Public Prosecutor v Rahmat Bin Abdullah and Another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 11 September 2003
• Neutral Citation: [2003] SGHC 206
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 06 May 2004
• Year: 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Benjamin Yim and Lee Cheow Han [Attorney-GeneralÂ’s Chambers]
• Subject Matter: Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Sentencing,Principles,Appropriate sentence of imprisonment,Range of the prescribed length of imprisonment to be taken into account.,Mitigation,Accused pleading guilty,Lack of previous convictions,Relevance to sentencing,Correct mitigatory weight to ascribe to such factors.,Charge of trafficking,Quantity stated in charge less than that which accused was caught with,Whether relevant factor in sentencing,Whether quantity to be taken into account for sentencing should be that stated in the charge.
• Citation: [2003] SGHC 206

1 The first accused was 59 years old and was a taxi driver by occupation. He was originally charged with conspiracy (with the second accused) to traffic 1063g of cannabis. That was a capital charge. He also faced seven other various charges of trafficking in smaller quantities of cannabis and cannabis mixture, as well as a charge for consumption of cannabis. The second accused was originally charged with trafficking the said 1063g of cannabis. He also faced five other charges relating to drug offences, including one for consumption of cannabis. The prosecution reduced the capital charges against both accused. Each of the two accused pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of trafficking 499.9g of cannabis, and a charge of consumption of cannabis. Both accused agreed to have all the other charges taken into account for the purposes of sentencing. They admitted the statement of facts without qualification. Accordingly, I convicted both of them as charged. The trafficking charges were for an offence under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) and s 12 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, Ch 33. The consumption charges were for an offence under s 8(b)(i) of the Misuse of Drugs Act.

2 The facts were uncomplicated. The two accused had known each other since 2002. The second accused was a 45 year old Malaysian who was unemployed. He lived in Singapore at Blk 729 Woodlands Circle. He received a telephone call from the first accused at 9.50am on 25 January 2003. He was asked to help the first accused retrieve a plastic bag containing cannabis. As instructed, the second accused collected a bag hidden in a rubbish bin at Blk 728 Woodlands circle and brought it back to his flat and there unpacked the drugs. Later that afternoon, the second accused met the first accused and the two were seen driving off in the first accused’s taxi. The taxi was intercepted by officers of the Central Narcotics Bureau at 3.20pm at Woodlands Drive 61. The second accused’s flat was subsequently searched and the drugs which were the subject matter of the trafficking charge were found in a cupboard in his flat. The urine sample of both accused were taken at the Central Narcotics Bureau on the same day. The samples were tested positive for controlled drugs by the Health Sciences Authority. I sentenced both accused to 22 years imprisonment and in addition, the second accused was sentenced to 15 strokes of the cane in respect of the trafficking charge; and one year’s imprisonment for each of them in respect of the consumption charge. The terms of imprisonment are to run concurrently with effect from 27 January 2003 when they were first remanded.

3 The prescribed punishment for the trafficking charge is 20 to 30 years imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane, or life imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane. The prescribed punishment for the consumption is imprisonment up to 10 years or a fine up to $2,000 or both. There was little by way of mitigation for both accused persons save that these charges were their first offences concerning prohibited drugs. The first accused is 59 years old and had been hospitalised when he suffered a stroke about four or five years ago. The second accused is 45 years old. His counsel submitted a medical certificate reporting that he had surgery for an inguinal hernia.

4 The learned DPP...