Skip to main content
A Singapore Government Agency Website How to identify
Official website links end with .gov.sg
Secure websites use HTTPS
Look for a lock () or https:// as an added precaution. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.
Government officials will NEVER ask you to transfer money or disclose bank log-in details over a phone call.

Call the 24/7 ScamShield Helpline at 1799 if you are unsure if something is a scam. For more information, visit www.scamshield.gov.sg (opens in new tab). 

Public Defender's Office

When Disqualification Period Should Commence for Drink-driving Offences Under the Road Traffic Act: Ng Soon Kiat v Public Prosecutor [2026] SGCA 3

By Ronald Soh, Senior Executive (Criminal Defence)

Last updated 22 September 2026

1.                  The appellant faced multiple charges: drug trafficking, rioting, and drink driving. For the drink driving charge, the appellant drove a van along the Pan Island Expressway after consuming about five bottles of Heineken beer from 8.30pm to 11.00pm. The van veered across lanes on Clementi Avenue 6 before mounting a kerb and stopping at a bus stop. When Traffic Police officers arrived, the appellant falsely claimed that a valet had driven the van and abandoned him. A breath test conducted at 5.41am showed 65 microgrammes of alcohol per 100ml of breath, nearly double the prescribed limit of 35 microgrammes. Significantly, the appellant committed the drink driving offence while on bail for the rioting charge, and subsequently committed the drug trafficking offence while on bail for the drink driving charge.

2.                  The High Court sentenced the offender to 13 years' imprisonment and 10 strokes for the drug trafficking charge, 18 months' imprisonment and 3 strokes for the rioting charge, and a $6,000 fine (in default 2 weeks’ imprisonment) with 34 months' disqualification under s 67(2) Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) (“RTA”) for the drink driving charge. The disqualification period was ordered to commence upon his release from prison.

3.                  On appeal, the appellant challenged, amongst others, that the 34-month disqualification period should commence from his conviction date rather than his prison release date.

4.                  The appeal on when his disqualification period should commence was allowed. The Court of Appeal held that the disqualification period ordered under s 67(2) of the RTA is to commence on the date of conviction.

5.                  The Court of Appeal at [70] held that the statutory language of s 67(2) was unambiguous. The provision states that disqualification commences on release from prison only "where the person is sentenced to imprisonment" under s 67(1) itself. The court emphasised that the words "a court convicting a person for an offence under this section" clearly referred to s 67(1) offences only. Where only fine was imposed for the s 67(1) RTA offence, the disqualification period must commence on the date of conviction unless special reasons apply. It is not relevant that the offender is sentenced to imprisonment terms for other offences.

6.                  The Court of Appeal at [73] accordingly ordered that the appellant's disqualification period commence on his conviction date rather than upon his release from prison.