Public Prosecutor v Tan Tristen Joshua Rae Len

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: May Lucia Mesenas
• Judgment Date: 23 March 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] SGDC 68
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Hearing Date: 21 November 2019,28 November 2019,21 January 2020
• Docket Number: DAC No. 921343 of 2019 & Others
• Plaintiff Counsel: DPP Bjorn Tan (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Tan Hee Jeok (M/s Tan See Swan & Co.)
• Published date: 28 March 2020

District Judge May Lucia Mesenas: Background

The accused, 20 years old, pleaded guilty to two charges under the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”), namely, one count of drug trafficking of cannabis¹ and one count of consumption of a specified drug listed in the Fourth Schedule to the MDA², namely, Nor-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol-9-carboxylic acid (or cannabinol derivative). One other count of drug trafficking of 3.07 grams of cannabis mixture as well as being in possession of 4.99 grams of the same³, were taken into consideration (“TIC”) for the purposes of sentencing.

I called for both Probation and Reformative Training Suitability reports (“probation report” and “RT report” respectively) where the accused was assessed to be suitable for both probation and reformative training (level 1 intensity of rehabilitation).

On 21 January 2020, the accused was sentenced to 27 months’ split probation (12 months’ intensive, 15 months’ supervised) with the following conditions, in that, the accused is: To remain indoors daily from 10pm to 6am; To be on electronic monitoring for a period of 12 months; To perform 240 hours of community service; To undergo regular and random urine tests; To attend a drug intervention programme; To undergo psychiatric and psychological treatment, if necessary; To comply with medication as prescribed by the psychiatrist, if necessary;

In addition, the accused’s parents were ordered to execute a bond in the sum of $5,000 to ensure his good behaviour.

On the same day, upon the application of the prosecution, a stay of the probation order was granted. On 22 January 2020, the prosecution filed the Notice of Appeal against sentence and the accused is currently on bail.

Charges

The two proceeded charges state as follows:

DAC 921343/2019

You, Tan Tristen Joshua Rae Len, male/20 years old, are charged that you, on 24 July 2019, at or about 10.00 am, at West Coast Plaza Shopping Mall level 1, beside Toast Box, Singapore, did traffic in a controlled drug listed in the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”), to wit, by selling one packet containing not more than 8.53 grams of vegetable matter, which was analysed and found to be cannabis, for not more than $490 to Sgt Chung Kian Chong, an officer of the Central Narcotics Bureau, at the said location, without authorisation under the said Act or the Regulations made thereunder, and you have thereby committed an offence under Section 5(1)(a) punishable under Section 33(1) of the MDA.

DAC 923090/2019

You, Tan Tristen Joshua Rae Len, male/20 years old are charged that you, on or before 24 July 2019, in Singapore, did consume a specified drug listed in the Fourth Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”), to wit, 11-Nor-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol-9-carboxylic acid, without any authorisation under the MDA or the Regulations made thereunder, and you have thereby committed an offence under Section 8(b)(ii) punishable under Section 33(3A) of the MDA.

The following two charges were TIC for purposes of sentencing:

DAC 921342/2019

You, Tan Tristen Joshua Rae Len, male/20 years old are charged that you, on 18 July 2019, at or about 4.40pm, at the bus-stop in front of Beauty World MRT Station, Singapore, did traffic in a controlled drug listed in the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act (Chapter 185, 2008 Rev Ed) )(“MDA”), to wit, by selling one packet containing not less than 3.07 grams of vegetable matter, which was analysed and found to contain cannabinol and tetrahydrocannabinol, for not more than $70 to Sgt Chung Kian Chong, an officer of the Central Narcotics Bureau, at the said location, without authorization under the said Act or the Regulations made thereunder and you have thereby committed an offence under Section 5(1)(a) and punishable under Section 33(1) of the MDA.

DAC 926654/2019

You, Tan Tristen Joshua Rae Len, male/20 years old, are charged that you, on 24 July 2019, at or about 1030am at Blk 58 West Coast Road #XXX Varsity Park Condominium, in Singapore, did have in your possession a Class A Controlled Drug listed in the First Schedule to the Misuse Drugs Act (Chapter 185, 2008 Rev Ed)(“MDA”), to wit, two packets containing not less than 4.99 grams of fragmented vegetable matter, which was analysed and found to contain cannabinol and tetrahydrocannabinol, without any authorization under the MDA or the Regulations made thereunder, and you have thereby committed an offence under section 8(a) punishable under section 33(1) of the MDA.

