Mohamed Shouffee bin Adam v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Sundaresh Menon CJ
• Judgment Date: 26 February 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] SGHC 34
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Magistrate’s Appeal No 184 of 2013
• Year: 2014
• Published date: 05 March 2014
• Hearing Date: 21 November 2013,23 January 2014
• Plaintiff Counsel: The appellant in person
• Defendant Counsel: Prem Raj Prabakaran and Alan Hu (Attorney-General's Chambers),Rajaram Vikram Raja (Drew & Napier LLC) as amicus curiae.
• Subject Matter: Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Sentencing
• Citation: [2014] SGHC 34

Sundaresh Menon CJ: Introduction

This is an appeal brought against the decision of the District Judge in PP v Mohamed Shouffee bin Adam [2013] SGDC 288 (“the GD”). The appellant pleaded guilty to four charges under the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“the MDA”) and was sentenced to a total of 17 years’ imprisonment by the District Judge. Eight other charges were taken into consideration. He appealed against his sentence on the ground that it was manifestly excessive.

The charges that were proceeded with and their associated sentences are summarised below:

Charge (DAC No)	MDA section	Offence	Imprisonment sentence
047817/2012	s 7 punishable under s 33(1)	Importation of 139.3g of methamphetamine, a Class A controlled drug	12 years
018135/2013	s 8(a) punishable under s 33(1)	Possession of 6.47g of methamphetamine, a Class A controlled drug	2 years
018138/2013	s 8(a) punishable under s 33(1)	Possession of not less than 30 tablets of nimetazepam, a Class C controlled drug	6 months
018140/2013	s 8(b)(ii) punishable under s 33A(1)	Consumption of methamphetamine, a specified drug	5 years

A further eight charges were taken into consideration, summarised as follows:

Charge (DAC No)	MDA section	Offence
018131/2013	s 7 punishable under s 33(1)	Importation of amphetamine, a Class A controlled drug
018132/2013	s 7 punishable under s 33(1)	Importation of not less than 4949 tablets of nimetazepan, a Class C controlled drug
018133/2013	s 7 punishable under s 33(1)	Importation of 51 tablets containing 3.68g of α-methyl-3,4-(methylenedioxy) phenethylamine, a Class A controlled drug
018134/2013	s 8(a) punishable under s 33(1)	Possession of 0.01g of diamorphine, a Class A controlled drug
018136/2013	s 8(a) punishable under s 33(1)	Possession of amphetamine, a Class A controlled drug
018137/2013	s 8(a) punishable under s 33(1)	Possession of 1 tablet of nimetazepam, a Class C controlled drug
018139/2013	s 8(a) punishable under s 33(1)	Possession of 0.01g of diamorphine, a Class A controlled drug
018140/2013	s 9 punishable under s 33	Possession of utensils for drug taking

When the matter was first heard before me on 21 November 2013, I indicated that having considered the arguments and the GD, I was satisfied that the individual sentences imposed in respect of each of the charges were not manifestly excessive. They were within the range of sentences imposed for such offences and the District Judge had properly considered all the relevant factors. However, I noticed that the District Judge had chosen the two heaviest sentences to run consecutively. These were sentences of terms of imprisonment for 12 and 5 years for importation and consumption of methamphetamine respectively. I was not satisfied that the choice of these two sentences had been adequately explained. I therefore adjourned the matter and invited the Deputy Public Prosecutor, Mr Prem Raj Prabhakaran (“the DPP”), to prepare further submissions as to the principles that should guide a sentencing judge in the exercise of his discretion when choosing which sentences ought to run consecutively and which concurrently. I also appointed Mr Rajaram Vikram Raja from the Supreme Court’s Young Amicus Curiae panel to assist me with submissions on this important issue.

The matter came before me again on 23 January 2014. Having considered the thorough and helpful further submissions put forward by the DPP as well as by the amicus curiae as to the relevant principles, I am satisfied that the District Judge erred and that the total sentence was manifestly excessive for reasons that follow.

Accordingly, I allow the appeal and order the sentences for DAC 47817/2012 (12 years) and DAC 18138/2013 (six months) to run consecutively while the sentences for the remaining two charges are to run concurrently. In the result, the appellant is to serve an aggregate imprisonment sentence of 12 years and six months.

