted that the Accused had displayed an alarming propensity to resort to violence to settle his differences with other road users: it was pointed out that at the time of the commission of the present two offences, the Accused was investigated by the police for voluntarily causing hurt in another road rage incident. The Accused was also facing four other charges arising from three more road rage related incidents, which were still pending.

In view of the above, the Prosecution submitted that it was undesirable for the Accused to be allowed to drive any motor vehicles, as the level of violence and the extent of injury caused in the present case far exceeded those in typical road rage cases. The Prosecution therefore submitted for a 12-month DQ to be imposed on the Accused. In support of its submission, the Prosecution referred to the case of PP v Fizul Asrul bin Efandi [2018] SGHC 1197 (‘Fizul Asrul”). In that case, the Prosecution appealed against the non-imposition of a DQ for an offender who was convicted of two road rage related offences about three years apart. In allowing the appeal and imposing a 12-month DQ, the High Court held that the imposition of a DQ serves the objectives of protection of the public and deterrence. Such DQ can be considered for first time road rage offenders. The Court held at [21] of the judgement, that:

“In appropriate cases, even first-time offenders may be disqualified from driving for a suitable period. For instance, where the behaviour of the offender is outrageous and he has shown that he is a menace to other road users, a disqualification order should be considered.”

Mitigation and Submissions on Sentence

The Accused did not show any remorse at all in his plea in mitigation. In fact, he had asked for a re-trial and repeated his allegations at the trial that the Quaks were telling lies at the trial and that all the injuries sustained by the Quaks were by their own doing.

My Decision on Sentencing

The Grievous Hurt Charge

I agreed with the Prosecution’s submission that the sentencing framework laid down in BDB was applicable for this charge. Under Stage 1 of the sentencing framework, I assessed the seriousness of the injury suffered by Fabian to determine the gravity of the offence and the indicative starting sentence. Having reviewed the nature of the injuries suffered by the victims in the precedent cases cited by the Prosecution, their treatment periods and the duration of their hospitalisation leaves, I agreed with the Prosecution that the grievous hurt suffered by Fabian in the present case was more serious than those in the precedent cases as set out below (for details, see [43] above):

S/n

Case Name

Injuries Sustained by the victim

Indicative Starting Sentence

1

Saw Beng Chong

(i) A mildly displaced nasal bone fracture,

(ii) An undisplaced fracture of the left anterior eighth rib, and

(iii) A minimally displaced right inferior posterior orbital wall fracture.

His facial fractures were managed conservatively.

Treatment period: he was discharged the following day.

Hospitalisation leave: six days.

to 13 months’ imprisonment

2

Hamdan Bin Haji

(i) A right radial fracture,

(ii) A right ulnar shaft fracture, and

(iii) A left ulnar shaft fracture.

He underwent surgery for his injuries.

Treatment period: warded for seven days.

Hospitalisation leave: information not available.

months’ imprisonment (Appeal dismissed)

3

Cai Linghui

(i) Multiple right-sided facial fractures which were treated conservatively.

Treatment period: he was warded for one day.

Hospitalisation leave: seven days.

to 14 months’ imprisonment

(Appeal dismissed)

The grievous hurt suffered by Fabian and the duration of treatment which he had received were as follows (see [11] and [12] above):

(a) A piece of his left ear, measuring 3.5 cm by 1.5 cm was amputated by the Accused’s biting;

(b) Treatment period: he was warded for eight days for the operation to reattach the amputated part of his ear; and

(c) Hospitalisation leave: 33 days.

Based on the above comparison, it can be seen that on treatment period and number of days of hospitalisation leave alone, the grievous hurt sustained by Fabian was more serious than that suffered by the victims in the precedent cases. Assessing the seriousness of the grievous hurt sustained by Fabian holistically, I was also of the view that it was more serious than that suffered by the victims in the precedent cases. This is because broken bones can heal, but in Fabian’s case, there was permanent disfigurement of his left ear, which is at a conspicuous part of his head, as even though the amputated part of his left ear was reattached successfully, there was about 50-60% loss of the replanted amputate (see [12] above and P15B). Fabian also testified that he continued to experience intermittent pain around his left ear and there was also loss of sensation in the reattached part (see [8] above).

