Close

Suit No:	DAC 18789/2009 and Others, MA 440/2009
Decision Date:	06 Jan 2010
Court:	District Court
Coram:	Lee-Khoo Poh Choo
Counsel:	SSI Razak, ASP Lam Peng Choy for the prosecution, Accused in person

Judgment

District Judge Lee Poh Choo

The charges and the appeal

1.         This Judgement arose from appeal against sentence by the accused. The accused pleaded guilty to the following 7 charges:

(a)       DAC 18789/2009 – that on 30 March 2009, the accused was in possession of 15.73 grams of Ketamine, a Class ‘A’ Controlled Drug, being an offence under section 8(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, Cap 185 (“MDA”);

(b)       DAC 25515/2009 – that on or about 15 March 2009, the accused consumed Norketamine, a Specified Drug, being an offence under section 8(b)(ii) of the MDA ;

(c)       DAC 52915/2009 – that on 17 July 2009, the accused was in possession of 0.47 grams of methamphetamine, a Class ‘A’ Controlled Drug, being an offence under section 8(a) of the MDA;

(d)       DAC52917/2009 – that on 17 July 2009, the accused was in possession of cannabis mixture, a Class ‘A’ Controlled Drug , being an offence under section 8(a) of the MDA;

(e)       DAC 52918/2009 – that on or about 17 July 2009, the accused consumed 11-Nor-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol-9-carboxylic acid, a Specified Drug, being an offence under section 8(b)(ii) of the MDA;

(f)        DAC 58230/2009  -  that on 23 September 2009 the accused failed to present himself at the Tanglin Police Division Headquarters for urine test as required under the Supervision Order, being an offence under Regulation 15(3)(f) of the Misuse of Drugs (Approved Institutions and Treatment and Rehabilitation) Regulations, Cap 185, Reg 3;

(g)       DAC 58231/2009   -   that on 25 September 2009, the accused failed to present himself at the Tanglin Police Division Headquarters for urine test as required under the Supervision Order, being an offence under Regulation 15(3)(f) of the Misuse of Drugs (Approved Institutions and Treatment and Rehabilitation) Regulations, Cap 185, Reg 3.

The accused also consented to 5 other charges of possessing and consuming norketamine and ketamine, possessing drug taking utensils and failing to report for urine tests being taken into consideration for purposes of sentencing. As the accused had previous drug related convictions, he was liable to enhanced punishment for the drug consumption and drug possession offences. I sentenced the accused to serve a total of 7 years and 15 months’ imprisonment. The accused has appealed against sentence.

Circumstances of the offences

2.         The accused admitted to two Statement of Facts without qualification. The facts are as follows in chronological order:

Facts Pertaining to DAC 25515/2009

On 15 March 2009 at about 5.55 p.m., Police Sergeant Mohamed Herman bin Mohd Yaakub and his partner spotted the accused at the void deck of Block 258 Serangoon Central Drive and approached him to conduct a check. On seeing the officers, the accused fled. The officers gave chase and arrested the accused on suspicion of having consumed controlled drugs. The accused was brought back to the Ang Mo Kio Police Division where 2 bottles of urine samples were procured from him and sent to HSA for analysis. On 26 March 2009 and 6 April 2009, HSA issued certificates Lab. Nos N2-2009-04097-004 and N2-2009-04097-001 stating that the urine samples contained Norketamine.

Facts Pertaining to DAC 18789/2009

On 30 March 2009 at about 11.18 a.m., Police Sergeant Ahmad Fadly bin Mansol and his partner checked on the accused at the void deck of Block 257 Yishun Ring Road. The accused turned violent and had to be subdued. A packet of white substance was found hidden in the accused’s underwear. The packet was seized and sent the Health Sciences Authority (“HSA”) for analysis. On 13 April 2009, HSA issued a certificate Lab. No. ID-0932-00559-002 stating that the white substance contained 15.73 grams of Ketamine.

Facts pertaining to DAC 52915 and 52917/2009

On 17 July 2009, the accused was arrested at his residence at Block 58 Toa Payoh Lorong 4 #01-49. A search was conducted thereat. 2 packets of crystalline substance and 2 blocks of vegetable substance were recovered and seized in the accused’s presence. The accused admitted ownership of these items and said that these were for his own consumption. These were sent to HSA for analysis.  On 24 August 2009, HSA issued 2 certificates. Lab. No. ID-0932-01275-002 stated that the 2 packets of crystalline substance contained 0.47 grams of Methamphetamine while Lab. No. ID- 0932-01275-001 stated that the 2 blocks of vegetable substance contained cannabinol and tetrahydrocannabinol and were therefore cannabis mixture.

Facts Pertaining to DAC 52918/2009

After the accused was arrested at his residence on 17 July 2009, he was brought to the Central Police Divisional Headquarters where 2 bottles of urine samples were procured from him and sent to HSA for analysis. On 23 July 2009, HSA issued certificates Lab. Nos AT-0933-10724-001-2 and AT-0933-10724-002-2 confirming that the urine samples contained 11-Nor-delta-9-tetrahydrocannibol-9-carboxylic acid, a cannabinol derivative.

