Dinesh Singh Bhatia s/o Amarjeet Singh v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: V K Rajah J
• Judgment Date: 05 April 2005
• Neutral Citation: [2005] SGHC 63
• Citation: [2005] SGHC 63
• Date: 05 April 2005
• Published date: 06 April 2005
• Plaintiff Counsel: K Shanmugam SC and Ganga Avadiar (Allen and Gledhill)
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 10 of 2005
• Defendant Counsel: Han Ming Kuang (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Year: 2005

5 April 2005

V K Rajah J:

1 On 19 January 2005, appearing before a district court, Dinesh Singh Bhatia s/o Amarjeet Singh (“the Appellant”), 35 years of age, pleaded guilty to a charge of consumption of a Class A controlled drug, “Benzoylecgonine”, on 7 October 2004 in Singapore. This drug is more commonly known as cocaine. He also admitted committing another offence of consumption relating to yet another Class A controlled drug, “a-Methyl-3, 4-(methylenedioxy) penethylamine”, on the same occasion. The Appellant consented to have the second charge taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing.

2 On 1 February 2005, the Appellant was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment by the district court. He now appeals against that sentence. Counsel for the Appellant, Mr K Shanmugam SC, contends that in the light of the Appellant’s background and his solitary act of drug consumption, only a fine should have been imposed on the Appellant. The sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment, it is argued, is manifestly excessive. The Prosecution, however, maintains that the district judge correctly applied the current sentencing guidelines and that his decision should not be disturbed.

Factual matrix

3 Mariana bte Abdullah (“Mariana”) was the Appellant’s girlfriend for about 15 months, from September 2000 until the beginning of 2002. At that point, soon after the Appellant’s business venture failed, they ended their relationship, parting as friends.

4 Subsequently, Mariana began a relationship with Guiga Lyes Ben Laroussi (“Laroussi”).

5 In or around February 2002, the Appellant met Katarina, who later became his fiancée. In June 2004, their daughter was born. Around the third week of August 2004, the Appellant and Katarina brought their baby daughter to Sweden for a holiday to visit Katarina’s family, also seeking their blessing for the couple to get married. They had planned to get married shortly thereafter. Katarina decided to remain in Sweden a little longer to allow her parents to spend more time with the baby, while the Appellant returned to work in Singapore on or about 17 September 2004.

6 Even after the Appellant met Katarina, he and Mariana continued to keep in touch with each other through phone calls from time to time. It bears mention that prior to the incident on 7 October 2004, the Appellant had no knowledge or reason to believe that Laroussi was trafficking drugs or that he had introduced drugs to Mariana. On 20 September 2004, Mariana called the Appellant on his mobile phone and suggested that they meet. The Appellant agreed to do so when it was convenient. This telephone call was the precursor to a series of unfortunate events precipitating the charges on which the Appellant has now been convicted.

7 On the night of 6 October 2004, at some point after 9.00pm, the Appellant received an invitation to join friends at a club in Havelock Road for drinks. Without consuming any dinner, he joined his friends at around 10.00pm. The Appellant then consumed a few glasses of whiskey mixed with Coca-Cola between approximately 10.00pm and 1.00am.

8 At about 1.00am on 7 October 2004, as the Appellant and his friends were about to leave the club, he called Mariana on her mobile phone number. Laroussi answered the call. The Appellant enquired about Mariana. Laroussi informed him that Mariana was with him and that they were staying at Hotel 81 at Balestier Road (“the hotel”). Laroussi then invited the Appellant to join them for a drink.

9 The Appellant accepted the invitation to meet them at the hotel. On the way to the hotel, the Appellant received a call from Laroussi. He informed the Appellant that they were short of beer and requested that the Appellant obtain some from a “7-Eleven” store near the hotel. The Appellant duly stopped at the “7-Eleven” store and bought a pack (six cans) of cold beer.

10 It is pertinent to mention at this juncture that the Prosecution does not challenge the Appellant’s evidence that he did not go to the hotel with the intention of consuming drugs.

11 The threesome drank beer and chatted. This consisted generally of small talk, the details of which the Appellant does not now recollect save that Mariana enquired about his daughter and his recent trip to Sweden. The Appellant also remembers asking Mariana and Laroussi if they would be getting married. The Appellant consumed two cans of beer with them and stayed for over an hour.

12 Towards the end of the visit, the Appellant recalls, Laroussi suddenly offered him some drugs. This offer was entirely unsolicited. Laroussi intimated that the Appellant was looking tired and asked him to take the drugs, as they would make him “feel good”. The Appellant impulsively consumed some of the drugs he was offered. Shortly afterwards, he headed home. The amount of drugs he had consumed apparently did not impair his ability to find his way back home. He does not recall either Laroussi or Mariana consuming any substance in his presence during his visit.

