A 46-year-old Australian Singapore permanent resident who drove while intoxicated and fatally struck a pedestrian at speeds of up to 122kmh is appealing against his 11-year jail sentence, seeking a significantly shorter term.
The man was sentenced on Feb. 2, 2026, after pleading guilty to dangerous driving causing death as a serious repeat-repeat offender and a separate charge of repeat drink driving. He was also fined S$12,000 and disqualified from driving for 15 years. His identity remains protected by a gag order because his two young children were also involved in the crash.
According to CNA, lawyers are now asking the court to impose between six years and four months and eight years’ jail. The prosecution, meanwhile, is seeking a tougher sentence of 12 years and nine months. It is not asking for changes to the existing fine or driving ban.
Crash on Dunearn Road
The incident happened on Apr. 23, 2023, after the man attended a birthday gathering with his two children. He consumed wine during the event and later drove them home shortly before 2pm.
Court documents stated that he had stayed awake the previous night to care for his newborn baby and felt lethargic. He had also taken cetirizine, an antihistamine, that morning after experiencing a runny nose and cough.
As he travelled along Dunearn Road towards Bukit Timah Road, the man approached the area near Tan Kah Kee MRT station. A 64-year-old Singaporean retiree was crossing the road after waiting for traffic to clear.
The driver failed to see the pedestrian and continued travelling at between 111kmh and 122kmh, despite the road having a 70kmh speed limit. The resulting collision was catastrophic, killing the retiree and breaking his body into three parts. The force of the impact also sent his torso and head through the windscreen and onto the driver’s lap.
His two children were also injured
The collision shattered both the front and rear windscreens of the vehicle. The man’s two children, who were aged three and four at the time, were injured and subsequently taken to hospital.
They suffered injuries including a scalp abrasion and abdominal pain. A separate dangerous-driving charge relating to the children was taken into consideration when the man was sentenced.
The driver subsequently failed a preliminary breath test. Blood testing later found 145 microgrammes of ethanol per 100ml of blood. The court also heard that this was not his first drink-driving offence.
In 2015, he had been convicted of careless driving and drink driving. In that earlier incident, he had driven while intoxicated and fallen asleep in a stationary vehicle before subsequently moving forward and hitting a police car.
Dispute over guilty plea discount
A major issue during the appeal hearing was whether the man should have received the full 30 per cent sentencing reduction for pleading guilty.
Singapore’s sentencing framework allows offenders who indicate their intention to plead guilty at an early stage to receive a discount of up to 30 per cent. The prosecution argued that the man only indicated his intention to plead guilty during Stage 2 rather than within the required Stage 1 period.
The defence argued that the man’s intention to plead guilty had effectively been understood earlier, although his lawyer acknowledged that it had not been expressly communicated before the relevant deadline.
The judge questioned why the man had not indicated his intention to plead guilty before a criminal case resolution session, particularly if he had already decided to accept responsibility.
Prosecution calls conduct selfish and irresponsible
The prosecution argued that the offender’s actions demonstrated a high level of culpability. He had consumed alcohol despite being tired, taken medication, driven with two young children in the vehicle and travelled at a speed substantially above the legal limit.
It also highlighted his previous drink-driving and traffic convictions, arguing that his latest offence represented an escalation in dangerous behaviour.
The defence, meanwhile, said the man was remorseful and had paid a five-figure sum to the victim’s family. His lawyers also argued that a longer prison sentence would have serious consequences for his wife and three children, particularly as he was the family’s main financial provider.
The prosecution countered that the seriousness of the offence should outweigh those personal circumstances. It described his driving as extremely dangerous and argued that the previous conviction should weigh heavily against him.
The appeal was adjourned after submissions were heard. His father stood bail for him while the court considers the arguments over his sentence.
The case highlights the severe legal consequences that can follow from drink driving, particularly when excessive speed, previous traffic offences and harm to other road users are involved.