DUI: Here are the Penalties for Drink-Driving in Singapore

The number of drink-driving cases in Singapore has been rising tremendously. In 2023, the number of drink-driving violations increased from 1,517 in 2020 to 1,659, which is an increase of 142 cases. The number of drink-driving accidents also increased from 146 cases in 2020 to 180 cases in 2023, which is an increase of 34 accidents.

Before you add yourself to this statistical data owing to a moment of high or convenience, pay close attention to the laws on drink-driving in Singapore and their corresponding penalties.

What is the Offence of Drink-Driving in Singapore?

You are guilty of drink-driving under section 67 of the Road Traffic Act (RTA) if you:

1. Are unfit to drive under the influence of alcohol to the extent you are incapable of having proper control of the vehicle; or
2. Exceed the legal alcohol limit

Under drink-driving laws in Singapore, the legal alcohol limit is 35 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, or 80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. Police officers can require you to provide a breath specimen for a preliminary breath test. If you refuse to comply, you can be arrested without a warrant.

What are the Maximum Penalties for Drink-Driving in Singapore?

If you are convicted of drink-driving, you are liable to a fine of between $2,000 and $10,000 and/or up to 1 year’s jail for a first-time offence. Repeat offenders face fines of between $5,000 and $20,000 and up to 2 years’ jail.

Offenders will also be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for at least 2 years (or at least 5 years for repeat offenders). This is unless the court has special reasons to order a shorter period of disqualification (or no disqualification at all). The period of disqualification may also be even longer if the offender has also been convicted of dangerous driving or careless driving.

How is the Sentence for Drink-Drivers Decided?

For first-time drink-driving offenders

When deciding the appropriate sentence for a driver convicted of drink-driving, the court will consider the following two factors:

1. The nature and degree of actual/potential harm that has resulted from the offence
2. The offender’s culpability for the offence

Nature and degree of actual/potential harm resulting from the offence

In cases where no personal or property harm has occurred, the following sentencing framework is applied for first-time offenders: 

Table 1: Rafael Voltaire Framework

The above table only provides neutral starting points and adjustments to the sentences suggested in the table can be made having regard to the presence of any aggravating or mitigating circumstances. If aggravating factors are present, there might be an imprisonment term.

In cases where any kind of harm is involved, the court will first look at the form and degree of harm that had resulted from the offence. There are 4 categories of harm:

Table 2: Stansilas Framework on level of harm

Culpability of the offender

The court will then assess the culpability of the offender, which consists of:

• The extent of which the offender’s alcohol level exceeds the prescribed limit
• The manner of the offender’s driving

Table 3: Stansilas Framework on culpability

Sentencing matrix

Imprisonment term taking into consideration both the nature and degree of actual/potential harm that has resulted from the offence, and the culpability of the culprit:

Table 4: Stansilas Framework on sentencing

Case Study: Public Prosecutor (PP) v Osman Budak

In PP vs Osman Budak, the accused was drinking at his friend’s house and drove home in the middle of the night. On the way home, his car crashed into the rear of a stationary lorry. The police arrived at the scene and noticed that the accused looked intoxicated. The accused admitted to drinking and took a breathalyser test.

At the police station, the accused took another test called a Breath Analysing Device (BAD). It revealed that the proportion of alcohol in the accused’s breath was 73 microgrammes for every 100 millilitres of breath, which was more than 2 times the prescribed legal limit of 35 microgrammes of alcohol for every 100 millilitres of breath.