Background facts

The appellant was 51 years of age at the time he was convicted on 12 August 2013. He worked as a freelance marine surveyor. On 24 December 2012 at about 7.15pm, the appellant was driving through the Woodlands Checkpoint into Singapore when he was stopped and his car was searched. Packets of crystalline substance were found in the front passenger seat dashboard and in the car boot. The appellant was arrested and the packets were seized and sent for analysis. Two bottles of urine samples were taken and these too were sent for analysis. The packets were subsequently found to contain methamphetamine and amphetamine while the urine samples were found to contain traces of methamphetamine.

On 25 December 2012 at about 3am, some hours after his arrest, the appellant was escorted to his residence in Pasir Ris Drive by officers from the Central Narcotic Bureau (“CNB”). The residence was searched, and beside a bed, a briefcase was found containing 30 tablets believed to be Erimin 5.

The appellant admitted to the investigating officers that he had been transporting drugs into Singapore since late August or early September 2012. The drugs were “Ice”, the street name for methamphetamine, and Erimin 5 tablets which contained nimetazepam. On occasion, he also transported Ecstasy tablets. The appellant admitted that he had made four trips previously and had been paid about $2,000 on each occasion at a rate of $1,000 for every 250g of “Ice” and $2 for each slab of Erimin 5 tablets. His contact was a Malaysian who he referred to as “Ah Bee”.

The appellant said that on 24 December 2012 at about 11am, “Ah Bee” telephoned him and asked him to go to Johor Bahru to pick up a quantity of drugs and to bring these into Singapore. He left for Malaysia on the same day, but before doing so he consumed some Ice in his residence. Shortly thereafter, at about 2pm, the appellant, in the company of a friend, drove his car through the Woodlands Checkpoint to Taman Sentosa in Johor Bahru. He parked his car there and left the key inside. Some hours later, “Ah Bee” contacted him again and told him he could collect the car. The appellant did so and then drove back to Singapore with his friend. He had been told to contact “Ah Bee” after he had crossed the Woodlands Checkpoint but he was arrested at the Checkpoint when re-entering Singapore.

The appellant had a number of antecedents. He had five previous convictions dating back to his first conviction for theft in 1987 for which he was sentenced to a fine of $1,500. In 1990, there were three further convictions: for theft, for theft of motor vehicles or component parts, and for fraudulent possession of property. He was jailed a total of 15 months. In 2000 he was convicted again, for consumption of cannabinol derivatives, for which he was sentenced to a year in prison. Aside from these, the appellant had also been the subject of a total of nine drug rehabilitation orders between 1989 and 2001: five of these were drug supervision orders for a period of 24 months each; and four were orders for committal to a drug rehabilitation centre for varying lengths of time. There were no further convictions or drug rehabilitation orders after 2001.

Although the appellant had a substantial number of previous convictions and a long history of drug consumption in the period between 1987 and 2001, his criminal record warranted closer scrutiny as it revealed three distinct phases or periods: The first ran from the mid-1980s to 2001. In this period, there were four property-related convictions between 1987 and 1990; and a number of drug consumption offences between 1989 and 2001. Aside from some time spent in prison, he was also frequently in and out of drug rehabilitation. He did not have any prior convictions for importation or trafficking of drugs. The second period of about nine years ran from 2001 to 2010 during which he did not re-offend. Nor did he relapse into drug taking. At least, that is what the record shows and he is entitled to the presumption that he was free of any criminal activity during this substantial period. The third period ran from 2010, when, by his own admission, he began smoking Ice. His consumption seemed to have increased and in the period of three to six months before he was arrested he was smoking it two to three times a day. In August or September 2012, as I have said, he became a drug courier importing drugs. This was a more serious offence. He was arrested a few months later in December 2012.

The decision below

The District Judge first reviewed the statement of facts and the appellant’s antecedents which I have set out above. She then considered the appellant’s plea in mitigation. This was to the effect that: he had no previous convictions for importation, trafficking or possession; he had committed the offences in order to raise money to purchase a flat for himself and his family; he was 51 years old, remorseful and unlikely to re-offend; and he had pleaded guilty at the earliest chance.

The Prosecution on the other hand had placed reliance on the appellant having dealt in a substantial quantity of drugs and on his drug antecedents. Moreover, as he was over 50 years old and could not be caned, the Prosecution urged the District Judge to impose a longer period of imprisonment. There were also eight other charges to be taken into consideration. The Prosecution relied on two unreported cases, PP v Hema Nathan Pachiappan (DAC 41669/2012) and PP v Siti Najiha bte Sagri (DAC 5920/2012), both cases on importation of methamphetamine for which the offenders had been sentenced to six and 12 years’ imprisonment respectively, and urged the District Judge to pass a sentence of not less than 12 years’ imprisonment.

The District Judge said that she did not see...