SINGAPORE - A third-time drink-driving offender appealed against his lifetime driving ban, arguing that he was pressured to move his car after he was confronted by the irate owner of another car which was blocked by his vehicle.

This argument was rejected by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, who said making way for a car which the offender was blocking, even if proven, was not sufficient to constitute a special reason that justified the reduction of his disqualification.

Chief Justice Menon had dismissed Mr Lee Shin Nan’s appeal on Sept 21, upholding the sentence of eight weeks’ jail, a $10,000 fine and a lifetime driving ban imposed by a district judge.

The Chief Justice issued written grounds on Dec 18 to explain his decision and also to set out sentencing guidelines for repeat drink-driving offences.

“This dangerous and irresponsible decision to drive after consuming alcohol (and despite prior drink-driving convictions) could not be justified by a desire to avoid unpleasant encounters, especially where there was an abundance of alternative measures which Mr Lee could have taken before and during the encounter in question,” he said.

In 2019, the Road Traffic Act was amended to double the maximum punishment for motorists who drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Repeat offenders previously faced a fine of between $3,000 and $10,000 and up to one year in jail. They now face a fine of between $5,000 and $20,000 and up to two years’ jail.

Third-time offenders also face a lifelong driving ban by default, unless the court “for special reasons thinks fit to order a shorter period of disqualification”.

Chief Justice Menon said special reasons will generally be found only if the court is satisfied that it was necessary to drive in order to “avoid other likely and serious harm or danger” and that there was no reasonable alternative way to achieve this end.

Mr Lee, 45, was first convicted of drink driving in 2009. He was fined $2,800 and banned from driving for two years.

In 2012, he was given two weeks’ jail and a $4,000 fine for his second conviction. He was also banned from driving for four years.

On the night of June 25, 2022, Mr Lee had four glasses of beer at a coffee shop along Serangoon Road.

Around midnight, he received a call from an unidentified person asking that he move his vehicle. He then decided to drive to the nearest carpark. While he was driving along Petain Road, he was stopped at a police roadblock and arrested after failing a breathalyser test.

A subsequent test at the Traffic Police Headquarters found 89 micrograms (mcg) of alcohol per 100ml of breath. This was well in excess of the prescribed limit of 35mcg per 100ml of breath.

On March 16, 2023, he pleaded guilty to a charge of drink driving and was sentenced to eight weeks’ jail and a $10,000 fine. He was also disqualified from driving for life.

Mr Lee then appealed to the High Court.

He also tried to submit further evidence that on the night in question, he had planned to engage a valet to drive him home, but was left with no choice but to drive.

He also tried to submit evidence that a friend of his had driven past him and had seen him looking shaken and anxious. This was to support his account that he felt afraid after being confronted.

His lawyer, Mr Vijay Kumar, argued that the disqualification order should be set aside because Mr Lee had been compelled to move his car to avoid a confrontation with the stranger whose car he had blocked.

But the Chief Justice said once the alleged confrontation occurred, Mr Lee could have called his valet on the spot, or asked the friend whom he alleged to have met for help, or asked the stranger to help him to shift his car, or just exited the scene.

Chief Justice Menon also set out a framework comprising four sentencing bands for the fine and disqualification period to be imposed based on the repeat offender’s alcohol level.

For example, a repeat offender with more than 90 mcg of alcohol per 100 ml of breath faces an indicative fine of between $14,000 and $17,500, and disqualification of at least eight years.

This would then be calibrated to account for the repeated offending behaviour, the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and the need for deterrence. The final adjustment would be to determine the jail term – which is mandatory for repeat offenders – based on the seriousness of the offence.