Public Prosecutor v Mohd Yusoff bin Jalil

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 19 November 1994
• Neutral Citation: [1994] SGHC 278
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 214 of 1994
• Date: 19 November 1994
• Year: 1994
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Eugene Lee (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Citation: [1994] SGHC 278
• Defendant Counsel: Respondent in person
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Statutes,Effect of amendments on sentencing for 'second and subsequent offence' in new editions,s 6(a) Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 1973 Ed),Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) s 8(a),Penalties,Nature of reprints and new editions,Whether applicable to offenders convicted under earlier editions,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Consolidating,Whether previous conviction of same offence under earlier edition of Act to be taken into account when sentencing offender under new edition,New editions of statutes,Sentencing,Second or subsequent offence,Statutory Interpretation

The respondent was arrested on 20 January 1994 at about 10pm by officers from the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) who found him hiding in the toilet of flat #10-13, Blk 71, Circuit Road, Singapore. The respondent admitted to the arresting officers that he had disposed of some heroin down the rubbish chute; and when one of the officers went down to the chute on the ground floor of the block to investigate, he discovered the said heroin in the form of two long straws, 14 shorter straws and one sachet. The respondent identified these items as the drugs he had thrown down the chute. On analysis the said items were found to contain a total of 1.98g of diamorphine.

The respondent pleaded guilty in the subordinate courts to a charge of possessing a controlled drug under s 8(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) and was sentenced to six months` imprisonment by the district judge. Subsequently, however, the prosecution brought this appeal against the sentence. It was pointed out that the respondent had previously, on 1 March 1980, been convicted of possession of a controlled drug under the then s 6(1) of the 1973 edition of the Misuse of Dugs Act. The prosecution asserted that the then s 6(a) of the 1973 edition constituted the predecessor to the present s 8(a) of the 1985 edition, being identical in its terms; and that the respondent`s conviction in the present case under s 8(a) of the 1985 edition of the Act should therefore be regarded as a ` second or subsequent offence ` meriting the mandatory minimum sentence of two years` imprisonment called for under the Second Schedule to the Act.

Having perused the Act in its present as well as in its former editions, I agreed with the submissions of the deputy public prosecutor. The 1985 edition presently in use is in fact a reprint of the original Act (Act 5 of 1973). Indeed the 1985 edition is not even the first reprint: the first reprint was issued in 1978, this being Reprint 2 of 1978. The respondent`s conviction in 1980 under s 6(a) of the 1973 edition of the Act subsists, however, as a ` previous conviction ` for the same offence that now stands delineated by s 8(a): it would be absurd to hold otherwise. The process of reprinting in itself means only that the legislation in question is reproduced in a form in which the original Act has incorporated into it the amendments made to it after its initial enactment: see for example Pearce and Geddes on Statutory Interpretation in Australia (3rd Ed) at p...