The court held that:

• The harm caused belongs in the slight category (refer to Table 2) as there was only slight property damage caused to the lorry owner and the accused readily compensated him.
• The culpability of the accused belongs in the medium category (refer to table 3) because the alcohol level found in him belongs in the second highest tier prescribed in Table 1. An offender who exceeds the prescribed alcohol limit is unarguably assumed to be incapable of having proper control over his vehicle. By colliding into the stationary lorry (which he could have easily avoided if he was not drink-driving), he exhibited dangerous driving behaviour and proved that he is unable to properly control his vehicle. 
• Having low alcohol metabolism due to surgery or any idiosyncrasy is not a mitigating factor as it would be far too easy for many offenders convicted of drink-driving to run this argument and receive a reduced sentence. 
• Referring to table 4, the court found that with the harm caused and the culpability of the accused being categorised as slight and medium respectively, the term of imprisonment should be up to 2 months. In this case, the harm caused and the culpability are considered aggravating factors.
• However, due to the mitigating factor in this case which was the accused’s remorsefulness – evidenced in how he had made full restitution of $6,032 for the harm caused, pleaded guilty and was cooperative during police investigations – the court imposed a lighter penalty.

The accused was sentenced to 1 week’s imprisonment and disqualified from driving for 3 years for the drink-driving offence. 

For repeat drink-driving offenders

In cases where no personal or property harm has occurred, the following sentencing framework is applied for repeat offenders:

Table 5: Repeat Offences Framework for fine and disqualification

Do note that the overall sentence for repeat offenders will include a fine, a disqualification period and a term of imprisonment. A term of imprisonment is mandatory for repeat offenders, unlike for first-time offenders where a term of imprisonment is given at the discretion of the court. For those with two prior convictions, the default disqualification period from driving is for life. 

When adjusting the sentence for fine and disqualification from driving, the court will take into consideration two factors:

1. The actual quantity of alcohol within the alcohol level bands; and  
2. The circumstances pertaining to the repetition of the offending behaviour. For example:

• The longer the interval between the last conviction and the current one, the less this will weigh as an aggravating factor;
• The more the number of previous similar offences committed, the more aggravating this factor will be;
• If with each repeat offence, there is an increasing trend in alcohol consumption, this will be a key factor in deciding to increase the sentence; and
• If with each repeat offence, there is a growing danger to the public, this will also be another key factor in deciding to increase the sentence.

Further adjustments to the fine and disqualification period may be made on account of aggravating and mitigating factors. For example, the speed at which the offender was driving, and remorse or lack thereof. 

When determining the term of imprisonment for repeat offenders, these factors are taken into consideration by the court: 

• The manner and circumstances of driving and road conditions;
• The nature and number of relevant past offences;
• The recency of relevant past offences; and
• The actual and potential danger posed to others.

Table 6: Repeat Offences Framework for imprisonment

If zero – two factors mentioned above are involved, the offence is considered “serious”. If there are two – three factors (or there are fewer factors but these are more severe), the offence is “more serious”. If all factors are present or most are severe, the offence is “most serious”.

Examples of Drink-Driving Mitigating Factors That are Invalid in Court Include:

• “I had drank only a little”
• “It was only a short distance”
• “I did not cause any damage”

What are the Defences to a Drink-Driving Offence in Singapore?

Under section 71A of the RTA, the accused will be not be guilty of drink-driving if he can prove that he had consumed alcohol only after he had stopped driving or stopped attempting to drive.

Another defence is to contest the results of the BEA (Breath Evidential Analyser), which is the second test an offender takes after failing the initial breathalyser test. The offender will have to prove through expert evidence that:

• The inhalant or medication he took skewed the breathalyser’s results (Note that driving under the influence of medication can be an offence)
• The BEA machine was poorly maintained, calibrated or malfunctioning.

Yet, an issue with this is that the trial might come months or even years after the arrest, and the machine might have been calibrated or repaired since.

__

Drink-driving has real and serious consequences both on yourself and others. It is always best to err on the side of caution and deliberately plan beforehand to ensure you will not drink and drive.

For example, you can engage valet services such as iDrive or arrange alternative transport arrangements. It is also a criminal offence to be in charge of a vehicle while drunk under section 68 of the RTA, even if you are not driving it.

One wrong decision is all it takes. Don’t drink and drive.