Public Prosecutor v Poopathi Chinaiyah s/o Paliandi

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chua Lee Ming J
• Judgment Date: 19 February 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] SGHC 37
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mark Tay, Jaime Pang and Benedict Chan
• Date: 19 February 2020
• Docket Number: Criminal Case No 3 of 2020
• Hearing Date: 30 January 2020
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Statutory offences,Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed)
• Year: 2020
• Defendant Counsel: Ramesh Tiwary (Ramesh Tiwary) and Sankar s/o Kailasa Thevar Saminathan (Sterling Law Corporation)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Citation: [2020] SGHC 37
• Published date: 22 February 2020

Chua Lee Ming J: Introduction

The accused, Mr Poopathi Chinaiyah s/o Paliandi, 48 years of age, faced four charges: having in his possession not less than 499.99g of cannabis (a Class ‘A’ controlled drug) for the purpose of trafficking, an offence under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”) and punishable under s 33(1) of the MDA (“the 1st Charge”); having in his possession not less than 8.21g of diamorphine (a Class ‘A’ controlled drug) for the purpose of trafficking, an offence under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the MDA and punishable with enhanced punishment under s 33(4A)(i) of the MDA as a result of a previous trafficking conviction (“the 2nd Charge”); having in his possession not less than 25.45g of methamphetamine (a Class ‘A’ controlled drug) for the purpose of trafficking, an offence under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the MDA and punishable with enhanced punishment under s 33(4A)(i) of the MDA as a result of a previous trafficking conviction (“the 3rd Charge”); and possession of not less than 6.64g of cannabis (a Class ‘A’ controlled drug), an offence under s 8(a) of the MDA and punishable with enhanced punishment under s 33(1) of the MDA as a result of a previous conviction for drug possession (“the 4th Charge”).

On 30 January 2020, the accused pleaded guilty to the 1st, 2nd and 4th Charges, and admitted without qualification to all the facts alleged against him in the Statement of Facts. I therefore convicted him on these three charges.

The accused also admitted to having committed the offence set out in the 3rd Charge and consented to the offence being taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing.

I sentenced the accused as follows: 1st Charge: 28 years’ imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane. 2nd Charge: 13 years’ imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane. 4th Charge: two years’ imprisonment. The sentences for the 1st and 4th Charges were to run consecutively whilst the sentence for the 2nd Charge was to run concurrently. The overall sentence was 30 years’ imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane. The sentences of imprisonment were to commence on the date of arrest, ie, 8 January 2018.

The accused has appealed against the sentences.

The facts

The material facts, taken from the Statement of Facts, are set out below.

On 8 January 2018, Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) officers observed one Suresh Ganesan (“Suresh”) waiting at the reception area of YO:HA hostel at 26 Evans Road, Singapore, from about 5.45am. At about 6.29am, the accused drove into the driveway of YO:HA hostel in a van bearing licence plate number GY9118X (“the Van”). Suresh was then observed leaving YO:HA hostel on a motorcycle at about 6.37am.

At about 6.40am, the CNB officers moved in and arrested the accused in the Van. Suresh was arrested at about 6.55am on the same day.

Following the accused’s arrest, the CNB officers searched the reception area of YO:HA hostel and seized the following from the bottom drawer of a cabinet under the security counter (“the Drawer”): seven blocks of vegetable matter; and one packet of brownish granular substances and one packet of granular/powdery substances.ⁱ

The CNB officers also searched the Van and seized one block of vegetable matter.ⁱⁱ

