Public Prosecutor v Karpaya Jegathesan

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lorraine Ho
• Judgment Date: 16 February 2017
• Neutral Citation: [2017] SGDC 38
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: DAC 939631-2015 and others
• Year: 2017
• Published date: 21 February 2017
• Hearing Date: 21 November 2016,14 September 2016,13 September 2016,13 January 2017
• Plaintiff Counsel: Deputy Public Prosecution Theong Li Han
• Defendant Counsel: Accused in person.
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Drug Offences,Misuse of Drugs Act
• Citation: [2017] SGDC 38

District Judge Lorraine Ho: INTRODUCTION

The accused, a 49 year-old male Singaporean, faced a total of 4 drug related charges. He claimed trial to all the charges and after a 3-day trial, I found the accused guilty and convicted him accordingly.

In total, the accused was sentenced to 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. Being dissatisfied, the accused is appealing against the sentence imposed. He is presently serving sentence.

BACKGROUND FACTS The Charges

In relation to the 4 proceeded charges, a brief description of them is as follows:

Charge No.	Description
1st Charge (DAC-939631-2015)	Possession of not less than 0.11gram of Methamphetamine under section 8(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) “MDA” and liable for enhanced punishment pursuant to s33(1) of the MDA.
2nd Charge (DAC-939632-2015)	Possession of not less than 0.07gram of Diamorphine under section 8(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) “MDA” and liable for enhanced punishment pursuant to s33(1) of the MDA.
3rd Charge (DAC-946237-2015)	Consumption of Monoacetylmorphine under section 8(b)(ii) of the MDA and liable for punishment pursuant to s33(1) of the MDA.
4th Charge (DAC-946238-2015)	Consumption of Methamphetamine under section 8(b)(ii) of the MDA and liable for punishment pursuant to s33(1) of the MDA.

Summary of Facts

On 28 October 2015, at or about 1.35pm, a party of police officers arrested the accused at Block 674B Jurong West Street 65, #05-56, Singapore, for drug related offences. The accused was found at the toilet and after a search, the following items were found and later produced as exhibits at the trial: Two packets stained with white powdery substances (later marked 'KAR-l '); One empty cut straw (later marked 'KAR-2'); One black pouch (later marked 'KAR-3 '); Two pieces of aluminium foil with bum marks (later marked 'KAR-4 '); One packet stained with white/brown powdery substances (later marked 'KAR-5'); One packet of crystalline substances (later marked 'KAR-6'); Two packets of granular substances (later marked 'KAR-7'); One wooden tube (later marked 'KAR-8'); One empty cut green straw (later marked 'KAR-9');

In November 2015, Eyo Zhi Wei and Lim Kheng Aik, analysts with the Illicit Drugs Laboratory of the HSA, issued the following certificates under Section 16 of the MDA:

Date of Issue	Name of Analyst	Certificate No.	Findings
5 November 2015	Eyo Zhi Wei	Lab. No. ID- 1532-02077- 001	The exhibit marked 'KAR- I' was found to be two packets stained with Diamorphine.
5 November 2015	Eyo Zhi Wei	Lab. No. ID- 1532-02077 - 002	The exhibit marked 'KAR-5' was found to be one packet containing not less than 0.14 gram of granular / powdery substance which was analysed and found to contain Diamorphine and Methamphetamine.
5 November 2015	Lim Kheng Aik	Lab. No. ID- 1532-02077- 003	The exhibit marked 'KAR-6' was found to be one packet containing not less than 0.17 gram of crystalline substance which was analysed and found to contain not less than 0.11 gram of Methamphetamine.
9 November 2015	Eyo Zhi Wei	Lab. No. ID- 1532-02077- 004	The exhibit marked 'KAR-7’ was found to be two packets containing not less than 1.94 grams of granular/powdery substance which was analysed and found to contain not less than 0.07 gram of Diamorphine.

On 30 October 2015, the said urine samples were sent to the Analytical Toxicology Laboratory of the HSA for analysis.

The HSA issued four Certificates under Section 16 of the MDA bearing Lab numbers AT-1533-10345-001-01 and AT-1533-10345-002-01, which were issued on 3 November 2015 and AT-1533-10345-001-03 and AT-IS33-1034S-002-03, which were issued on 6 November and 9 November 2015 respectively.

Zhang Hui Fen Hannah, an analyst with the Analytical Toxicology Laboratory of HSA, having conducted the analysis in relation to the urine sample marked as "C-SJ-IS-M0001-1 KARPAYA JEGATHESAN xxx", issued the Certificates bearing Lab numbers AT-1533-10345-001-01 and AT-1533-10345-001-03, stating that on analysis, the said urine sample was found to contain Monoacetylmorphine and Methamphetamine respectively.

Maggie Tiong Su Su, an analyst with the Analytical Toxicology Laboratory of HSA, having conducted the analysis in relation to the urine sample marked as "C-SJ-15-M0001-2 KARPAYA JEGATHESAN xxx", issued the Certificates bearing Lab numbers AT-1533-10345-002-01 and AT-1533-10345-002-03, stating that on analysis, the said urine sample was found to contain Monoacetylmorphine and Methamphetamine respectively.

SENTENCE Antecedents

The accused was traced to the following drug related previous convictions, the first of which occurred about 2 decades ago:

No.	Date of Conviction	Offence and Ordinance	Sentence
1.	11.2.1997	·S8(b) Consumption of a controlled drug read with s37(2)(b) MDA for drug addict to undergo treatment or rehabilitation ·Drug type: Morphine	·Drug Rehabilitation Centre (DRC) – 6 months ·DRC extension – 5 months
2.	26.1.1998	·S8(b) Consumption of a controlled drug read with s37(2)(b) MDA for drug addict to undergo treatment or rehabilitation ·Drug type: Morphine	·Placed under 24 months’ drug supervision
3.	20.05.1998	·S9 Possession of pipes, utensils etc. for the smoking, administration or consumption of a controlled drug ·Drug type: Diamorphine	·1 month’s imprisonment
·S8(a) unauthorised possession of a controlled drug Drug type: Diamorphine	·12 months’ imprisonment (consecutive with possession of utensils charge)
4.	10.12.1999	·S5(1)(a) trafficking in a controlled drug ·Drug type: Cannabis	·6 years’ corrective training with 6 strokes of the cane

The accused has confirmed the antecedents to be correct.

Prosecution’s Submission on Sentence

The prosecution submitted a global imprisonment term of not less than 3 years given the accused’s antecedents, with one consumption and one possession charge to run consecutively.

For the individual charges, the prosecution sought for a sentence greater than the minimum sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment in relation to each of the 2 possession charges (i.e. 1st and 2nd Charges). For the consumption charges, prosecution sought for a sentence of at least 12 months’ imprisonment (i.e. 3rd and 4th Charges).

Prosecution submitted that the accused had a long criminal career where he had undergone both corrective training and preventive detention. He started on drugs 20 years ago in February 1997 and committed the present set of offences shortly after he was released from prison in 2015. This was after having served 8 years of preventive detention for various serious non-drug related offences. Although the accused had committed more non-drug related offences than those that were drug related, the accused’s hard core behaviour showed that he was recalcitrant in committing criminal activities. The learned Deputy Public Prosecutor even pointed out that the accused had raised several frivolous and unsubstantiated defences at the trial before me. This clearly showed his lack of remorse and cavalier disregard for the law.

Thus, prosecution submitted that a global sentence of at least 3 years was appropriate viewing all the factors in totality.

At this juncture, I have noted that the global sentence sought by the prosecution must be more than 3 years and not at least 3 years since it had sought for more...