Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Ikrimah bin Muhammad Adrian Rogelio Galaura

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Aedit Abdullah J
• Judgment Date: 22 May 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] SGHC 107
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Criminal Case No 22 of 2019
• Year: 2020
• Published date: 29 May 2020
• Hearing Date: 12 March 2020
• Plaintiff Counsel: Chan Yi Cheng and Kenneth Kee (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Defendant Counsel: Rupert Seah Eng Chee (Rupert Seah & Co.) and Krishna Ramakrishna Sharma (Fleet Street Law LLP)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Statutory offences,Misuse of Drugs Act,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Sentencing
• Citation: [2020] SGHC 107

Aedit Abdullah J: Introduction

The Accused pleaded guilty before me on three proceeded drugs charges, with three other charges taken into consideration in sentencing.¹ One charge was withdrawn on a discharge amounting to an acquittal.² A total sentence of 27 years’ imprisonment and 15 strokes was imposed.³ The Accused has appealed against his sentence on grounds that it was manifestly excessive.⁴

The Charges

The three proceeded charges were as follows: Importation of not less than 249.99 g of methamphetamine, a Class A controlled drug listed in the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”), an offence under s 7 of the MDA, punishable under s 33(1) MDA (“Importation Charge”);⁵ Consumption of methamphetamine, a specified drug listed in the Fourth Schedule to the MDA, an offence under s 8(b)(ii) MDA, punishable under s 33(1) MDA (“Consumption Charge”);⁶ and Possession of not less than 34.01 g of methamphetamine, a Class A controlled drug listed in the First Schedule to the MDA, an offence under s 8(a) read with s 18(4) MDA, punishable under s 33(1) MDA (“Possession Charge”).⁷

The charges taken into consideration (“TIC”) were: Importation of two blocks containing not less than 499.99 g of vegetable matter which was found to contain cannabis, a Class A controlled drug listed in the First Schedule to the MDA, an offence under s 7 MDA, punishable under s 33(1) MDA (“TIC Importation Charge”);⁸ Possession of utensils intended for the consumption of a controlled drug, an offence under s 9 MDA, punishable under s 33(1) MDA (“TIC Possession Charge”);⁹ and Trafficking of not less than 0.84 g of methamphetamine, a Class A controlled drug listed in the First Schedule to the MDA, an offence under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) MDA, punishable under s 33(1) MDA (“TIC Trafficking Charge”).¹⁰

A charge pertaining to importation of cannabis mixture was withdrawn.¹¹

The Facts admitted

The Accused admitted to the Statement of Facts (“SOF”),¹² of which the material facts were as follows.

The Accused with his wife entered Singapore on 17 October 2017, at about 2 am, at Woodlands checkpoint in a car.¹³ During a routine check by officers from the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA), a plastic bag containing vegetable matter was discovered; that vegetable matter was subsequently analysed to contain cannabis.¹⁴ Officers from the Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) were activated; on further search, another block of vegetable matter containing cannabis was also found.¹⁵ When a canine search was conducted later that morning, two blocks of a crystalline substance wrapped in Chinese tea packaging were also found at the right side of the car boot panel.¹⁶ Subsequent analysis by the Health Sciences Authority (“HSA”) disclosed that these two blocks of crystalline substances contained not less than 249.99 g of methamphetamine (the “imported methamphetamine”).¹⁷

At about 8.30 am that same day, the Accused and his wife were brought back to their home at Choa Chu Kang;¹⁸ there, four packets of crystalline substances were found,¹⁹ which were also later analysed by the HSA and found to contain not less than 34.01 g of methamphetamine.²⁰

Following investigations, it was disclosed that the Accused worked as a drug courier for one “Shafiq”, whose real identity remained unknown.²¹ The Accused agreed to go to Johor Bahru to collect items on Shafiq’s behalf from an unidentified Malaysian drug supplier, and to bring those items into Singapore, for which the Accused was promised payment of S$1,500.²² Thus on 16 October 2017, the Accused drove to Malaysia with his wife.²³ In Johor Bahru, Malaysia, the Accused met with an unknown Chinese man, who handed to him the imported methamphetamine, amongst other things.²⁴ The Accused hid the imported methamphetamine in the car boot,²⁵ and the other drug bundles in different locations in the car.²⁶ The Accused knew that the packets of imported methamphetamine contained methamphetamine.²⁷ He then entered Singapore with them in the car.²⁸

The Accused was not authorised under the MDA or regulations made thereunder to import methamphetamine into Singapore.²⁹ By importing the imported methamphetamine, he committed an offence under s 7 of the MDA of importing not less than 249.99 g of methamphetamine.³⁰

No information was provided by the Accused to enable the authorities to identify Shafiq, who remained at large as of 12 March 2020, the date of the hearing.³¹

