Muhamad Azmi bin Kamil v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Sundaresh Menon CJ
• Judgment Date: 19 October 2022
• Neutral Citation: [2022] SGCA 68
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 10 of 2022
• Published date: 22 October 2022
• Year: 2022
• Hearing Date: 08 September 2022
• Plaintiff Counsel: Hassan Esa Almenoar and Liane Yong (R Ramason & Almenoar), Diana Foo (Tan See Swan & Co)
• Defendant Counsel: Anandan Bala, Jaime Pang and Bharat Punjabi (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Statutory offences,Misuse of Drugs Act,Criminal Procedure And Sentencing,Appeal,Oral hearings
• Citation: [2022] SGCA 68

Steven Chong JCA (delivering the judgment of the court):

The appellant pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in not less than 249.99 grams of methamphetamine (the “Methamphetamine Charge”), which is an offence under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) and punishable under s 33(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”). Another charge of trafficking in cannabis was taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing (the “TIC Charge”). The Judge imposed the sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane, which was the sentence sought by the Prosecution.

The appellant appealed against the sentence. We have considered the arguments raised by the appellant and are satisfied that none of them has any merit. We therefore dismiss the appeal without an oral hearing for the reasons set out below.

Background

In the hearing before the Judge below, the appellant, Muhamad Azmi bin Kamil, admitted to the Agreed Statement of Facts without qualification when he pleaded guilty.

The appellant is a 40-year-old male Singaporean who drove the car bearing registration number SGU3516R (the “Car”) on 2 May 2017 in which the drugs were found. His role was that of a courier for one Ahmad Ashikin bin Ahmad Sulaiman (“Ahmad”), who is a 36-year-old male Singaporean and a Malaysia-based supplier who supplied drugs to his customers in Singapore. The customers would place orders for drugs with Ahmad, and Ahmad would use the appellant as a courier to bring the drugs from Malaysia to Singapore. The appellant may also be contacted directly by Ahmad’s customers to arrange for delivery of the drugs. The customers would pay the appellant either in cash or transfer money directly into Ahmad’s bank accounts. The appellant would pass the cash to Ahmad in Malaysia.

On 2 May 2017, at about 10.30pm at the Woodlands Checkpoint, the Checkpoint Inspector SSgt Zulfadhli Mazli (“SSgt Zulfadhli”) stopped the appellant’s car and observed that there was a box of “Daia” washing powder (the “Daia Washing Powder Box”) amongst multiple “Giant” plastic bags containing grocery items. Sgt Ho Chin Ming Edwin (“Sgt Edwin”) directed the appellant to open the Daia Washing Powder Box. Multiple grocery boxes were recovered in the Giant plastic bags. The following controlled drugs (collectively referred to as the “Drugs”) were recovered and seized by SSgt Chong: Two blocks of vegetable matter, and one packet of crystalline substance found in the Daia Washing Powder Box (the packet of crystalline substance was later analysed and found to contain not less than 677.5g of methamphetamine); and One packet of crystalline substance found in a “Kellogg’s Cornflakes” box (the “Kellogg’s Cornflakes Box”), which was later analysed and found to contain not less than 627.6g of methamphetamine.

The appellant knew that he was delivering the Drugs to Ahmad’s customers, Adeeb and Fazri, who had ordered drugs from Ahmad on multiple occasions in 2017. For the 2 May 2017 delivery, Adeeb ordered the drugs in the Daia Washing Powder Box, while Fazri ordered the drugs in the Kellogg’s Cornflakes Box. In the evening of 2 May 2017, the appellant collected the Drugs as per Ahmad’s direction and travelled to Singapore, where he was arrested.

On 12 October 2017, Ahmad was separately arrested in Singapore.

The appellant knew of the nature and quantity of the Drugs, and intended to deliver the Drugs to Adeeb and Fazri on Ahmad’s directions. The appellant had therefore committed an offence under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the MDA, and punishable under s 33(1) of the MDA, for having two packets containing not less than 249.99g of methamphetamine in his possession for the purpose of trafficking.

Relevant sentencing frameworks

In Suventher Shanmugam v Public Prosecutor [2017] 2 SLR 115 (“Suventher”), this court set out the sentencing guidelines for the offence of trafficking or importation of drugs. The indicative starting sentence, as a matter of principle, should be proportional to the quantity/weight of drugs trafficked or imported. The court will first identify the indicative starting range, and then adjust the starting sentence upward and downward based on the offender’s culpability and the presence of aggravating and mitigating factors (Suventher at [29] and [30]).

Under s 33 of the MDA read with the Second Schedule of the MDA, the statutory sentencing range for the importation of 167g to 250g of methamphetamine is between 20 and 30 years’ imprisonment together with caning fixed at 15 strokes. Based on this statutory sentencing range, this court in Adri Anton Kalangie v Public Prosecutor [2018] 2 SLR 557 (“Adri Anton”) at [80] developed the indicative sentencing framework for the importation of methamphetamine as follows:

Sentencing band	Quantity of methamphetamine trafficked or imported	Imprisonment (years)	Caning
1	167.00–192.99g	20–22	15 strokes
2	193.00–216.99g	23–25
3	217.00–250.00g	26–29

The Parties’ cases below and the Judge’s findings

Before the Judge, the Prosecution submitted for a sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane. The Prosecution submitted that the indicative starting sentence based on the type and weight of the drugs trafficked should be 26 to 29 years’ imprisonment with 15 strokes of the cane, based on this court’s decision in Adri Anton.

At the second stage of adjustment based on culpability, the Prosecution recognised that the appellant’s role was limited to that of a courier, as he took instructions from Ahmad to deliver the Drugs and collect monies on Ahmad’s behalf. The only aggravating factor was the TIC Charge. But given that the appellant had pleaded guilty and provided extensive assistance to the authorities, the Prosecution submitted that this would be a weighty mitigating factor in the appellant’s favour. Thus, the overall sentence of 25 years would be fair.

The appellant was unrepresented and pleaded for the minimum sentence. The Judge considered that the indicative starting sentence for the Methamphetamine Charge would be 29 years’ imprisonment. But the Judge considered that the appellant’s culpability was limited to that of a courier, and there were mitigating factors such as his plea of guilt and extensive cooperation with the authorities. Accordingly, the Judge imposed an imprisonment term of 25 years, and 15 strokes of the cane which we note was below the sentencing range of 26 to 29 years for trafficking in 249.99g of methamphetamine. The imprisonment sentence was backdated to the date of his arrest on 2 May 2017.

Procedural history

At the time when the appellant filed his Notice and Petition of Appeal, he was unrepresented. After the appellant...