S'pore PR, 46, who drove while intoxicated & fatally hit pedestrian, severing body into 3 parts, appeals for lighter sentence

A man, who drove under the influence of alcohol with his two young children in his vehicle and fatally struck a pedestrian at high speed, is appealing for a lighter sentence.

The 46-year-old Australian, a Singapore permanent resident, was previously sentenced to 11 years' jail on Feb. 2, 2026.

According to a report by CNA, the man's lawyers are seeking a reduced sentence of six years and four months to eight years' jail.

The prosecution, however, is asking for the sentence to be increased to 12 years and nine months' jail.

It is not seeking changes to the existing S$12,000 fine or 15-year driving ban.

The man previously pleaded guilty to one charge of dangerous driving causing death as a "serious repeat-repeat offender", and one charge of repeat drink driving.

A third charge for dangerous driving involving his children was taken into consideration during sentencing.

He cannot be named due to a gag order protecting the identities of his two children, who were aged three and four at the time of the incident and were victims of the crash.

The case

Court documents seen by Mothership showed that on Apr. 23, 2023, the man attended a birthday party with his two children, where he consumed a few glasses of wine.

His last drink was at about 1:30pm.

Shortly before 2pm, he placed his children in booster seats in the back of his car and drove off.

He was said to be "lethargic" after staying up the previous night to care for his newborn baby.

He had also taken the antihistamine cetirizine that morning for a runny nose and cough.

While driving along Dunearn Road towards Bukit Timah Road, he approached the overhead bridge near Tan Kah Kee MRT station.

He failed to notice a 64-year-old Singaporean retiree crossing the road towards Bukit Timah Canal and crashed into him at a speed of between 111kmh and 122kmh.

The road had a speed limit of 70kmh.

The impact was so severe that the victim's body was severed into three parts.

His torso and head crashed through the windscreen and landed on the driver's lap.

Both the front and rear windscreens were shattered, and the man's two children were injured.

The children were later taken to the hospital with a scalp abrasion and abdominal pain.

Arguments over guilty plea sentencing discount

According to CNA, a key issue was whether the lower court had wrongly granted the man the full 30 per cent sentencing discount for his guilty plea.

Under Singapore's sentencing guidelines, offenders who indicate their intention to plead guilty during Stage 1 of proceedings may receive up to a 30 per cent reduction in their sentence.

Stage 1 runs from the first mention of the case until 12 weeks after the prosecution informs both the court and the accused that the case is ready for a plea to be taken.

At the appeal hearing on Aug. 11, 2026, the prosecution argued that the full discount had been granted in error as the offender indicated his intention to plead guilty only during Stage 2 of the process.

Stage 2 begins after Stage 1 and lasts until the court gives directions for the filing of the prosecution's case, or, in cases not subject to criminal case disclosure procedures, until trial dates are fixed.

The defence urged the court not to change the 30 per cent discount.

One of the man's lawyers argued that it had always been understood his client intended to plead guilty, though he acknowledged this had not been expressly communicated before a certain date.

The judge also questioned both parties on the purpose of a criminal case resolution (CCR) session, asking whether it was intended to resolve issues of liability or sentencing.

After hearing submissions, he concluded that the CCR was not intended to determine liability.

The defence counsel said his client had sought guidance on the likely sentencing range during the CCR before formally indicating his intention to plead guilty.

The judge questioned why the offender did not signal his intention to plead guilty before the CCR, observing that the key factor in securing the discount was the indication of that intention, rather than the formal plea itself.

He suggested it could appear as if the offender had withheld his indication until he had greater clarity on the likely sentence.

In response, the man's lawyer said the decision carried significant consequences for his client's career and family, and he needed time to consider it carefully.

The judge also asked if there were any road traffic case where abuse of trust came into play, referring to the relationship between the offender and his children in his vehicle.

While neither the defence nor prosecution was aware of a directly comparable case, the prosecution argued that abuse of trust could apply.

The defence submitted that the man was genuinely remorseful and wanted to do the right thing, adding that he had paid a five-figure sum to the victim's family.

His lawyer further argued that a longer sentence would not only punish the offender, but would also have a profound impact on his wife and three children, as he would be unable to provide for the family or watch his children grow up.

The prosecution, however, maintained that the offender did not qualify for the full guilty plea discount as he failed to indicate his intention to plead guilty during Stage 1, as required under the guidelines.

It described his conduct as selfish and irresponsible, arguing that he chose to consume alcohol despite being tired before driving home with his young children while intoxicated.

The prosecution also pointed to his excessive speed, saying he drove at "wildly dangerous" speeds on a road with moderate traffic.

It further noted that this was not his first drink-driving or speeding-related offence.

The man had been convicted in 2015 of careless driving and drink driving.

The appeal was adjourned, and the man's father stood bail for him.