Public Prosecutor v Mithileswariy d/o Aruvalangan

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Salina Bte Ishak
• Judgment Date: 29 July 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] SGDC 159
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: DAC 900789 - 2019 Magistrate’s Appeal No: 9166/2019/01
• Published date: 02 August 2019
• Year: 2019
• Hearing Date: 01 July 2019
• Plaintiff Counsel: SPO A Majeed Yosuff (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Defendant Counsel: Ms Sadhana Devi d/o Daevnrd Rai, CLAS Advocate (The Law Society)
• Citation: [2019] SGDC 159

District Judge Salina Bte Ishak: Background The Charge

The accused, Ms Mithileswariy d/o Aruvalangan, a 26-year old female Singaporean, had pleaded guilty on 1 July 2019 to one charge of attempted drug possession under s 8(a) read with s 12 and punishable under s 33(1) Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) in DAC 900789-2019. She was sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment and her sentence was backdated to 10 January 2019, the date she was first produced in Court 26.

In view of the time she had spent in remand and the remission period as calculated by the prison authorities, she was released on 1 July 2019 itself. This is her appeal against sentence filed on 15 July 2019 through her CLAS Advocate, Ms Sadhana Rai who had represented her when she pleaded guilty in the first instance. The proceeded charge against her is as follows:

Exhibit C1C – 1st charge (Amended)

“…that you, 12 September 2018, at or about 4.47 p.m. at the level 3 staircase of Block 211 Yishun Street 21, Singapore 760211, did attempt to have in your possession (1) packet containing not less 1.00 gram of crystalline substance which was analysed and found to contain not less than 0.67 gram of Methamphetamine, which is a Class A controlled drug listed in the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed), to wit, by travelling to the aforesaid location so as to collect the said amount of Methamphetamine pursuant to a request of one Gopinathan s/o Vithilingam without any authorization under the said Act or the Regulations made thereunder and you have thereby committed an offence under Section 8(a) read with Section 12 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) and punishable under Section 33(1) of the aforesaid Act.

Statement of Facts

The Statement of Facts (Exhibit PS1) prepared by the Prosecution which the accused had admitted to without qualification is as follows:

“The accused is Mithileswariy d/o Aruvalangan, female/26 years old (Date of Birth:31 July 1992), a Singaporean.

2. The co-accused is Muhammad Hilal Bin Shaik Ismail, male/26 years old (Date of Birth: 31 December 1992), a Singaporean (“Md Hilal”).

FACTS PERTAINING TO DAC 900789-2019 ATTEMPTED POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED DRUG

3. On 11 September 2018 at about 6.33 p.m., Md Hilal was arrested at his home, Block 211 Yishun Street 21, #XXX, Singapore, by officers from the Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) for drug related offences. A search was conducted and the under-listed exhibit, which was believed to be a ‘ice’ (a street name for Methamphetamine), was seized from Md Hilal’s possession: a. 1 packet containing crystalline substance (later marked as exhibit “F”). 4. Investigations revealed that the accused and Md Hilal are acquainted and they were in communication on 11 September 2018, sometime before Md Hilal’s arrest. During the communication, the accused requested Md Hilal to supply her with “1G of ‘ice’ (a street name for Methamphetamine) at a price of $100. Md Hilal agreed and in pursuant, he prepared the accused’s request and it was packed in the exhibit “F”. 5. It was arranged that the accused was to collect the ‘ice’ at the void deck of Block 211 Yishun Street 21 (“the location”) on the following day. Subsequently, on 12 September 2018 at about 4.47 p.m., the accused was arrested at level 3 staircase of Apt Block 211 Yishun Street 21 by CNB officers. 6. Meanwhile, on 12 September 2018, the exhibit “F” was sealed in a separate tamperproof bag and submitted to the Health Sciences Authority (“HSA”) for analysis. 7. On 22 October 2018, Tang Shi Ying Angeline an analyst with the Illicit Drugs Laboratory of HSA, having had conduct of the analysis in relation to the exhibit ‘F”, issued a certificate bearing Lab No: ID-1832-02177-001, under Section 16 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”). It stated that exhibit “F” was found to be 1 packet containing not less than 1.00 gram of crystalline substance which was analysed and found to contain not less than 0.67 gram of Methamphetamine. 8. Methamphetamine is a Class A controlled drug listed in the First Schedule to the MDA. 9. Investigations further revealed that at the time of her arrest, the accused was attempting to have in her possession the aforesaid controlled drug, to wit, by travelling to the location so as to collect the aforesaid controlled drug. The accused had made the order from Md Hilal, on the request of one Gopinathan s/o Vithilingam, who is her acquaintance, and she was supposed to pass the aforesaid controlled drug to Gopinathan s/o Vithilingam after collecting it from Md Hilal. 10. It was also revealed that the accused had previously procured and collected ‘ice’ on two previous occasions from Md Hilal and this would thus, be her third order of ‘ice’ from Md Hilal. The accused had made all the three orders on the request of Gopinathan s/o Vithilingam. 11. The accused is not authorised under the MDA or the Regulations made thereunder to have in her possession the said controlled drug, and by the foregoing, she has thereby committed an offence under Section 8(a) read with Section 12 of the MDA, and punishable under Section 33(1) of the aforesaid Act. 12. The accused stands charged accordingly Antecedents

The Accused has no prior antecedents.

Prosecution’s Address On Sentence

In its oral address on sentence, the Prosecution had highlighted that the accused has been convicted on a charge of attempted drug possession. It was submitted that s 12 Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) prescribes the offence to be the same as that for possession of drugs unlike s 511 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev. Ed.). The Prosecution made reference to the Court of Appeal decision in PP v Mas Swan Bin Adnan and another appeal [2012] SGCA 29 at [59] and highlighted that the substantive offence in the present case was possession.

It was further submitted that in the present case there was a complete lack of exceptional circumstances but rather there were two aggravating factors as stated in paragraph 10 of the Statement of Facts. This would be a third order of ‘ice’ from Muhammad Hilal and all these orders were on the request of Gopinathan s/o Vithilingam. It was highlighted that the drugs were not meant for her own consumption. It was the case for the Prosecution that it was meant to be distributed or delivered to Gopinathan and she was in effect spreading the scourge of drugs. This could not be regarded as a mitigating factor.

In response to the accused’s written mitigation that the accused has no prior antecedents, the Prosecution had referred to PP v Lim Cheng Ji, Alvin [2017] SGHC 183. In that case the High Court at [20] had held that:

“Turning to the second of the main planks underpinning the District Judge’s decision, as I have summarised at [5] above, it is true that the Respondent had no antecedents in the sense that he had not previously been charged.But where, as here, the offender has previously engaged in criminal conduct, even if he has not been charged, then although such conduct should not be considered as an aggravating factor, the lack of a court antecedent certainly cannot be regarded as mitigating: see Vasentha d/o Joseph v Public Prosecutor [2015] 5 SLR 122 at [62] and [81]…”

It was submitted that the accused being untraced could not be regarded as a mitigating factor. It was the case for the...