Public Prosecutor v Kisshahllini a/p Paramesuvaran

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 07 April 2016
• Date: 07 April 2016
• Docket Number: Criminal Case No 18 of 2016
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Public Prosecutor

and

Kisshahllini a/p Paramesuvaran

[2016] SGHC 57

Tay Yong Kwang J

Criminal Case No 18 of 2016

High Court

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing — Principles — Female offender

— Not liable for caning — Whether imprisonment term in lieu of caning appropriate where punishment was mandatory 15 strokes of cane — Sections325(1)(a) and

325(2) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed)

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing — Principles — Unauthorised importation of diamorphine — Whether actual amount of drugs admitted to being imported could be taken into account — Sections 7, 33(1) and Second Schedule, Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed)

The accused was a female Malaysian who was 22 years old at the time of the offence. She pleaded guilty to one charge of the unauthorised importation of not less than 14.99g of a controlled drug, diamorphine, which is an offence under s 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed).

The accused was travelling into Singapore inside a Malaysia-registered taxi. At the Singapore Woodlands Checkpoint, the accused was screened by the Immigration Checkpoints Authority (“ICA”). The ICA personnel noted that the accused was walking with an abnormal gait. A physical search was conducted whereupon two newspaper bundles were removed from the crotch panel of the accused’s underwear. Further investigations revealed that the two newspaper bundles contained a total of not less than 18.03g of diamorphine.

The Prosecution submitted that the accused should be sentenced to at least 22 years’ imprisonment, noting that the quantity of drugs imported by the accused was a significant factor. The Prosecution argued that there was a discernible trend of higher sentences being meted out to offenders who exceeded the 14.99g limit by a greater amount. The Prosecution also noted that because the accused was female and could not be subject to caning, the court had the discretion under s 325(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) (“CPC”) to impose, in lieu of caning, an additional term of imprisonment of up to 12 months.

In mitigation, the Defence submitted that the minimum term of 20 years’ imprisonment, as prescribed by law, would suffice. It was also submitted that the court should not exercise its discretion under s 325(2) of the CPC to impose a term of imprisonment in lieu of caning. The Defence argued, inter alia, that the accused had no criminal record and was a mere courier. She neither packed nor consumed the drugs. She was of a young age and foolishly trusted her friends

and followed their instructions to carry the newspaper bundles from Malaysia to Singapore.

Held, convicting and sentencing the accused to 22 years’ imprisonment:

(1) The accused had pleaded guilty to the offence and had no criminal record. There were no aggravating factors that justified the imposition of the maximum sentence of life imprisonment: at [12].

(2) The accused admitted to importing 18.03g of diamorphine. Given that the actual amount of diamorphine that that the accused admitted to importing exceeded 15g, the minimum sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment would be inadequate: at [13].

(3) In respect of the present charge, the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) prescribed a mandatory sentence of 15 strokes of the cane, which was significantly high. That being the case, the court should consider imposing an additional imprisonment term in respect of offenders who were exempted from caning unless there were special circumstances that justify doing otherwise. Given the severity of the punishment, the maximum of 12 months’ imprisonment should be added if the accused person was exempted from caning. This was to ensure that such exempted persons had less incentiveto be involved in the movement of drugs: at [16].

PP v Balakrishnan a/l Sannasy Criminal Case No 30 of 2007 (19 November 2007) (refd)

P P v Kesavan a/l K Tayabalan Criminal Case No 9 of 2013 (26 June 2013) (refd)

PP v Lim Bee Hoon [2015] SGHC 45 (refd)

P P v Masoud Rahimi bin Mehrzad [2015] SGHC 288 (refd)

PP v Nares Kumar a/l Segaran Criminal Case No 23 of 2012 (7 September 2012) (refd)

PP v Sng Choong Peng Criminal Case No 1 of 2009 (9 January 2009) (refd)

PP v Yap Siew Luan [2002] SGHC 93 (distd)

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 325(2) (consd); ss 325(1), 325(1)(a)

Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) ss 7, 33(1), Second Schedule

Isaac Tan and Yvonne Poon (Attorney-General’s Chambers) for the Prosecution; Amarick Gill (Amarick Gill LLC) for the accused.

Tay Yong Kwang J:

That you, KISSHAHLLINI A/P PARAMESUVARAN, on 25 January 2014, at about 8.21...