Public Prosecutor v Tan Kheng Chun Ray

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Kan Ting Chiu J
• Judgment Date: 04 August 2011
• Neutral Citation: [2011] SGHC 183
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Criminal Case No 6 of 2011
• Published date: 13 March 2012
• Year: 2011
• Hearing Date: 22 March 2011
• Plaintiff Counsel: Gordon Oh and Peggy Pao (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Defendant Counsel: Subhas Anandan and Sunil Sudheesan (KhattarWong)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law
• Citation: [2011] SGHC 183

Kan Ting Chiu J:

The accused, Ray Tan Kheng Chun pleaded guilty to seven charges¹ for drug offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185 2008 Rev Ed).

The seven offences are: Charge 1 Importing not less than 14.99 grams of diamorphine. Charge 2 Importing not less than 1.12 grams of methamphetamine. Charge 3 Consumption of methamphetamine. Charge 4 Possession of utensils intended for the consumption of a controlled drug. Charge 5 Possession of another lot of utensils intended for the consumption of a controlled drug. Charge 6 Possession of utensils intended for the consumption of a controlled drug. Charge 7 Possession of three tablets of nimetazepam. The offences in Charges 1 to 5 took place on 10 October 2009. The offences in Charges 1, 2, 4 and 5 took place at the Woodlands Checkpoint, and the drug consumption offence in Charge 3, took place in Malaysia. The offences in Charges 6 and 7 took place on 11 October 2009 at the accused’s residence at No 1 Queensway, #08-63, Queensway Tower, Singapore.

The facts

The facts of the offence were set out in the Statement of Facts² which the accused admitted without qualification. Paras 2 to 6 of the statement disclosed that: 2. On 10 October 2009, at about 11.45 p.m., the accused drove a Singapore-registered motor car bearing registration number SGX 3644M (“SGX 3644M”) alone into Singapore at the Woodlands Checkpoint. 3. At the Arrival Car Green Channel Zone of the said Checkpoint, the accused was directed by an Immigrations and Checkpoints Authority (“ICA”) officer to park SGX 3644M at Lane 6 of the said Zone for a routine check to be carried out on the vehicle. 4. Two other ICA officers thereafter carried out the check on SGX 3644M. 5. In the course of checking SGX 3644M, the ICA officers discovered a box of tissues (“the tissue box”) on the floor behind the driver’s seat. On closer inspection, various glass ware and glass pipes were found inside two smaller boxes that were packed at the bottom of the tissue box. 6. The ICA officers activated Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) officers on duty in the vicinity of Lane 6 of the abovementioned Zone for assistance. On further inspection of SGX 3644M, the following items were discovered: a. One red plastic bag behind the radio console, which contained two packets of granular/powdery substances wrapped in a newspaper; b. One orange plastic bag inside the compartment below the handbrake, which also contained two packets of granular/powdery substances wrapped in a newspaper; and c. One black pouch in the compartment below the radio console (“the black pouch”), which contained two packets of crystalline substance, glass tube, glass pipe and straw.

The diamorphine referred to in Charge 1 was recovered from the red plastic bag and the orange plastic bag. Each bag contained two packets of granular/powdery substances which were analysed and found to contain not less than 30.91 grams of diamorphine.

The methamphetamine referred to in Charge 2 was recovered from two packets of crystalline substance in the black pouch. The crystalline substance was analysed and was found to contain not less 1.12 grams of methamphetamine. The utensils referred to in Charge 4 were also recovered from the black pouch.

The utensils referred to in Charge 5 were recovered from the tissue box.

The utensils referred to in Charge 6 and the three tablets of nimetazepam were recovered from the accused’s residence on 11 October 2009.

The evidence of the consumption of methamphetamine referred to in Charge 3 was from the analysis of the urine sample of the accused taken on 11 October 2009.

At the hearing, the accused confirmed that he knew that the drugs he was importing were diamorphine and methamphetamine.³

The accused’s background was set out in his plea-in-mitigation:⁴ he is a Singaporean and is 30 years old (his marital status is not disclosed); he was educated in Perth, Australia to the equivalent of A-level; he has been a regular with the Republic of Singapore Navy since 1998 (his rank and pay are not disclosed); he suffers from gout and high blood pressure; and he has no antecedents.

The accused disclosed that he used to commute to Johor Bahru to visit his girlfriend and friends, and he met a person named Eric who became a drinking companion.

In 2008 – 2009 the accused was in financial difficulties as a result of his accumulating credit card and mobile telephone debts which amounted to $13,000. He borrowed from his friends to pay the credit card and telephone bills and ended up being indebted to them as well.

On one occasion when he was with Eric he told Eric of his financial problems. Subsequently, when he was in Johor Bahru on 10 October 2009 Eric approached him with a proposal for him to bring a consignment of drugs into Singapore for a payment of $2,500.

The accused was eager to earn the $2,500 and agreed to the proposal. He gave Eric his car key and Eric drove off to place the drugs in the car before returning it to him. When the accused drove the car back to Singapore, he was arrested at the Woodlands Checkpoint. After he was arrested, the accused co-operated with the authorities and made positive statements to the investigating officers.

The prosecution did not make submissions specifically on sentence to be imposed. Instead, it submitted two compilations of sentences. One compilation was of sentences imposed in cases where an accused person had pleaded guilty to trafficking/importing diamorphine where the quantity of the drugs has been reduced to below 15 grams although the actual quantities involved were greater and would have brought on the mandatory capital sentence.⁵ In the twenty...