After his arrest, the Accused provided urine samples which were found on analysis to contain methamphetamine.³² The Accused admitted that he had been using methamphetamine since early 2017, smoking about 1 g a week.³³ He had done so on or about 16 October 2017, by placing some methamphetamine on the bottom of a glass instrument, heating the base with a lighter and inhaling the fumes emitted thereafter.³⁴ As the Accused was not authorised to consume methamphetamine, he had committed an offence under s 8(b)(ii) of the MDA.³⁵

The Accused admitted that the four packets of methamphetamine were part of a joint stash shared with his wife for their personal consumption.³⁶ He knew that they contained methamphetamine, and possessed them with his wife’s knowledge and consent.³⁷ He was not authorised under the MDA or its regulations to possess methamphetamine, and had thus committed an offence under s 8(a) read with s 18(4) of the MDA, punishable under s 33(1) MDA.³⁸

The Accused’s wife had pleaded guilty in the State Courts to the same Possession Charge as the Accused and was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment for the joint possession of not less than 34.01 g of methamphetamine.³⁹

Antecedents

The Accused had no criminal antecedents.⁴⁰

The Prosecution’s submissions Importation Charge

The Prosecution sought at least 27 years’ imprisonment and 15 strokes for the Importation Charge.⁴¹

The Prosecution cited Suventher Shanmugam v Public Prosecutor [2017] 2 SLR 115 (“Suventher”) as the guiding authority, which laid down a two stage framework.⁴² The first stage involves identifying the indicative starting point based on the quantity of drugs, as the quantity is directly related to the harm to society and consequently the gravity of the offence.⁴³ The second stage involves adjusting the indicative starting sentence upwards or downwards to take into account the offender’s culpability, and the presence of aggravating or mitigating factors.⁴⁴ These factors include those identified in Vasentha d/o Joseph v Public Prosecutor [2015] 5 SLR 122 (“Vasentha”).⁴⁵

The Suventher framework was extrapolated to apply to methamphetamine in Adri Anton Kalangie v Public Prosecutor [2018] 2 SLR 557 (“Kalangie”); Kalangie indicated that importing 249.99 g of methamphetamine, as in the present case, fell between the band of 217.00 g to 250.00 g, and warranted a starting indicative sentence of between 26 to 29 years’ imprisonment and 15 strokes.⁴⁶ The corresponding starting sentence should be 29 years as 249.99 g is at the highest end of that spectrum.⁴⁷

From the starting sentence, an adjustment downwards of two years was merited.⁴⁸ The Accused’s role had been limited to being a courier, and the Accused had pleaded guilty.⁴⁹ However, the latter ought to be given limited weight as he was caught red handed (Vasentha at [71]).⁵⁰

There were aggravating factors as: the Accused had actively and personally concealed the imported methamphetamine in his car, which was a separate aggravating factor over and above indicating premeditation and planning;⁵¹ the Accused dealt in a variety of drugs at the time, shown by the TIC Importation Charge of importing 499.99 g of vegetable matter containing cannabis, which was just short of the threshold for the death penalty.⁵²

Given these factors, a two year downward adjustment was generous;⁵³ it was also in line with the sentencing precedents.⁵⁴

Consumption Charge

In Public Prosecutor v Dinesh Singh Bhatia [2005] 3 SLR(R) 1 (“Dinesh Singh”), the High Court laid down a sentencing benchmark of between 6 to 18 months imprisonment for a first-time offender of drug consumption.⁵⁵ The factors to be considered include (Dinesh Singh at [39]): the amount of drugs consumed; the occasion that led to the consumption; whether it was planned or incidental to some other event; whether payment was involved; whether there were others simultaneously taking drugs; and whether the accused was a casual consumer or an addict.⁵⁶

The Accused should be awarded at least nine month’s imprisonment as he had been abusing methamphetamine since early 2017, and was neither a casual consumer nor a young offender.⁵⁷ This would be consistent with the precedents of Tan Woei Hwang v Public Prosecutor (MA 9147/2017),⁵⁸ and Sutherland Hugh David Brodie v Public Prosecutor (MA 9044/2019).⁵⁹

Possession Charge

The benchmark laid down in Dinesh Singh applies similarly to first-time offenders caught in possession of methamphetamine.⁶⁰

The Accused’s wife had been sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment for the same Possession Charge. As the drugs were meant to be shared between them, their culpability was arguably the same and hence the same punishment should apply for parity of sentencing.⁶¹

Total charge

The Prosecution argued that the sentences for the Importation Charge and the Possession Charge should be run consecutively as the offences violated different legally protected interests (Public Prosecutor v Raveen Balakrishnan [2018] 5 SLR 799 at [39]), giving a total of 28 years’ imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane.⁶² This would not be crushing as it reflects the overall criminality of the Accused’s offences.⁶³

The Mitigation and Defence Submissions

In mitigation, the Defence pointed to the background and personal circumstances of the Accused: he was only 23 years at the time of his arrest, and 25 years old at the time of the hearing;⁶⁴ he was unemployed when arrested and had...