Public Prosecutor v Jack Leong Wei Jie

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: May Lucia Mesenas
• Judgment Date: 16 April 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] SGDC 66
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: DAC No. 938341 of 2018 & Ors
• Published date: 27 November 2019
• Year: 2019
• Hearing Date: 25 February 2019,22 March 2019,25 March 2019
• Plaintiff Counsel: DPP Shana Tjoa (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Defendant Counsel: Ms Priscilla Chia Wen Qi (M/s Peter Low & Choo LLC)
• Citation: [2019] SGDC 66

District Judge May Lucia Mesenas: Background

The accused, aged 20 years old, pleaded guilty to the following three drug-related charges: One charge of possessing not less than 499.99 grams of cannabis 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”), punishable under s 33(1) of the MDA (“trafficking of cannabis charge”); One charge of possessing 1999 tablets found to contain nimetazepam, a Class “C” controlled drug for the purpose of trafficking under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) punishable under s 33(1) of the MDA (“trafficking of nimetazepam charge”); One charge of possessing not less than 235.64 grams of methamphetamine, a controlled drug for the purpose of trafficking under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) punishable under s 33(1) of the MDA (“trafficking of methamphetamine charge”).

Four other drug-related charges were taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing (“the TIC charges”), namely, for offences of trafficking of four different types of drugs.

On 25 March 2019, the accused was sentenced as follows: Trafficking of cannabis (DAC 938341/2018) – 23 years’ imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane; Trafficking of nimetazepam (DAC 942192/2017) – 2 years’ imprisonment and 2 strokes of the cane; Trafficking of methamphetamine (DAC 942193/2017) – 23 years’ imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane. Two of the sentences in DAC 938341/2018 and DAC 942192/2017 were ordered to run consecutively, making it a total sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane¹. The sentence was ordered to be backdated to the accused’s first date of remand, which was on 4 November 2016.

Upon the application of the prosecution, the accused was granted a discharge amounting to an acquittal for the charge of possessing not less than 999.99 grams of cannabis mixture for the purpose of trafficking (DAC 938342/2018).

On the same day, the defence filed a notice of appeal against the sentence. The accused is currently serving his sentence.

Charges

The three proceeded charges reproduced below state as follows:

DAC 938341/2018

You, Jack Leong Wei Jie, are charged that you, on 2 November 2016, at or about 5.30 p.m., at the unit xxxof Block 699 Hougang Street 52, Singapore, did traffic in a Controlled Drug listed in Class ‘A’ of the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed), to wit, by having in your possession for the purpose of trafficking three (3) blocks containing not less than 499.99 grams of vegetable matter which was analysed and found to contain cannabis, without authorisation under the said Act or the Regulations made thereunder, and you have thereby committed an offence under section 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) read with section 5(2) of the said Act, which is punishable under section 33(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed).

DAC 942192/2017

You, Jack Leong Wei Jie, are charged that you, on 2 November 2016, at or about 5.30 p.m., at the unit xxxof Block 699 Hougang Street 52, Singapore, did traffic in a Controlled Drug listed in Class ‘C’ of the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed), to wit, by having in your possession for the purpose of trafficking 1999 tablets each marked “028” on one side and “5” on the other side which were analysed and at least 90% of the tablets were found to contain nimetazepam, without authorisation under the said Act or the Regulations made thereunder, and you have thereby committed an offence under section 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) read with section 5(2) of the said Act, which is punishable under section 33(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed).

DAC 942193/2017

You, Jack Leong Wei Jie, are charged that you, on 2 November 2016, at or about 5.30 p.m., at the unit xxxof Block 699 Hougang Street 52, Singapore, did traffic in a Controlled Drug listed in Class ‘A’ of the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed), to wit, by having in your possession for the purpose of trafficking fifty-two (52) packets containing not less than 461.09 grams of crystalline substance which was analysed and found to contain not less than 235.64 grams of methamphetamine, without authorisation under the said Act or the Regulations made thereunder, and you have thereby committed an offence under section 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) read with section 5(2) of the said Act, which is punishable under section 33(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed).

