Public Prosecutor v Chandrasekran s/o Elamkopan

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Christopher Goh Eng Chiang
• Judgment Date: 20 January 2016
• Neutral Citation: [2016] SGDC 20
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: DAC 929521 of 2015 & 14 Ors, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9227 of 2015
• Year: 2016
• Published date: 26 January 2016
• Hearing Date: 17 December 2015
• Plaintiff Counsel: DPP Zulhafni Zulkeflee
• Defendant Counsel: Amarick Gill & Cheryl Ng (Amarick Gill LLC)
• Citation: [2016] SGDC 20

District Judge Christopher Goh Eng Chiang:

This is an appeal against sentence by the accused.

On 17 December 2015, the accused, Chandrasekran s/o Elamkopan pleaded guilty to 4 charges under the Misuse of Drugs Act, Cap 185 (“MDA”). The remaining 11 MDA charges were taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing.

The proceeded charges are briefly as follows: (a) DAC-929517-2015 : trafficking not less than 351.8 grams of fragmented vegetable matter containing a cannabis mixture without authorization, an offence punishable under s.5(1)(a) r/w s.5(2) p/u s.33(1) of the MDA; (b) DAC-929519-2015 : possessing not less than 0.74 grams of diamorphine, without authorization, an offence under s.8(a) p/u s.33(1) of the MDA; (c) DAC-929520-2015 : possessing not less than 7.54 grams of methamphetamine without authorization, an offence under s.8(a) p/u s.33(1) of the MDA; and (d) DAC-929527-2015 : consuming a specified drug, methamphetamine without authorization, an offence under s.8(b)(ii) p/u s.33(1) of the MDA.

The charges that have been taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing include : 2 charges for trafficking in a controlled drug, namely 106.1 grams of cannabis and 0.21 grams of diamorphine respectively; 6 charges for possessing a controlled drug, namely, methoxetamine, MDMA, nimetazepam, methadone, cannabis and cannabis mixture respectively; 2 charges for the consumption of a specified drug, namely, monoacetylmorphine and 11-Nor-delta-9-tetrahydrocannobinol-9-carboxlic acid; and 1 charge for the possession of utensils used for drug taking.

Summary of the Facts

On 6 April 2015, at about 12.50 pm, at the entrance of Grand C Hotel, officers from the Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”), based on information received, arrested the accused on suspicion that he had committed offences under the MDA.

A hotel room card was found from the accused and a search was conducted on the hotel room in his presence where numerous drug and drug related exhibits were recovered. The accused admitted to the possession of the exhibits recovered. He also admitted that the monies recovered were proceeds from the sale of drugs.

Among the items recovered were 3 wrapped bundles. They were sent to the Illicit Drugs Laboratory of the Health Sciences Authority (“HSA”) for analysis and was found to contain not less than 351.8 grams of fragmented vegetable matter which was then analyzed and found to contain cannabinol and tetrahydrocannabinol (a cannabinol derivative. The accused admitted that he was in possession of the said cannabis mixture, a Class “A” Controlled Drug, for the purpose of trafficking. This formed the subject matter of DAC-929517-2015.

Three packets of different sizes containing a granular / powdery substances were also recovered from the hotel room. A total of 22.98 grams of the said substance was analyzed by HSA and found to contain 0.74 grams of diamorphine, a Class “A” Controlled Drug. Investigations revealed that the accused bought the drug from one “Nathan” for $500 and repacked it for ease of consumption. This formed the subject matter of DAC-929519-2015.

Another three packets of crystalline substance were likewise recovered from the hotel room. A total of 11.30 grams of the said substance were analyzed by HSA and found to contain not less than 7.54 grams of methamphetamine, a Class “A” Controlled Drug. Investigations revealed that he had bought 25 grams of “ice” (the street name for methamphetamine) from the same “Nathan” for $1,200 and had repacked them for ease of consumption. This formed the subject matter of DAC-929520-2015.

After his arrest, the accused was brought to Tanglin Police Divisional Headquarters where he provided 2 bottles of his urine sample for testing. These were analyzed by HSA and were found to contain, among other things, methamphetamine. The accused admitted to abusing “ice” twice daily and this caused his urine sample to be tested positive for the drug. This formed the subject matter of DAC -929-527-2015.

As the accused had, on 3 May 2002, been convicted by a Subordinate Military Court for both the possession of a controlled drug under s.8(a) of the MDA and the consumption of a controlled drug under s.8(b)(i) of the MDA and sentenced to a term of 18 months’ detention at the SAF detention barracks, the accused was now liable for the enhanced punishment provided for under s.33(1) and s.33(4), namely a minimum sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment and 3 years’ imprisonment for the drug possession and drug consumption charge respectively.

The Antecedents

The accused, despite being only 35 years’ of age has a long antecedent record. He has numerous convictions for property offences (s.378, s.380, s.406), offences against the person (s.323, s.324), criminal intimidation, vandalism, carrying of offensive weapons etc. However, I have only highlighted his drug related antecedents, which are set out below:

Date	Offence	Sentence
10/07/1998	s.8(b) MDA cannabinol derivative	18 months’ probation
03/05/2002	s.8(a) MDA s.8(b) MDA cannabinol derivative	18 months’ detention (SAF) per charge. Concurrent Total 18 months’ SAF detention
19/06/2003	s.8(b) MDA cannabinol derivative	24 months’ drug supervision

Sentencing Submissions / Plea in Mitigation

The accused’s plea in mitigation is unremarkable. In his written plea in mitigation, he admitted to his antecedents as well as admitted that the items seized by the CNB belonged to him. He was remorseful and had co-operated with the police.

The court was also urged to note the contents of a medical report from the Institute of Mental Health. In summary, the IMH medical report diagnosed the accused to be suffering from a Major Depressive Episode and Substance Use Disorder but this was not a contributory factor towards the commission of the offences.

The Prosecution submitted that a sentence of about 7-8 years imprisonment would be the starting point for the trafficking charge vis-à-vis the quantity of drugs involved. However, it was submitted that the instant case was a more serious one necessitating a longer term of imprisonment. In this respect, a table of sentencing precedents listing a total 5 cases...