Investigations revealed the following: The accused was employed as a driver to ferry security officers to their workplaces. He was first acquainted with Suresh sometime in January 2017 when he ferried Suresh to the latter’s workplace. Suresh then introduced him to one “Mala”, a male Malaysian Indian, and the three men would meet occasionally for drinks. The accused knew that “Mala” was a drug trafficker who was based in Malaysia and had at least two persons in Malaysia working as his couriers. Suresh was one such courier. “Mala” asked the accused to collect, store and deliver drugs on his behalf. The accused agreed. On two occasions prior to 8 January 2018, the accused had, acting on instructions from “Mala”, collected drugs from one person and delivered the same to others. On one of these occasions, he kept the drugs for a day before making the delivery. The accused was paid $350 for each delivery that he completed. About two weeks before 8 January 2018, the accused received a consignment of drugs from an unknown male Malaysian Indian on behalf of “Mala”. The consignment of drugs included, among other drugs, six of the seven blocks of vegetable matter which formed the subject matter of the 1st Charge. The accused locked these drugs in the Drawer. He knew that he would receive instructions from “Mala” to pass these drugs to other persons. On the evening of 7 January 2018, “Mala” informed the accused that Suresh would be delivering another consignment of drugs. On 8 January 2018, at about 6.00am, an unknown Indian male handed the accused cash amounting to $4,500. The accused was told to pass the money to Suresh. The accused drove the Van into the driveway of YO:HA hostel at about 6.29am. Suresh boarded the Van and showed the accused a blue plastic bag before placing it in the Van. The accused told Suresh to retrieve the $4,500 that he had left on the car amplifier box. Thereafter, Suresh left on his motorcycle. The accused brought the blue plastic bag into YO:HA hostel and asked one Abilasha Narasiah, a security officer at the hostel, to store it in the Drawer. Of the items seized by the CNB officers from the Drawer, the packet of brownish granular substances and one of the blocks of vegetable matter were found in a blue plastic bag.

The 1st Charge

The seven blocks of vegetable matter referred to at [9(a)] above were sent to the Health Sciences Authority (“HSA”) for analysis. The HSA certified that the seven blocks contained, in aggregate, not less than 499.99g of cannabis, a Class ‘A’ controlled drug listed in the First Schedule to the MDA. These seven blocks of vegetable matter formed the subject matter of the 1st Charge.

The accused admitted to possession and ownership of the seven blocks of vegetable matter, which he knew were cannabis. He admitted that the seven blocks of vegetable matter were intended to be passed to other people as instructed by “Mala”. The accused was not authorised under the MDA or the regulations made thereunder to possess a controlled drug for the purpose of trafficking.

The 2nd Charge

The two packets referred to at [9(b)] above were sent to the HSA for analysis. The HSA certified that both packets contained, in aggregate, not less than 8.21g of diamorphine, a Class ‘A’ controlled drug listed in the First Schedule to the MDA. The substances in both packets formed the subject matter of the 2nd Charge.

The accused admitted to possession and ownership of the two packets of granular/powdery substances, which he knew were diamorphine. The accused admitted that these substances were intended to be passed to other people as instructed by “Mala”. The accused was not authorised under the MDA or the regulations made thereunder to possess a controlled drug for the purpose of trafficking.

Further, on 25 January 2007, the accused was convicted in Subordinate Court No 12, vide DAC 00758/2007, of an offence of trafficking in a controlled drug, to wit, cannabis, under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2001 Rev Ed) and punished under s 33(1) of the said Act, and was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment and 10 strokes of the cane, which conviction and punishment have not been set aside to date.

The 4th Charge

The block of vegetable matter referred to at [10] above was sent to the HSA for analysis. The HSA certified that it contained not less than 6.64g of cannabis. This formed the subject matter of the 4th Charge.

The accused admitted to possession and ownership of the block of vegetable matter, which he knew was cannabis. The accused admitted that the cannabis was meant for his own consumption.

The accused was not authorised under the MDA or the regulations made thereunder to be in possession of a controlled drug. Further, on 9 February 1993, the accused was convicted in Subordinate Court No 14, vide MAC 12414/92, of an offence of possession of a controlled drug under s 8(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 1985 Rev Ed) and punished under s 33(1) of the said Act, and was sentenced to a fine of $800, which conviction and punishment have not been set aside to date.

The sentences imposed The 1st Charge

The prescribed punishment for the offence in the 1st Charge was a minimum of 20 years’ imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane and a maximum of 30 years’ imprisonment or imprisonment for life and 15 strokes of the cane: s 33(1) read with the Second Schedule to the MDA.

The indicative...