Ooi Joo Keong v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 05 December 1996
• Neutral Citation: [1996] SGHC 279
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 246 of 1996
• Date: 05 December 1996
• Year: 1996
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: James Bahadur Masih (James Masih & Co)
• Citation: [1996] SGHC 279
• Defendant Counsel: Winston Cheng (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: First time abuser of drug,ss 8(b), 33, First Schedule, Second Schedule Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185),Sentencing,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Consumption of Ecstacy,Principles,Whether sentence manifestly excessive

The appellant was convicted on one charge of consuming N, a-dimethyl-3, 4-(methylenedioxy) phenethylamine, popularly known as `Ecstasy`, without authorisation, which is an offence under s 8(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) (the Act) and punishable under s 33 read with the Second Schedule. Ecstasy is classified as a Class A drug under the First Schedule. The appellant was sentenced to 12 months` imprisonment. His appeal against sentence was dismissed by me. I now give my grounds.

The statement of facts admitted by the appellant revealed that the appellant was arrested on 29 March 1996 at about 12.15am at Sparks Disco. At the Central Narcotics Bureau headquarters, the appellant was given a urine test. The two bottles of his urine specimen were sent to the Department of Scientific Services for analysis. Both samples were found to contain Ecstasy. The appellant pleaded guilty on one count of consuming Ecstasy before the senior district judge sitting as a magistrate on 14 August 1996.

The appellant`s antecedents showed that he had a string of previous convictions, including one for possession of drugs on 30 December 1992 for which he was sentenced to two months` imprisonment, and one for armed robbery on 11 August 1993 for which he was sentenced to three years` imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane. He had been out of prison for less than three weeks before his arrest for the present offence. There were other convictions, notably causing hurt to deter a public servant from performing his duty, criminal intimidation and having carnal intercourse with a girl under 16 years of age. He had been sentenced for up to six months for each of these offences.

Before the senior district judge, counsel for the appellant conceded that measures must be taken to control the abuse of Ecstasy. However, it was submitted that since this drug is relatively new in Singapore, those who consumed it without knowing the serious consequences of their action ought not to be punished as severely as those who knew or ought to have known. Counsel submitted that a fine or imprisonment of one to two weeks ought to be sufficient for a first time abuser of the drug.

The senior district judge considered the prevalence of Ecstasy abuse and the worrying trend of its increase in Singapore. He also considered that Parliament had seen fit to classify it as a Class A drug, and the dangers of this drug, as well as the appellant`s antecedents. He took into account the appellant`s guilty plea and the fact that this was the first case in which the court heard submissions on sentencing for such an offence. In his view, the tariff should be between 12 and 18 months` imprisonment. He sentenced the appellant to 12 months` imprisonment.

Before me, counsel for the appellant conceded, and in my view rightly, that the offence for which the appellant was convicted of is becoming prevalent in Singapore and that the prevalence of an offence is a relevant consideration which the court may take into account when sentencing. General deterrence has always been a very relevant consideration when sentencing in Singapore. Reference may be made to Wong Kai Chuen Philip v PP [1991] 1 MLJ 321; [1990] SLR 1011. While at one time, general deterrence may have been doubted in the United Kingdom, the legitimacy of this was recently re-confirmed by the Court of Appeal in R v Cunningham (1993) 14 Cr App R (S) 444.

Counsel for the appellant also conceded that in view of the appellant`s previous convictions, a heavier than normal sentence would have to be imposed. This again was right. However, he urged upon the court that the appellant was a first time abuser of...