Maideen Pillai v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 01 November 1995
• Date: 01 November 1995
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 160 of 1995
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Maideen Pillai

Plaintiff

and

Public Prosecutor

Defendant

[1995] SGHC 258

Yong Pung How CJ

Magistrate's Appeal No 160 of 1995

High Court

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Sentencing–Consecutive sentences–Accused was convicted of five charges involving distinct offences–Whether all five sentences should be ordered to run consecutively–Factors to consider–Section 18 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed)

The appellant pleaded guilty to five charges of drug-related offences. The appellant had nothing to say in mitigation, although he asked that a lenient sentence be imposed. Having considered, inter alia, the appellant's antecedents, the trial judge imposed the following sentences: ten years' imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane in respect of a charge of trafficking of diamorphine; two years' imprisonment in respect of a charge of possessing cannabis; three years' imprisonment in respect of a charge of consuming morphine; and one year's imprisonment each on charges for offences under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (Cap 67, 1985 Rev Ed). The trial judge ordered that all five sentences were to run consecutively, such that the aggregate of the sentences imposed on the appellant amounted to 17 years' imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane. The appellant appealed against the gravity of the sentences. As he acted in person, no written submissions were filed on his behalf.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) Section 18 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed), which required the court to order that at least two of the sentences imposed were to run consecutively, applied in the present case, as there were more than three distinct offences: at [4] and [5].

(2) There was no absolute rule precluding the court from making more than two sentences consecutive. However, a decision to go beyond the stated minimum of two consecutive sentences should be taken only in exceptional cases, after careful consideration of the facts of the case as well as the relevant guiding principles: at [6] and [7].

(3) The one transaction rule stated that where two or more offences were committed in the course of a single transaction, all sentences in respect of these offences should be concurrent rather than consecutive. This rule, however, was subject to s 18 of the Criminal Procedure Code: at [8].

(4) The totality rule stated that a cumulative sentence should not be substantially above the normal level of sentences for the most serious of the individual offences involved or impose on the offender “a crushing sentence” not in keeping with his records and prospects. The first part of this rule, however, was also subject to s 18 of the Criminal Procedure Code: at [9] and [10].

(5) The total sentence of 17 years' imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane fell short of the statutory maximum of 20 years' imprisonment and 15 strokes prescribed for the most serious offence, that of trafficking in diamorphine: at [12].

(6) The total sentence also could not be said to be a crushing sentence. The trial judge rightly noted that not only did the appellant have a previous conviction for trafficking, but he also committed the present offence in defiance of the police supervision ordered as a result of his previous offence. In the interests of society and also of the appellant himself, a sentence with some deterrent effect was plainly called for; and the sentence of ten years' imprisonment and 15 strokes imposed for the offence of trafficking was neither excessive nor inappropriate. Apart from the offence of trafficking, the sentences imposed for the other four offences were the statutory minimum sentences, in spite of the appellant's antecedents: at [12], [13] and [14].

Kanagasuntharam v PP [1991] 2 SLR (R) 874; [1992] 1 SLR 81 (folld)

R v Blake [1962] 2 QB 377 (refd)

R v Jones (1980) 2 Cr App R (S) 152 (refd)

R v Wheatley (1983) 5 Cr App R (S) 417 (refd)

Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (Cap 67, 1985 Rev Ed) ss 32, 33 (1) (e), 33 (1) (f), 33 (3)

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 18 (consd)

Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 1985 Rev Ed) ss 5 (1), 5 (1) (a), 5 (2), 6 (a), 8 (a)...