Public Prosecutor v Suventher Shanmugam

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Kan Ting Chiu SJ
• Judgment Date: 31 August 2016
• Neutral Citation: [2016] SGHC 178
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Criminal Case No 30 of 2016
• Published date: 18 April 2017
• Year: 2016
• Hearing Date: 01 July 2016
• Plaintiff Counsel: Wong Woon Kwong (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Defendant Counsel: Ram Goswami (Ram Goswami)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Statutory offences,Misuse of Drugs Act,Illegally importing controlled drugs
• Citation: [2016] SGHC 178

Kan Ting Chiu SJ:

Suventher Shanmugam (“the Accused”) faced two charges of importing drugs when he came before me. The first charge was that he:

… on the 16th day of May 2015, at or about 5.10 a.m., at Woodlands Checkpoint, Singapore, did import into Singapore a controlled drug listed in Class ‘A’ of the First Schedule of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed), to wit, two (02) blocks containing not less than 499.9 grams of vegetable matter which was analysed and found to be cannabis, without any authorisation under the said Act or the Regulations thereunder, and (he had) thereby committed an offence under section 7 and punishable under section 33 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed).

The second charge was in similar terms as the first charge, except for the underlined words. The “499.9 grams” was changed to “999.9 grams”, and “cannabis” was changed to “cannabis mixture”.

At the outset of the hearing, the prosecution stated that it was proceeding on the first charge and applied for the second charge to be stood down. The first charge (which shall be referred to as the principal charge) was read to the Accused, and he pleaded guilty to it.

The facts

The prosecution tendered a Statement of Facts which was admitted by the Accused without reservation. The key facts were that on 16 May 2015, the Accused entered Singapore at the Woodlands Checkpoint in a bus. While he was going through immigration clearance, he was instructed to remove his sweater. When he did that a bulge was seen in the front of his shirt, and when the shirt was lifted, a block wrapped in plastic was found tucked at the waist of his trousers. A second block similarly wrapped in plastic was tucked at the back of the trousers.

The two blocks were subsequently found to be 971.5 grams and 996 grams of vegetable matter. When the blocks were analysed by the Health Sciences Authority, the first block was found to contain not less than 404.7 grams of cannabis and not less than 512.5 grams of cannabis mixture, while the second block was found to contain not less than 431.3 grams of cannabis and not less than 513.2 grams of cannabis mixture. In total, there were not less than 836 grams of cannabis and not less than 1,025.7 grams of cannabis mixture.

Subsequent investigations revealed that the Accused had brought the two blocks into Singapore on the instructions of one Bathumalai A/L Veerappen (“Bathumalai”). Bathumalai had handed to the Accused a plastic bag with instructions for him to deliver it to someone at Kampong Arang Block 9, on the promise that Bathumalai will pay the Accused something (which the Accused understood to mean money) upon successful delivery.

When the Accused was in a bus on the way to Singapore, he opened the plastic bag that Bathumalai handed to him, and saw the two blocks which he recognised as “ganja” (Malay for cannabis) by the smell. At the Woodlands Checkpoint the Accused took the two blocks out of the plastic bag and hid them under his shirt in the front of his stomach and behind his back, from where they were recovered when he was arrested.

Upon the Accused’s admission of the facts, he was convicted on the first charge. At that time, the prosecution applied for the second charge to be taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing. The effect of the application was explained to the Accused, and he consented to it. He also admitted the facts in the Statement of Facts relating to the cannabis mixture which was the subject of the second charge.

The mitigation plea

The Accused is a Malaysian. He is single and is currently 23 years old. Prior to his arrest, he was working as a cleaning supervisor in Singapore earning S$1,700 a month. He came from a poor family, his father is sick and unemployed and his mother is a housewife. He contributed RM1500 monthly to support his family.

He had agreed to carry and deliver the drugs to Singapore for Bathumalai to get some money. He was a mere courier with no interest in the drugs. He is a first offender and he maintained that he had co-operated with the Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) in the investigations. Counsel for the Accused said that the Accused is deeply remorseful for what he had done, and has demonstrated his remorse by pleading guilty. He is not a hardened criminal and is not beyond rehabilitation. Counsel then submitted that the minimum mandatory sentence of 20 years imprisonment should be imposed and be backdated to run from the date of the Accused’s arrest.

The prosecution responded to the Accused’s mitigation plea. First, it pointed out that as he had been caught red-handed with the drugs on his body, his admission of guilt is of little or no mitigation value. Secondly, potential hardship to an accused person’s family normally does not qualify as a mitigating factor save in exceptional circumstances, and there are no such circumstances in the present case. Finally, the prosecution disagreed that the Accused had co-operated fully with the CNB in the investigations. It was disclosed that subsequent to the Accused’s arrest, the CNB conducted a follow-up operation where they instructed the Accused to speak on the telephone with someone to find out who the drugs were intended to be delivered to so that he may be identified and arrested. According to the prosecution, the telephone conversation was recorded and the transcript revealed that the Accused had tipped the person off by telling him that he has been arrested and the Accused did not dispute that, maintained that he did so because the CNB officers specifically instructed him to.

The prosecution tendered a table of four cases of sentences imposed where the weight of the cannabis in the charge were reduced from the weight of the drugs actually involved so that the mandatory death sentence did not apply, and where the accused persons had pleaded guilty. Three of these cases also involved offences being taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing. The four cases are – i CC 41/2004

Offence – trafficking in 499 g of cannabis (reduced from 749.17 g)

Taken into consideration – trafficking in 458.91 g of cannabis mixture

Sentence – 26 years imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane (appeal against the sentence dismissed by the Court of Appeal)

ii CC 17/2007

Offence – trafficking in 499 g of...