Pililis Nikiforos v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Adrian Soon Kim Kwee
• Judgment Date: 06 August 1999
• Neutral Citation: [1999] SGDC 2
• Published date: 06 July 2006
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: James Lee (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Defendant Counsel: Puvanandran

CHARGE

1. The accused, Pililis Nikiforos, faced a charge of consumption of a controlled drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185). The charge was framed in the following manner:

“You, PILILIS NIKIFOROS, m/20 YEARS

NRIC No. 7970859-C

are charged that you on the 31^st January, 1999, in Singapore, did consume a controlled drug as specified in Class ‘A’ of the First Schedule of the Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185, to wit, morphine, without authorisation under the said Act of Regulations made thereunder and you have thereby committed an offence under Section 8(b) and punishable under Section 33 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185.”

2. The accused pleaded guilty to the charge.

FACTS

3. The facts of the case are contained in Exhibit ‘A’. The accused is 20 years old. He is a permanent resident studying in a polytechnic. On 31 Jan 1999 at about 9.39 p.m. the accused was arrested at Riverside Point at Merchant Road, on suspicion of having consumed a controlled drug. At the Central Police Station, the urine sample of the accused was taken. Upon analysis, the Department of Scientific Services found the urine sample of the accused to contain morphine, a Class A controlled drug.

SENTENCING FACTORS

4. Various factors were taken into account by the Court in assessing sentence. The accused had pleaded guilty to the charge. This action on the part of the accused was a mitigating factor as it manifested his remorse. He had a clean record. This too was mitigating in nature. The Court also took into account his scholastic achievements and ambition as highlighted by the learned Defence Counsel in the written Plea in Mitigation (Exhibit ‘C’). It was also recognised that he was not a drug addict.

5. On the other hand, there was no doubt that the consumption of a Class A controlled drug is a serious offence. The punishments that are prescribed by Parliament for such an offence bear testimony to this perception. It must never be forgotten that drug offence must be treated with utmost severity. The protection of interest of the society is a paramount reason for taking a tough stand against drug offenders. The sentence to be imposed must be of such a nature that would deter the accused and like-minded persons to commit such offences in future.

6. The offence of consumption of a controlled drug carries with it the punishment of a term of imprisonment of up to 10 years or a fine not exceeding $20,000/- or to both imprisonment and fine.

7. The learned Defence Counsel had urged the Court to place the accused who is 20 years old on probation or to impose a fine. In other words, the Defence was submitting that a custodial sentence should not be imposed. In this regard, it is to be noted that the normal sentence for such an offence is a term of imprisonment of...