Facts Pertaining to DAC 58230 and 58231/2009

On 20 February 2008, the accused was placed under compulsory supervision for 24 months under Regulation 15 of the Misuse of Drugs (Approved Institutions and Treatment and Rehabilitation) Regulations. He was required to report to the CNB Duty Officer at Tanglin Police division Headquarters every Monday, Wednesday and Friday for urine tests. The period he was subject to supervision was from 20 February 2008 to 19 February 2010. The accused failed to report for urine tests on 23 September 2009 (Wednesday) and on 25 September 2009 (Friday).

Antecedents

3.         The accused had the following antecedents :

[Sentences for drug trafficking & theft ordered to run consecutively, total 9 years’ impt]

20.2.2008 - Placed under drug supervision for 24 months

Mitigation

4.         The accused penned 2 mitigation pleas dated 30 Nov 2009 and 17 Dec 2009. His brother also wrote on 12 Dec 2009, pleading for leniency citing their mother’s old age and weak health.

5.         In his written pleas, the accused asked for leniency, stating that he understood the seriousness of the offences and regretted his wrong doing and the shame he brought to his family. Essentially, his plea centred on his mother – that she was advanced in age, poor in health, that he realised he had hurt her and let her down. The accused claimed that he was the one who took care of his mother as well as her financial needs. He then asked for another chance as he wished to start a family of his own and to provide for his mother and family. He vowed to stay away from controlled drugs. In his second letter, the accused sought to justify his drug habits. He claimed to be involved in a serious accident in 2001. As a result, he took “painkillers” and an assortment of “psychiatric medicine”. He alleged that the Supervising Officer from the Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) called up clinics from which the accused obtained tranquilisers to ban him from the clinics. Hence, the accused resorted to street drugs, including Ketamine for his migraine.

Aggravating factors

6.         The accused began his criminal activities when he was 16 years’ old. As seen from the preceding paragraph, he had spent considerable length of time in detention. In his conviction on 2.2.2002, he was sentenced to serve a total sentence of 9 years’ imprisonment and was caned 5 times for his involvement in various types of drugs, namely N,Alpha-dimethyl-3,4-(methyleneioxy)phenethylamine, ketamine, and cannabis. He was released from prison in February 2008.

7.         Within one year of the accused’s release from prison in February 2008, he lapsed into drugs. On 15 March 2009, he was arrested for consuming norketamine. He was released on bail and almost immediately he re-offended on 30 March 2009 when he was found in possession of ketamine and had consumed norketamine. He was again released on bail and he again re-offended on 17 July 2009 when he was found in possession of methamphetamine, ketamine and cannabis mixture while his urine tested positive for cannabis and norketamine. He was again released on bail and he again re-offended by failing to report to the Tanglin Police Division HQ for urine tests on 3 occasions i.e.  23^rd, 25^th and 28^th September 2009.

8.         Clearly the accused is recalcitrant. He repeatedly re-offended whilst on bail and dabbled in different drugs. Considering his previous convictions and his incorrigible conduct of re-offending when he was not in custody, I am sceptical of his mitigation plea. As noted, he started his criminal activities when he was 16 years old and he had a string of convictions. I felt that his plea that he regretted his wrong doing and the shame he brought to his family were mere empty words. He must know that he had brought shame to his family and hurt his mother since he was 16 years old. He then claimed to be the person who took care of his mother and her financial needs. This is not believable as the accused spent most of his adult years in detention. I have no doubt at all of his mother’s love and concern for him as I noticed her unfailing attendance in court at each hearing. She would wait patiently for a glimpse of the accused (who was in remand) to be brought into the court. However, this cannot obliterate the severity of the accused’s offences nor his blatant disregard for the law by his repeated re-offending. I sensed that the accused was using his mother to milk for sympathy. The accused also gave the excuse that he resorted to street drugs including ketamine after his serious accident in 2001 and his CNB supervisor caused him to be “banned” from obtaining tranquilizers from clinics. This cannot be true as the accused was serving sentence from early 2002 to 2008. I also doubt that any CNB supervising officer could have such influence and authority as to be able to get doctors to ban the accused from their clinics. In short, I am not at all persuaded by the mitigation plea and I doubt the accused’s sincerity.

Prescribed punishment

9.         As the accused had previous convictions for possession and consumption of controlled drugs, he was liable for enhanced punishment:

(i)        pursuant to section 33(1) of the MDA, the punishment for second or subsequent conviction for unauthorised possession of a controlled drug was minimum of 2 years  and maximum of 10 years imprisonment or a fine of $20,000/- or both;

(ii)       pursuant to section 33(4) of the MDA, the punishment for a subsequent conviction for consumption was imprisonment of not less than 3 years and maximum of 10 years or a fine of $20,000/- or both.

As for the offence of failing to report for urine tests, Regulation 15(6)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs (Approved Institutions and Treatment and Rehabilitation) Regulations prescribed a fine not exceeding $10,000/- or an imprisonment term not exceeding 4 years or both.

Sentence

10.       I have carefully considered all the facts and circumstances, in particular the accused’s antecedents, his conduct of re-offending repeatedly while on bail, his abusing different types of drugs, and the number of charges he faced. I also deliberated on an appropriate global sentence which would reflect the severity of the offences and which would be a just punishment for a recalcitrant offender. I therefore sentenced the accused as follows:

I ordered the sentences in DAC 18789/2009, DAC 52918/2009 and DAC 58231/2009 to run consecutively, with effect from the date the accused was remanded and denied bail, i.e. 1st October 2009. The accused was required to serve a total term of 7 years and 15 months imprisonment.

Up