Driving while under Influence of Drink or Drugs - Road Traffic Act (Chapter 276)
67 - 1) Any person who, when driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle on a road or other public place —
- is unfit to drive in that he is under the influence of drink or of a drug or an intoxicating substance to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of such vehicle; or
- has so much alcohol in his body that the proportion of it in his breath or blood exceeds the prescribed limit, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine of not less than $1,000 and not more than $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months and, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, to a fine of not less than $3,000 and not more than $10,000 and to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months.
2) A person convicted of an offence under this section shall, unless the court for special reasons thinks fit to order otherwise and without prejudice to the power of the court to order a longer period of disqualification, be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for a period of not less than 12 months from the date of his conviction or, where he is sentenced to imprisonment, from the date of his release from prison.
3) Any police officer may arrest without warrant any person committing an offence under this section.
|Current Sentencing Guidelines|
|Edwin s/o Suse Nathen v Public Prosecutor  4 SLR 1139||Overarching principles||Sundaresh Menon CJ laid down the following:
A first offender under s 67 was subject to two separate components of punishment – a fine or imprisonment under s 67(1) and mandatory disqualification from holding or obtaining a driving license for a period of at least 12 months under s 67(2), unless the court was satisfied that there were special reasons to order otherwise.
In determining sentence, 2-step approach adopted by the court:
$1,000 to $2,000 in fines, and a driving ban of 12 to 18 months for offenders between 35 and 54 ug;
$2,000 and $3,000 and 18 to 24 months for offenders with 55-69ug
$3,000 to $4,000 and 24 to 36 months for offenders with 70-89ug
More than $4,000 and 36 to 48 months or longer for those with at least 90ug
Accused tried to invoke special reasons to against disqualification order, stating that “Being disqualified ‘could turn out drastic’ for the Accused as his driving licence is important for the conduct of his business, his livelihood and source of income for the Accused and his family. With the said disqualification, his income would be severely affected. Further, it is already a severe punishment not only for the Accused but for his family as well.”
Court nonetheless ordered a disqualification of 21 months (falling within the appropriate sentencing band).
|Stansilas Fabian Kester v Public Prosecutor  5 SLR 755;  SGHC 185||
2-step test affirmed in recent case.
Court further explained that the accused’s public service and contributions will only be a mitigating factor if it can be shown that the sentencing objectives (retribution, prevention, deterrence, rehabilitation) can be satisfied despite the lighter sentence. For example – his good character is indicative of his capacity to reform and it tempers the concern over specific deterrence of the offender, or that his past record is indicative of a connection between his record and his capacity/willingness for reform.
|Tang Ling Lee v Public Prosecutor  4 SLR 813;  SGHC 18||
2-step test affirmed in recent case.
Court gave examples of mitigating factors:
However, the court further highlighted that an appropriate period of disqualification should be ordered.
|Public Prosecutor v Solomon Seah  SGDC 106||The court granted disqualification order despite the fact that it may have an adverse impact on the accused’s ability to fulfil his responsibilities, which would in turn, cost him his job.|