Summary of Facts

The accused admitted to the Statement of Facts pertaining to the above charges, without qualification. The salient points are as follows: DAC 921343/2019 (Drug Trafficking charge) Between 21 July to 24 July 2019, an arrangement was made between the accused and an undercover Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) officer, Sgt Chun Kian Chong (“undercover CNB officer”) to meet at West Coast Plaza Shopping Mall, Singapore, at about 10am, for the undercover CNB officer to purchase one packet of cannabis from the accused for $490. The accused met the said undercover CNB officer at the said time and location to sell the cannabis. The accused passed the said drugs (“exhibit”) to the undercover CNB officer, who in turn, handed over cash of $490 to the accused. When the transaction was completed, the accused walked away and was subsequently arrested. On 25 July 2019, the said exhibit was sent to the Health Sciences Authority (“HSA”) for analysis. On 4 September 2019, the said exhibit was found to contain 8.53 grams of cannabis, a Class A controlled drug listed in the First Schedule to the MDA. DAC 923090/2019 (Drug Consumption charge) After the accused was arrested on the same day as stated above, he provided two bottles of his urine samples, which were also sent to the HSA for analysis. It was subsequently found to contain 11-Nor-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol-9-carboxylic acid, a cannabinol derivative, which is a specified drug listed in the Fourth Schedule to the MDA.

Antecedents

The accused is a first offender.

Prosecution’s submissions on sentence

The prosecution submitted for a RT report to be called only and objected to the court calling for a probation report. In the main, the prosecution submitted that the offences committed by the accused are serious, in particular, that of drug trafficking as seen in the prescribed punishment which carries a mandatory minimum imprisonment term of five years and five strokes of the cane. In that regard, there was thus a need for deterrence within an overarching focus on rehabilitation which RT provides. Citing the case of Praveen s/o Krishnan v PP [2018] 3 SLR 1300 at [28] (“Praveen”), it is submitted that whilst rehabilitation is generally the dominant sentencing consideration for young offenders below 21 years old, this consideration is outweighed by the need for deterrence for offences such as drug trafficking (see also the case of PP v Adith s/o Sarvothan [2014] SGHC 103 at [14] (“Adith”)). Additionally, the seriousness of the offences is reflected in the multiple drug-related charges which the accused faces.

In relation to his substance abuse history, the accused had admitted to Dr Winslow that he had not only consumed cannabis but also consumed Ecstasy as well (see Dr Winslow’s report at [14]), thereby suggesting a need to deter the accused in consuming multiple types of drugs.

Furthermore, the accused had committed the offences when he was 20 years 6 months old, just six months shy of turning 21 years old, where the accused would have been ‘less influenced’ by his peers as compared to a 16-year old. It was thus submitted that given that the accused was at the ‘tail end of the spectrum’ of young offenders below 21 years old where rehabilitation would be the dominant sentencing consideration, deterrence, on the other hand, should instead take centre-stage.

Mitigation

In his mitigation plea, the accused, who was represented by counsel, highlighted the circumstances leading to the commission of the drug offences in that he commenced smoking cannabis from the middle of January 2019 through the bad influence of his friends that he met in the international schools in Singapore. He experimented in cannabis to relieve his insomnia and to fuel his creativity in writing songs. Further, he decided to sell cannabis to supplement his National Service (“NS”) allowance and was eventually arrested in a CNB sting operation in July 2019.

The accused is the elder of two children in the family where his father’s job in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (“MFA”) necessitated the entire family moving to different countries due to the various postings overseas. This resulted in the accused attending schools in different countries⁴.

The accused was serving NS and was due to complete the stint in February 2020. Prior to NS, the accused had completed the International Baccalaureate (“IB”) programme in Marlborough College, Malaysia. He has plans to pursue tertiary studies in Psychology after his NS. He had received offers for acceptance into foundation programmes at Monash University and University of Sydney. He was also in the process of applying to study in the universities abroad as well as locally.

The defence further highlighted the following mitigating factors⁵ in support of the court calling for a probation report instead of a RT report at first instance: The accused is a young offender for which the circumstances leading to the commission of the offences were not borne out of any deep-seated criminality but instead reflect a ‘foolish and immature state of mind then’. The accused comes from an intact Christian family that provides strong familial support. The accused’s parents (“the parents”) have counselled him over the incident and will monitor him closely to ensure that he does not get...