Road Traffic Act 1961

“Criminal Procedure and Sentencing] – [Sentencing] – [Road Traffic Act] – [Driving without due care and attention causing grievous hurt] – [Driving under influence of drugs”

“Criminal Law] – [Offences] – [Road Traffic Act] – [Driving without due care and attention causing death of pedestrian] – [Whether accused drove without due care and attention”

“Criminal Procedure and Sentencing] – [Sentencing] – [Road Traffic Act] – [Driving without due care and attention] – [Tipper truck tipped over spilling gravel onto the road”

“Criminal Procedure and Sentencing] – [Sentencing] – [Road Traffic Act] – [Dangerous driving with no hurt caused] – [Failure to stop when ordered by police officer”

“Criminal Procedure and Sentencing] - [Sentencing; Criminal Procedure and Sentencing] — [Statutory Offences] — [Road Traffic Act] — [Driving without due care and attention causing grievous hurt”

“Criminal Procedure and Sentencing] - [Sentencing; Criminal Procedure and Sentencing] — [Statutory Offences] — [Road Traffic Act] — [Driving without due care and attention causing grievous hurt] – [Disqualification] – [Special reasons”

“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:”

“Criminal Law — Statutory offences — Road Traffic Act — Drink driving; Criminal Law — Statutory offences — Road Traffic Act — Dangerous driving causing death by a serious repeat offender; Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing — Appeals; Crimina”

“Riding a motor vehicle while being a person under 18 years under s62(1)(b) read with s62(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (“RTA”)”

“Criminal Law — Statutory offences — Road Traffic Act; Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing — Appeals”

“Mr Rachmat Hidayat Bin Edy Juju (“Appellant”) pleaded guilty to one charge under s 65(1)(a) punishable under s 65(2)(a) read with s 65(6)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (2020 Rev Ed) (“RTA”) for driving a motorcycle without due care and attention, which resulted in the death of his pillion rider (“Deceased”). The Dist”

“under s 375(2) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed), and the other was for an offence of driving a lorry without a valid Class 4 driving licence under s 35(3) and punishable under s 131(2) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) (“RTA”) (see Public Prosecutor v Hang Tuah bin Jumaat [2013] SGHC 28 (“Hang Tuah”

“w.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wpcontent/uploads/web_causing_death_by_driving_definitive_guideline.pdf> (accessed 9 May 2016) (“the Guideline”). The Guideline covers the following four offences under the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c 52) (UK):”

“The Accused pleaded guilty in a District Court to a single charge of dangerous driving under s 64(1) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) (“RTA”). The District Judge sentenced the Accused to a fine of $3,000 (in default 15 days’ imprisonment) and disqualification from holding and obtaining all classes of driv”

“um of five years’ imprisonment (50% discount from s 304(b)) and two years’ imprisonment (60% discount from rash act under s 304A(a)) respectively. A similar reduction of 50% is evident in s 66 of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) (“the RTA”) where causing death by reckless or dangerous driving carries a maxim”

“This principle has been applied, for example, in the cases relating to the offence of driving while under the influence of alcohol (“drink-driving”) under s 67(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) (“RTA”). Even though this offence is made out once it is established that the level of alcohol in the accus”

“the Prosecution rightly accepted that, while there was no definition for a heavy vehicle under the PC, the Respondent’s lorry, weighing in at 1,500 kg, was not a heavy vehicle for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed). Moreover, it could be driven by a holder of a Class 3 driving licence. Ultimate”

“This is an appeal against the sentence imposed on the appellant for the offence under s 67(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) (“the RTA”), of driving a motor vehicle, having consumed so much alcohol that the proportion of it in his breath exceeded the prescribed limit. The appellant accelerated toward”

“nment sentence shall be enhanced in such circumstances, even though Parliament could easily have done so. One example where Parliament had done just that, as pointed out by Mr Koh, was in s 67 of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed), which provides that a person convicted of driving while under the influence of”

“The appellant, Pua Hung Jaan Jeffrey Nguyen (the “Appellant”), pleaded guilty to a single charge of driving while having excessive alcohol in his breath or blood under s 67(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) (the “RTA”, which expression also refers, where applicable, to the corresponding predecessor v”

“Criminal Law] — [Statutory offences] — [Road Traffic Act; Criminal Procedure and Sentencing] — [Appeal; Criminal Procedure and Sentencing] — [Sentencing] — [Principles”

“Criminal Law] – [Statutory Offences] – [Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (Cap 189, 2000 Rev Ed)] – [Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed)”

“of this conclusion, it is once again apt to refer to the decision of Sundaresh Menon CJ in Stansilas Fabian Kester ([27] supra). In that case, the appellant, who pleaded guilty to a charge under the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) for drunk driving, made highly similar arguments in mitigation, submitting that h”

“In Public Prosecutor v Aw Tai Hock [2017] 5 SLR 1141, the High Court stated (at [37]–[40]) that the factors that affect culpability for dangerous driving offences under s 64(1) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) would generally include:”

“was not a holder of any driving licence when he was driving the lorry, he faced a second proceeded charge (ie, MAC 903863/2016) under s 35(1) read with s 35(3) and punishable under s 131(2)(a) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) (the “RTA”) for driving without a licence. Moreover, the lorry had toppled onto”