The following four TIC charges are as follows: Possession of not less than 15.52 grams of fragmented vegetable matter containing 5-Fluoro-UR-144, a controlled drug, for the purpose of trafficking (DAC 942191/2017); Possession of not less than 6.62 grams of MDMA, a Controlled drug, for the purpose of trafficking (DAC 942194/2017); Possession of 350 tablets found to contain Ethylone, a Controlled drug, for the purpose of trafficking (DAC 942194/2017); and Possession of 350 tablets found to contain 5-Methoxy-MiPT, a Controlled drug, for the purpose of trafficking (DAC 942196/2017).

Summary of Facts

The accused admitted to the Statement of Facts (“SOF”) pertaining to the above charges, without qualification. The salient points are as follows: At the material time, the accused was 18 years old. On 2 November 2016, acting on information, a party of officers from the Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”), staged an operation to arrest the accused. At about 5.30pm on the same day, the CNB officers were outside the accused’s residence. When the accused realised that the CNB officers were outside his unit, he threw a number of items out of the window in an attempt to dispose of the evidence. These were later established to be the subject matter of the present charges. The CNB officers raided the unit and arrested the accused. The accused and his unit were searched as well as the vicinity of the block where the accused resided. Items were recovered and seized as per the paragraphs below. Sometime in late 2016, the accused became indebted to one “Ah Long” as a result of his involvement in illegal gambling. By October 2016, the accused owed one “Ah Long” $2,400. The accused began to repay the debt by working for “Ah Long” as a lookout of illegal gambling operations. In early October 2016, “Ah Long’s friend” offered the accused a way to clear his debt at a faster rate. In mid-October 2016, the accused received a call on his phone from one “Melvin” who instructed the accused to collect a bag containing four black tape bundles from the ‘dry riser’ on the 15th storey of the Housing and Development Board block where the accused resided (“the block”). The accused did so accordingly. Acting on “Melvin’s” instructions, he then re-packed the items found inside the bag and the bundles into six plastic bags. In this manner, the accused first worked for “Melvin” and “Ah Long” re-packing drugs. In so doing, the accused cleared $1,200 of his debt to “Ah Long”. The seized exhibits found at the grass patch at the foot of the block where the accused attempted to dispose of the evidence, were sent to the Health Sciences Authority (“HSA”) for analysis. They were collectively three blocks of vegetable matter which was analysed and found to contain not less than 499.99 grams of Cannabis², a Class A controlled drug. The seized exhibits found at the pavement at the foot of the same block were sent to HSA for analysis. They were found to contain nimetazepam and methamphetamine respectively. In particular, some of the seized exhibits pertain to 1999 tablets, where they were analysed and at least 90% of which were found to contain nimetazepam, a Class C controlled drug³. As for the remaining seized exhibits, they were found to contain not less than 461.09 grams of crystalline substance which was analysed and found to contain not less than 235.64 grams of Methamphetamine, a Class A controlled drug⁴. Investigations revealed that on 2 November 2016, at about 3.00pm, the accused received a call from “Melvin” on his phone and was told that “the ship is arriving”, which he understood to mean that the second repacking assignment was going to start soon. He then waited for “Melvin’s” further instructions. On the same day, at about 3.20pm, the co-accused, one Goh Ban Yong (“Goh”), was spotted by the CNB officers, driving the car bearing registration number JHW3555 and entering the carpark of the said block. At about 4.15pm, Goh placed a black haversack at the “dry riser” on the 15th storey of the same block. At around 4.30pm, the accused received a call from “Melvin” who informed the accused to retrieve the “things” from the “dry riser” on the 15th storey. Subsequently, the accused went to the said “dry riser” and retrieved the black haversack which he then brought back into his unit. The accused admitted that the exhibits seized were in fact inside the black haversack which he had retrieved from the “dry riser” prior to his arrest. The accused knew that the said exhibits contained cannabis, nimetazepam and methamphetamine, respectively. The accused was in possession of the said exhibits for the purpose of trafficking. He intended to follow “Melvin’s” instructions to re-pack the drugs into plastic bags and return the drugs to the “dry riser” where it would then be picked up by someone else. At the material time, the accused was not authorised under the MDA or the Regulations made thereunder, to have in his possession any controlled drug for the purpose of trafficking.

Antecedents

The accused is a first offender.

Prosecution’s Submissions

Notwithstanding the accused’s young age at the material time, the prosecution submitted that general deterrence would be the dominant sentencing consideration given the seriousness of the...