However, I would not go so far as the Prosecution to say that it was far more serious than the precedent cases, as it was a single amputation of a part of the ear. Hence, under Stage 1 of the sentencing framework, I would put the indicative starting sentence at 16 months’ imprisonment, higher than the range of nine to 14 months as set out in Saw Beng Chong for multiple fractures that are not as serious as that in BDB.

At Stage 2 of the sentencing framework, I agreed with the Prosecution that the fact that the attack arose out of a road rage incident and the potential harm arising from the act of biting (as set out in [45(a) and (c)] above) were the aggravating factors to be considered at this stage. However, I would not include the force of the bite (as set out in [45(b) above) as a separate aggravating factor as that would have been part of the consideration under Stage 1 of the sentencing framework when the Court assessed the severity of the grievous hurt caused, which could only have been caused by an act of biting with significant force. Nevertheless, I agreed with the Prosecution that a four-month uplift would be appropriate in view of the above aggravating factors considered at this stage of the sentencing framework.

The above would enhance the indicative starting sentence to 20 months’ imprisonment. As the Accused did not put forth any mitigating factors in his plea in mitigation and was found guilty after a full trial, he would not be entitled to any sentencing discount. The final sentence would therefore be 20 months’ imprisonment.

Caning

I further agreed with the Prosecution (see [47] above) that caning would be appropriate in the present case. The attack by the Accused in biting off a piece of Fabian’s left ear was particularly vicious and barbaric. In cases where non-fatal serious injury is caused, the Court of Appeal in BDB held that a sentence of between six and 12 strokes of the cane may be considered. However, as the Prosecution had pointed out (see [47(b)] above), the bite had occurred during a scuffle between Fabian and the Accused when Fabian was trying to restrain the Accused from the front, and it was a single, albeit vicious and barbaric, attack. Hence, I imposed three strokes of the cane on the Accused instead of six.

The Hurt Charge

The hurt sustained by Quak Senior, comprising bruising on the lower side of his left back and swelling on his right foot, was relatively minor and I agreed with the Prosecution that it should come under Band 1 of the revised sentencing framework in Niranjan at Stage 1 of the application of the sentencing framework. In view of the minor nature of the injuries sustained, I did not agree with the Prosecution that the custodial threshold has been crossed at this stage. Hence a fine would have been the appropriate indicative starting sentence.

However, at Stage 2 of the revised sentencing framework, as the attack on Quak Senior took place arising from a road rage incident and in the course of Quak Senior trying to prevent the Accused from approaching Fabian in an aggressive manner (see [5] above), I was of the view that the custodial threshold was crossed at this stage of the sentencing consideration and the initial indicative starting sentence should be enhanced to two weeks’ imprisonment.

The Disqualification Order

On the application by the Prosecution for a DQ to be imposed on the Accused, I was guided by the High Court in Fizul Asrul which held that “where the behaviour of the offender is outrageous and he has shown that he is a menace to other road users, a disqualification order should be considered.” (see [55] above). The aforesaid is applicable to even first-time offenders. The behaviour of the Accused in the present case was no doubt outrageous, as he had caused horrific grievous hurt to Fabian arising from a road rage incident and had shown himself to be a menace to other road users. In the circumstances, I agreed with the Prosecution and imposed a DQ of 12 months on the Accused for the Grievous Hurt Charge, with effect from his release from prison.

As both the Grievous Hurt Charge and Hurt Charge were committed in quick succession and arising from the same road rage incident, I ordered both sentences to run concurrently.

Conclusion

To recap, the Accused was sentenced as follows:

(a) For the Grievous Hurt Charge, 20 months’ imprisonment and three strokes of the cane. A 12-month DQ was also imposed, with effect from the date of his release from prison; and

(b) For the Hurt Charge, two weeks’ imprisonment, to run concurrently with the 20 months’ imprisonment for the above Grievous Hurt Charge.

The above gave rise to a global sentence of 20 months’ imprisonment, three strokes of the cane, and a 12-month DQ with effect from the date of his release from prison. As the Accused has been in remand since 4 April 2025, I backdated his sentence to this date.

Dissatisfied with my decisions above, the Accused has appealed against the same. The Accused is currently serving the above sentence.