Roszaidi bin Osman v Public Prosecutor
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Sundaresh Menon CJ |
Judgment Date | 01 December 2022 |
Neutral Citation | [2022] SGCA 75 |
Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
Docket Number | Criminal Appeal No 2 of 2019 |
Published date | 06 December 2022 |
Year | 2022 |
Hearing Date | 12 April 2022 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Eugene Singarajah Thuraisingam, Johannes Hadi (Eugene Thuraisingam LLP), Shobna Chandran and Thaddaeus Aaron Tan Yong Zhong (Tan Rajah & Cheah) |
Defendant Counsel | Hay Hung Chun and Zhou Yang (Attorney-General's Chambers) |
Citation | [2022] SGCA 75 |
The accused, Mr Roszaidi bin Osman (“Roszaidi”), was charged with trafficking in a controlled drug under s 5(1)(
The alternative sentencing regime in s 33B(1)(
It is not in dispute between the parties that the First Limb is satisfied as Roszaidi was suffering from major depressive disorder (“MDD”) and substance use disorder (“SUD”) at the material time. This was also common ground between the two psychiatric experts who examined Roszaidi and gave expert evidence in the proceedings, namely: the Prosecution’s expert, Dr Bharat Saluja (“Dr Saluja”), and the Defence’s expert, Dr Jacob Rajesh (“Dr Rajesh”). The issues in this appeal therefore pertain only to the Second and Third Limbs of the
In our judgment, both the Second Limb and the Third Limb are satisfied in Roszaidi’s case. The Second Limb is satisfied by Roszaidi’s MDD and his SUD, which operated together in a “synergistic” manner at the time of the offence (a term used by Dr Rajesh, which is explained at [39] and [69] below). As for the Third Limb, we are satisfied that Roszaidi’s mental responsibility for his acts and omissions in relation to his offence was indeed substantially impaired by the combination of his MDD and SUD at the material time. We set out the applicable legal principles and explain our reasons in full below. Where relevant, we also make reference to the dissenting judgment of Andrew Phang Boon Leong JCA and Steven Chong JCA (“the Minority Judgment”).
FactsWe begin with the relevant facts pertaining to Roszaidi’s abnormalities of mind, and the background to the present appeal. It will be observed that the facts set out below span a long period of time and include a relatively granular chronology of the relevant events in Roszaidi’s life. These can be divided into four stages: (a) his drug consumption from a very young age; (b) his drug-related treatments and criminal records; (c) the events occurring after his release from prison; and (d) the circumstances surrounding his commission of the present offence. Such a full chronology of the salient events is necessary, in our view, in order to appreciate the degree and impact of Roszaidi’s abnormalities of mind, and the context within which the present offence must be viewed. For the avoidance of doubt, we sometimes refer to “diamorphine” and “methamphetamine” as “heroin” and “ice” respectively, these being their street names and/or how Roszaidi referred to them.
Roszaidi’s drug consumption from a young ageRoszaidi’s exposure to drugs began very early in his life. He started consuming cannabis at the young age of 10 with his friends, using the money given to him by his mother and grandmother for buying food, to buy cannabis instead.
The age at which Roszaidi began consuming other drugs is not consistently recorded in the experts’ reports. Dr Saluja’s first report dated 13 November 2015 (“Dr Saluja’s 1st Report”) recorded that Roszaidi began consuming heroin, erimin and dormicum from the age of 17. In contrast, Dr Rajesh’s second report dated 27 February 2020 (“Dr Rajesh’s 2nd Report”) records that Roszaidi started using heroin when he was just 12 years old; his father was a regular heroin user, and he would smoke heroin taken from his father’s stocks at home. He smoked heroin about three times a week with his friends. Dr Rajesh also records that Roszaidi started consuming erimin and dormicum tablets from the age of 12, and he consumed these once or twice a week. However, nothing turns on this difference because on
A perusal of Roszaidi’s treatment records at the Drug Rehabilitation Centre (“DRC”) and his criminal records reveals that he was subsequently plagued by drug-related problems for most of his adult life. These criminal records were tendered by the Prosecution on 26 April 2022, upon our request and without objection from either party.
On 1 March 1990, when Roszaidi was around 18 years old, he was ordered to undergo treatment at the DRC for six months on account of his drug consumption. On 28 May 1990, he was placed under drug supervision for 24 months. On 26 June 1990, he was again ordered to undergo treatment at the DRC for six months. On 14 June 1991, when he was around 19 years old, he was again placed under drug supervision for 24 months. On 24 January 1992, when Roszaidi was around 20 years old, he was yet again ordered to undergo treatment at the DRC for six months. And on 16 January 1995, when Roszaidi was around 23 years old, he was once again placed under drug supervision for 24 months.
Just over a week later in the same year, on 24 January 1995, Roszaidi was convicted on a charge of unauthorised possession of a controlled drug and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. A few months later, on 24 July 1995, he was again ordered to undergo treatment at the DRC for six months.
On 16 July 1997, when Roszaidi was around 25 years old, he was placed under drug supervision for 24 months. On 4 October 1997, he was ordered to undergo treatment at the DRC for six months for his consumption of morphine. In 1999, when Roszaidi was around 27 years old, he started injecting heroin. This went on until 2006 (see [13] below).
On 23 February 2000, when Roszaidi was around 28 years old, he was convicted on another charge of unauthorised possession of a controlled drug (morphine), as well as a charge of smoking, self-administering or consuming morphine. For these two offences, he was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment and five years and three weeks’ imprisonment respectively, both to run concurrently. A further charge of consumption of cannabinol derivatives was taken into consideration.
On 28 July 2003, when Roszaidi was around 31 years old, he was placed under drug supervision for 24 months for his consumption of morphine. In 2006, when Roszaidi was around 34 years old, he stopped
On 2 February 2007, when Roszaidi was around 35 years old, he was convicted of trafficking in a controlled drug (buprenorphine) and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment with five strokes of the cane. He was also convicted of smoking, self-administering or consuming buprenorphine and was sentenced to seven years and six months’ imprisonment with six strokes of the cane. These two sentences ran concurrently. Two further charges were taken into consideration: one charge of trafficking in buprenorphine, and one charge of smoking, self-administering or consuming buprenorphine. It is likely that it was when Roszaidi was serving this imprisonment term that he became acquainted with one “Is Cangeh”. In Roszaidi’s third long statement dated 17 October 2015 (“Roszaidi’s 3rd Long Statement”), he stated that he “saw [Is Cangeh] in prison when [he] was serving [the] sentence for [his] Subutex trafficking offence”.
After his release from prison in 2011, Dr Rajesh’s 2nd Report records that Roszaidi “stayed away from drugs for 1 year until 2012, when he was arrested for possession of heroin”. It is likely that this period of abstinence from drugs in fact ended before the end of 2011, given that – on 3 December 2011, when...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Roszaidi bin Osman v PP
...bin Osman and Public Prosecutor [2022] SGCA 75 Sundaresh Menon CJ, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JCA, Judith Prakash JCA, Steven Chong JCA and Belinda Ang Saw Ean JCA Criminal Appeal No 2 of 2019 Court of Appeal Criminal Law — Special exceptions — Diminished responsibility — Accused person senten......