Public Prosecutor v Poopathi Chinaiyah s/o Paliandi

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Victor Yeo Khee Eng
• Judgment Date: 29 March 2007
• Neutral Citation: [2007] SGDC 83
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 05 April 2007
• Year: 2007
• Plaintiff Counsel: Evelyn Lee Jasmine (Assistant Public Prosecutor)
• Defendant Counsel: Peter Fernando (Leo Fernando)
• Citation: [2007] SGDC 83

29 March 2007

District Judge Victor Yeo Khee Eng:

Background and Charges

This is an appeal against the sentence.

2. The accused, 35 years of age, pleaded guilty to two charges under the Misuse of Drugs Act, Cap. 185 (‘MDA’). They read as follows:

First Charge (DAC 758/2007 – ‘P1A’) (‘the trafficking charge’):

“that you, on the 7^th day of November 2006 at about 5.35pm, at the main lobby of the Women’s Tower, KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital, Singapore, did traffic in a controlled drug specified in Class A of the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185, to wit, by having in your possession for the purpose of trafficking 10 blocks containing a total of 209.5 grams of vegetable matter which was analysed and found to contain cannabis as defined in Section 2 of the said Act, at the said place, without any authorisation under the said Act or the Regulations made thereunder and you have thereby committed an offence under Section 5(1)(a) read with Section 5(2) and punishable under Section 33 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185.”

Third Charge (DAC 1591/2007 – ‘P3A’) (‘the consumption charge’):

“that you, on or about the 7^th day of November 2006, in Singapore, did consume a controlled drug listed in Class A of the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185, to wit, 11-Nor-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol-9-carboxylic acid, a cannabinol derivative, without authorization under the said Act or the Regulations made thereunder, and you have thereby committed an offence under Section 8(b)(i) and punishable under Section 33 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185.”

3. The accused further admitted and consented to have another trafficking charge (‘P2A’) being taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing, namely, possession for the purpose of trafficking 10 blocks of vegetable matter containing a total of 231.24 grams of fragmented vegetable matter which was analysed and found to contain tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabinol, which was therefore cannabis mixture (‘the TIC charge’).

4. The prescribed punishment for the trafficking charge was a mandatory imprisonment term of between five to 20 years’ imprisonment and between five to 15 strokes of the cane. As for the consumption charge, the prescribed punishment was an imprisonment term of up to 10 years or fine or $20,000/- or both.

5. The accused was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment with 10 strokes of the cane for the trafficking charge, and 12 months’ imprisonment for the consumption charge. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently, i.e. a total of 12 years’ imprisonment with 10 strokes of the cane. The accused has appealed against this sentence. I now give the reasons for the sentence imposed.

The Statement of Facts

6. The Statement of Facts (Exhibit ‘B’), which the accused admitted to without qualifications, revealed that on 7 November 2006, at about 5.35pm, acting on information received, Narcotics Officer Ngo Hong Wong, together with a party of Central Narcotics Bureau (‘CNB’) officers arrested the accused at the main lobby of the Women’s Tower, KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital on suspicion of being involved in drug activities.

7. At the time of his arrest, the accused was carrying a red plastic bag containing 10 blocks of vegetable matter believed to be controlled drugs. The said exhibit was seized and sent to the Health Sciences Authority (‘HSA’) for analysis. It was found to be 209.5 grams of vegetable matter which was analysed and found to be cannabis, a Class A Controlled Drug listed in the First Schedule to the MDA.

8. In the course of investigation, the accused admitted that he had obtained the 10 blocks of cannabis from his supplier, and that it was meant to be delivered to an unknown male subject named ‘Ashok’ for a sum of $2,000/-. The accused further admitted to trafficking in the 10 blocks of cannabis.

9. After the arrest, the accused was taken back to the CNB office, where two bottles of his urine samples were obtained and subsequently sent to HSA for analysis. Upon analysis, the accused’s urine samples were found to contain 11-Nor-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol-9-carboxylic acid, a cannabinol derivative and a Class A Controlled Drug listed in the First Schedule to the MDA.

10. The accused admitted to having consumed the said drug without any authorisation sometime on or about 7 November 2006, prior to his arrest.

The Antecedents of the Accused

11. The accused was fined $800/- for an offence of possession of a controlled drug in February 1993.

Mitigation

12. The accused’s learned counsel highlighted in his mitigation plea that the accused had pleaded guilty to the charges and was remorseful for having committed the offences. He had not sought to waste the prosecution’s resources by claiming trial and raising any spurious defence to the charges.

13. His learned counsel submitted that the accused was arrested whilst he was in possession of the red plastic bag containing the said drugs and had not in fact parted possession with it. As such, the accused had not physically traffic the said drugs to a 3^rd party and was liable to the offence by virtue of the statutory presumption of trafficking.

14. The court was also informed that the accused was married to an Indian national who is a Permanent Resident, and that they have two daughters aged 6 years old and 5 years old respectively. As the sole-bread winner of his young family, the accused’s folly would have a devastating emotional and financial effect on them.

15. His learned counsel urged the court to be lenient with the accused and to impose the mandatory minimum sentence for the trafficking charge and a short custodial sentence for the consumption charge and further, to order a concurrent sentence.

Sentencing Considerations

16. In sentencing the accused, I first took into account the gravity of the offences and the overarching public interest considerations. The menace posed to society of drug abuses and the social evils associated with it are clear and need no elaboration. To combat and eradicate the abuse of drugs and its illicit trade in Singapore, Parliament has prescribed mandatory minimum sentences and caning, and even the ultimate penalty of death, for the illegal trafficking and importation of controlled drugs. Likewise, to deal effectively with recalcitrant drug addicts for persisting with their drug habit, Parliament has also prescribed long-term imprisonment and caning for hardcore drug addicts.

17. The punishments prescribed under the MDA regime underscored the gravity of these drug offences and Parliament’s resolve to eradicate the drug problem in Singapore. To that extent, the courts must send a clear message that such serious offences would not be tolerated. Hence, public interest clearly dictated the imposition of a deterrent sentence, and the principle of deterrence remained the paramount consideration when sentencing drug offences.

18. In respect of the drug trafficking charge, the first and foremost consideration I had in mind was the quantity of drugs involved. In PP v Ang Soon Huat (CC 34/87), an unreported...