13 At about 5.00pm on 7 October 2004, the Appellant was arrested at his residence by officers from the Central Narcotics Bureau. Laroussi has been charged with drug trafficking but he subsequently absconded while on bail. Mariana has recently been convicted for the consumption of drugs. A number of others who also obtained cocaine from Laroussi have been charged similarly and convicted for the consumption of cocaine. In this judgment, I refer to these cases collectively as the “Laroussi cluster of cases”; see [43] to [51].

Cocaine – the “most lethal drug of the 1980s”

14 An article published in the May 1985 issue of Criminal Law Review (see Patrick Bucknell, “Notes on Some Controlled Drugs” [1985] Crim LR 260 at 265), contains some pertinent and instructive observations on the usage of cocaine and its detrimental effects:

Cocaine is usually used in the form of cocaine hydrochloride. A natural alkaloid extracted from leaves of the coca shrub grown in Bolivia, Peru and Columbia, taking the form of a white powder looking like fresh snow. Cultivation and [manufacture] has increased dramatically in the last decade. The Indians living and working at high altitudes traditionally chewed the leaves to enable them to work for longer periods without food or rest. In 1858 a process was discovered for extracting the alkaloid. …

Effect — potentiates adrenaline; a small quantity induces happiness and an abundance of energy. The appetite is depressed. It is said to act as a sexual stimulant. Large doses induce excessive self-confidence and hallucinations. The effect lasts one to two hours and is followed by depression. It causes psychic dependence but does not lead to withdrawal symptoms. (Cocaine can be used as a surface anaesthetic). Cocaine acts by preventing the removal of adrenalin from its site of action. Blood pressure is raised and the action of the heart may become irregular – which is why injections and “freebasing” can be fatal.

Prolonged ingestion by sniffing is said to damage the nasal tissues. Abuse has been said to lead to sleeplessness, mental disturbance, stomach disorder and emaciation. Regular users complain of a feeling as if insects were creeping below their skin.

…

Cocaine is occasionally mixed with heroin to produce a “speedball” for intravenous injection in which the subject enjoys the euphoria induced by heroin without the narcotic effect.

[emphasis added]

15 In R v Martinez, The Times 24 November 1984, Lord Lane CJ made certain trenchant observations on the usage of cocaine:

Some of the different ways of taking cocaine were more dangerous than others. They could result in an enormous craving for the drug and the addict tended to become compulsive and less able to control the amounts of the drug used. In addition to the psychological dependency resulting from the drug there was no doubt that its abuse resulted in a very serious physical addiction.

Withdrawal symptoms were commonplace. It could also cause psychosis in the shape of a feeling of persecution, which might have extremely dangerous consequences. One expert had stated “the bad or dangerous effects make cocaine potentially the most lethal drug of the 1980s”.

[emphasis added]

16 In the light of cocaine’s severely pernicious effects and the lethal nature of its addictive potency, the courts in England and Hong Kong in the 1980s unhesitatingly assigned cocaine-related offences “to the upper hard end of the scale”; see Attorney General v Leung Pang-chiu [1986] HKLR 608 at 611 (Hong Kong Court of Appeal); and also R v Atkins (1981) 3 Cr App R (S) 257, R v Ross (1981) 3 Cr App R (S) 291 and R v Davies [1983] Crim LR 46 (all decisions of the English Court of Criminal Appeal).

17 There can be no doubt that while the reported abuse of cocaine in Singapore to date indicates that the Laroussi cluster of cases (see [43] to [51]) is a new development rather than part of an established pattern, its usage cannot be countenanced or tolerated in any measure whatsoever. Other jurisdictions have come down hard on its consumption and for good reason – its potency and addictive allure have caused untold misery. It is noteworthy that the Hong Kong Court of Appeal in 1986, per Cons JA in Attorney General v Leung Pang-chiu at 611, pointedly declared:

It is better to eradicate a bad habit before rather than after it has taken a firm hold. Cocaine has made a start in this territory, appropriate sentences are necessary to nip the process in the bud.

18 The need for deterrent sentencing in connection with cocaine-related offences is both axiomatic and compelling. A permissive culture of cocaine consumption cannot be allowed to take root in Singapore. Any existing consumers of cocaine must be uncompromisingly weeded out and adequately punished. It follows that cocaine-related offences must invariably attract a custodial sentence. A mere fine would be wholly inappropriate even for first-time offenders. It might even lead unduly to the disquieting...