Bhavashbhai s/o Baboobhai v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 17 March 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] SGHC 46
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Criminal Revision No 9 of 2013
• Year: 2014
• Published date: 20 March 2014
• Hearing Date: 04 September 2013,11 September 2013,12 July 2013
• Plaintiff Counsel: Udeh Kumar s/o Sethuraju (S K Kumar Law Practice LLP)
• Defendant Counsel: Anandan Bala and Joshua Lai (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Statutory offences,Misuse of Drugs Act,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Revision of proceedings
• Citation: [2014] SGHC 46

Choo Han Teck J:

The applicant in this Criminal Revision was charged in DAC 28580 of 2012 and was tried on 3 July 2013. The charge was for an offence under s 8(b)(ii) read with s 33A(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“the Act”), namely, for the consumption of morphine. The charge under DAC 28580 of 2012 is one known as an “LT-2” charge. “LT” is the acronym for “long term”.

A person can only be convicted of an LT-2 offence if he had previously been convicted of an LT offence, which is referred to as the “LT-1” offence. A person can be convicted of an LT-1 offence under s 33A(1)(d) of the Act if he has not less than one previous admission, as defined in s 33A(5)(c) of the Act, and one previous conviction for consumption of a specified drug under s 8(b) of the Act. The terms LT-1 and LT-2 are not legislated terms but descriptions of convenience used by lawyers and the courts.

The applicant’s trial in the court below was stayed on account of this application made on his behalf by his counsel, Mr Udeh Kumar (“Mr Kumar”). I was informed that the trial was at the stage when the defence had been called and the applicant had elected to remain silent, and the court was adjourned for final submissions to be made. Mr Kumar contended that the LT-2 charge, on which the applicant was being tried in the court below, was wrong because the applicant’s previous LT-1 conviction in 2008 was erroneous. Mr Kumar alleged that this was because the applicant’s LT-1 conviction in 2008 was premised on a previous conviction for consumption of a controlled drug, morphine, under s 8(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 1998 Rev Ed) in 2000. The previous conviction did not qualify as one of the previous convictions that would trigger an LT-1 offence under s 33A(1)(d). This application was thus made so that this court may exercise its revisionary powers and quash the LT-1 conviction in 2008 or amend the conviction in 2008 such that it would not qualify as an LT-1 conviction.

In passing, I should point out that when I use the term “amend the conviction”, I refer to the procedure of framing an altered charge and convicting the applicant accordingly. The relevant procedure is that set out in ss 256 and 269 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed). Those are broader provisions than the equivalent provisions found in the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed), namely, ss 390(4)–(8) and s 401(2). The Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) applied at the time the applicant was convicted in 2008. However, the difference in wording between the provisions of the two codes was not material to my decision here.

Counsel for prosecution and defence both referred me to my previous decision in PP v Shaik...