Amazi bin Hawasi v Public Prosecutor
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Judge | Chan Sek Keong CJ |
Judgment Date | 10 August 2012 |
Neutral Citation | [2012] SGHC 164 |
Citation | [2012] SGHC 164 |
Defendant Counsel | Paul Ong Min-Tse as amicus curiae.,Tan Ken Hwee, Andre Jumabhoy, Kwek Chin Yong, Seraphina Fong and Jeremy Yeo Shenglong (Attorney-General's Chambers) |
Published date | 04 September 2012 |
Plaintiff Counsel | S K Kumar (S K Kumar Law Practice LLP) |
Hearing Date | 08 May 2012 |
Docket Number | Special Case No 2 of 2012 |
Date | 2012 |
Subject Matter | Judicial power,Constitutional Law,Sentencing,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Legislature,Equal protection of the law,Criminal Law,Executive,Statutory offences,Misuse of Drugs Act |
On 28 September 2011, Amazi bin Hawasi (“the Petitioner”) was charged under s 8(
Prior to the commission of the aforesaid offences, the Petitioner had been convicted on 18 May 1998 and 2 January 2003 of the consumption of, respectively, morphine and cannabinol derivatives, both of which were then classified as “controlled” drugs. He was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment upon the first conviction and eight years’ corrective training upon the second conviction (these two convictions will hereafter be referred to collectively as “the Petitioner’s previous convictions”).
Prior to 20 July 1998, every proscribed drug under the then equivalent of the MDA (
Section 33A of the MDA (1997 Rev Ed), which is now s 33A of the MDA, was introduced via the 1998 Amendment Act to provide for “long-term imprisonment and caning for hardcore drug addicts” (see
Punishment for repeat consumption of specified drugs 33A. —(1) Where a person who has had not less than —…- 2 previous convictions for consumption of a specified drug under section 8(
b );…is convicted of an offence under section 8(
b ) for consumption of a specified drug or an offence of failure to provide a urine sample under section 31(2), he shall on conviction be punished with —- imprisonment for a term of not less than 5 years and not more than 7 years; and
- not less than 3 strokes and not more than 6 strokes of the cane.
…
shall be deemed to be a previous conviction for consumption of a specified drug under section 8(
b );…
As the Petitioner’s previous convictions occurred after 1 October 1992, they were deemed to be convictions for consumption of “specified” drugs under s 33A(5)(
Prior to being sentenced, the Petitioner raised the issue of the constitutionality of s 33A(5)(
On 22 February 2012, the District Court referred the following question of law (“the Stated Question”) for the High Court’s determination:
Does section 33A(5)(a) of the [MDA] violate the separation of powers embodied in the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed) in deeming a previous conviction for consumption of a controlled drug as a conviction for consumption of a specified drug, and thereby requiring the court to impose a mandatory minimum sentence as prescribed in section 33A(1) of the MDA?
Although the Stated Question referred only to s 33A(5)(
Although there is no express deeming clause in s 33A(5)(“admission” means an admission under section 34(2) to [a DRC] at —
- any time on or after 1st October 1992 but before the relevant date [as defined in s 33A(5)(
d ) (reproduced earlier at [4] above)] for the consumption of a controlled drug which, on the date of any subsequent conviction, is specified in the Fourth Schedule; or- any time on or after the relevant date for the consumption of a specified drug …
At the conclusion of the hearing of this Special Case, I answered the Stated Question in the negative,
The Petitioner argued that the impugned MDA deeming provisions violated the principle of separation of powers as they had the effect of changing the character of previous convictions and previous DRC admissions for consumption of
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mohammad Faizal bin Sabtu v Public Prosecutor
...2012 (“Special Case No 1”)) and Special Case No 2 of 2012 (see the companion grounds of decision in Amazi bin Hawasi v Public Prosecutor [2012] SGHC 164) state two separate questions of law for the court’s determination as to the constitutionality of certain provisions in s 33A of the Misus......
-
Mohammad Faizal bin Sabtu v Public Prosecutor
...2012 (“Special Case No 1”)) and Special Case No 2 of 2012 (see the companion grounds of decision in Amazi bin Hawasi v Public Prosecutor [2012] SGHC 164) state two separate questions of law for the court’s determination as to the constitutionality of certain provisions in s 33A of the Misus......
-
Amazi bin Hawasi v PP
...bin Hawasi Plaintiff and Public Prosecutor Defendant [2012] SGHC 164 Chan Sek Keong CJ Special Case No 2 of 2012 High Court Constitutional Law—Constitution—Separation of powers—Whether deeming provisions in ss 33 A (5) (a) and 33 A (5) (c) Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) violated......
-
Public Prosecutor v Pereira Arthur
...LT charges were constitutionally valid (see Mohammad Faizal bin Sabtu v PP [2012] SGHC 163 and a related case, Amazi bin Hawasi v PP [2012] SGHC 164). However, counsel applied by way of motion for leave to refer the constitutional point to the Court of Appeal. Pending his application for le......
-
PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION AND THE LEGAL LIMITS IN SINGAPORE
...(Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed): see Mohammad Faizal bin Sabtu v Public Prosecutor[2012] SGHC 163 at [46]; Amazi bin Hawasi v Public Prosecutor[2012] SGHC 164 at [17]. 77 Lim Keng Chia v Public Prosecutor [1998] 1 SLR(R) 1. The court, based on a perusal of the parliamentary debates, decided that Par......