“I held in PP v Koh Thiam Huat [2017] 4 SLR 1099 (“Koh Thiam Huat”) that an offence under the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) (“RTA”) (or its subsidiary legislation) which has been compounded can be taken into account for sentencing purposes, and I explained the rationale for doing so at [51]–[60] of”

“as completed serving his imprisonment sentence. The present appeal is the Prosecution’s appeal against the DJ’s refusal to impose a driving ban by way of a disqualification order under s 42(2) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) (“RTA”) in addition to the imprisonment term. This section on “Disqualification”

“ken in other offences which also criminalise the risk of harm as opposed to actual harm. In Stansilas Fabian Kester v Public Prosecutor [2017] 5 SLR 755 in the context of an offence under s 67 of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) (“RTA”), the court emphasised at [40] that the fact that an offender had caused”

“The appellant drove against the flow of traffic along the Ayer Rajah Expressway (“AYE”) on 5 January 2017. He pleaded guilty in the District Court to a charge under s 64(1) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) (“the RTA”), for driving in a manner which was dangerous to the public. Upon conviction, the Distric”

“easons thinks fit to order otherwise and without prejudice to the power of the court to order a longer period of disqualification) be disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence under the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276) for period of 12 months from the date of the conviction”. The general rule therefore, was tha”

“In Ng Hai Chong Brandon v Public Prosecutor [2019] SGHC 107 (“Brandon Ng”), the offender pleaded guilty to a charge under s 64(1) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed), for driving against the flow of traffic along the AYE from 1.26am to 1.28am, traversing about 2km at an average speed of 50km/h. Although traf”

“d only for more egregious instances of an offence (see, for instance, Public Prosecutor v Koh Thiam Huat [2017] 4 SLR 1099 at [63] in relation to the offence of dangerous driving under s 64(1) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed), and Public Prosecutor v Lim Yee Hua and another appeal [2018] 3 SLR 1106 in rel”

“nt measures to prevent an unknown person from driving a de-registered car that was stationed at the offender’s branch. Arising from his lax practices, the offender was charged and convicted under the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 1997 Rev Ed) (“RTA 1997”) for causing a vehicle to be used without a licence. In upholding hi”

“Criminal Law] — [Statutory offences] — [Road Traffic Act; Criminal Procedure and Sentencing] — [Compounding of offences; Criminal Procedure and Sentencing] — [Sentencing] — [Appeals”

“DSA does not stipulate the stratification. The statutes that the Judge referred to were ss 304, 304A, 323, 325, 337 and 338 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“Penal Code”), ss 64 to 66 of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed), s 57 of the Immigration Act (Cap 133, 2008 Rev Ed), s 83 of the Electricity Act”

“SSgt Tan and Sgt Suleiman respectively, with the intention to cause the police officers to omit to conduct investigations against Cheo for a potential offence of drink driving under s 67(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2008 Rev Ed) (“RTA”), which they ought not to omit if they knew the true state of facts.”

“r’s profits. The issue is not whether an offender’s expenses should be considered in all aspects of criminal sentencing. In certain contexts, such an inquiry would be inappropriate. For instance, the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) provides that for certain traffic offences, a conviction may lead to the vehicle”

“The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge under s 65(a) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) of:”

“Criminal Law] — [Statutory offences] — [Road Traffic Act; Criminal Law] — [Statutory offences] — [Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act”

“n question (see Yap Ah Lai at [24]). On this note, Menon CJ also observed in Edwin at [22] in relation to the sentencing benchmark he had set out for offences of drink-driving under s 67(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) that:”

“secutor v Koh Thiam Huat [2017] 4 SLR 1099 (“Koh Thiam Huat”) and Public Proseuctor v Ong Heng Chua and another appeal [2018] 5 SLR 388 (“Ong Heng Chua”), See Kee Onn J held that an offence under the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) (“RTA”) that has been compounded may be taken into account for sentencing purpos”

“Alzate was charged for drink driving under s 67(1)(b) read with s 67(2)(a) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) (“RTA”), as follows:”

“cant did not possess a valid driving licence at the material time. The applicant pleaded guilty to an offence of causing death by driving a motor vehicle on a road while unlicensed under s 3ZB of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Under the then prevailing law in R v Williams (Jason John) [2011] 1 WLR 588 (“Williams”), an offe”

“This is an appeal against the sentence imposed on the appellant, M Raveendran (“Raveendran”), for the offence of driving under the influence of drink pursuant to s 67(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) (“RTA”) (which for convenience, I refer to as “drink driving”). Raveendran also consented to one cha”

“This is an appeal against the sentence imposed on the appellant, Wu Zhi Yong (“Wu”), for the offences of driving under the influence of drink pursuant to s 67(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) (“RTA”) (which, for convenience, I refer to where appropriate as “drink driving”), and of reckless driving u”

“ponents that drive the machine”, but he did not explain what he meant by this. In any case, the LTA certificate made it clear that the inspection – which was carried out pursuant to section 90 of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) – had found the car in compliance with “the prescribed statutory requirements”.”

“order prevents an offender from holding or obtaining a driving licence for a specified period. The appellant, Mr Kwan Weiguang, pleaded guilty to one charge of dangerous driving under s 64(1) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) (“RTA”) punishable under s 64(2C)(a) of the RTA. The charge is as follows:”