Close | Public Prosecutor v Mohamed Raffid Bin Zainal Abidin [2010] SGDC 21 |
| DAC 40043/2009, MA 1/2010 | |
| 18 Jan 2010 | |
| District Court | |
| Hamidah Bte Ibrahim | |
| ASP Thulesiram (PO) for the prosecution, Paul (Gomez & Vasu) for the accused |
Judgment
18 January 2010 District Judge Hamidah Ibrahim: 1. The accused person, namely Mohamed Raffid Bin Zainal Abidin, faced 2 charges under the Misuse of Drugs Act, chapter 185. He pleaded guilty to 1 of these charges. The particulars of the charge he pleaded guilty to are as follows: DAC 40043/2009 (P1A) You, are charged that you on or about 22nd day of Jul 2009, at about 2.45 pm, at the Block 666 Woodlands Ring Road #11-301, Singapore in furtherance of the common intention with one, Abdul Halim Bin Yusof: S771342E did jointly traffic in a Class A Controlled Drug listed in The First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act, Cap 185, to wit, by having in your possession for the purpose of trafficking, there(3) blocks of vegetable matter found to be 242.96 grams of cannabis, without authorisation under the said Act or the Regulations made thereunder and you have thereby committed an offence under Sec 5(1)(a) read with Sec 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, Cap 185 read with Sec 34 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224 and punishable under Sec 33 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, cap 185. The Facts 2 The statement of facts (exhibit A) disclosed that on 22.07.09 at about 2.50pm, CNB officers raided unit number #11-301 of Blk 666 Woodlands Ring Road, S’pore and therein arrested the accused and one Abdul Halim B Yusof (Halim). A search was conducted in the premises and Halim surrendered three (3) bundles wrapped in newspaper, retrieved from the top of a wardrobe in his master bedroom. Upon questioning by the arresting officer, Halim admitted that the accused had passed the bundles to him earlier. The wrappings of the bundles were removed in the presence of the accused and Halim. Each bundle was found to contain a block of greenish vegetable matter believed to be cannabis. 3 In his statement, the accused admitted that he went to Johore Bahru on 22.07.09 at about 11.00am after receiving a call on his handphone from an anonymous caller asking him to collect the ‘thing’. He went to Platform 18 of Lakin Bus Interchange to collect a box of soap powder, baby diapers and some grocery items and cannabis which were supposedly hidden amongst these items in the plastic bags. Subsequently the accused returned to Singapore in a ‘private Malaysian taxi’. When the accused was about to arrive at the Singapore Customs Checkpoint, he called Halim’s handphone requesting him to wait at the ground floor of his (Halim’s) block. 4 At about 2.25pm, the accused arrived and met Halim at the car park below the latter’s flat. The accused passed to Halim a plastic bag supposedly containing cannabis and both of them went up to Halim’s flat. Subsequently, the accused and Halim took out three bundles from the plastic bag and both of them wrapped the three bundles of cannabis with newspaper. The cannabis were meant for an unknown receiver and Halim kept the three bundles of cannabis on top of the wardrobe in his master bedroom to be stored temporarily. 5 The drug exhibits were sent to the HSA for analysis. On 23.09.2009, the HSA issued three certificates which stated that the 3 exhibits were found to contain 49.74 grams, 100.9 grams and 92.32 grams of cannabis respectively. The total quantity was 242.96 grams of cannabis. 6 Cannabis is a Class A Controlled Drug listed in the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act, Cap 185. The accused is not authorised to possess three (3) blocks of cannabis for the purpose of trafficking and he has committed an offence under section Sec (5) (1) (a) read with section 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185. The accused is charged accordingly. 7 The accused admitted the statement of facts without any qualification. I found him guilty and convicted him of the charge. The accused also admitted to the remaining charge in DAC 54842/2009 of having jointly trafficked with Halim 210.58 grams of cannabis mixture containing cannabinol and tetrahydrocannabinol and consented to this charge being taken into consideration for purposes of sentencing. Halim has also pleaded guilty before me to a charge like this accused for trafficking with a similar trafficking charge taken into consideration. I sentenced him to 10 years imprisonment and 5 strokes of the cane. Halim has not appealed against his sentence. The Antecedents 8 The prosecution informed me that the accused had previous convictions which stretched from the 5th of July, 1999 till the 7th of January, 2008. None of these were offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act. They were mostly for offences of disorderly behaviour, using indecent/threatening/insulting language to a public servant and under the Customs Act. Mitigation 9 Counsel for the accused, who is a 35year old married man, said the accused admitted that he was naive to accept the drug trafficker’s offer to collect the drugs for $500. He risked himself for $500 which he has not received. He said the accused was financially strapped when he committed the offence. The accused regretted what he did and was remorseful. This was his first offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act. He had admitted the offence at the onset and had been co-operative. He is married to a Malaysian lady who will divorce him because the marriage was rocky given the accused’s background and education. The Sentence 10 The prescribed punishment for the offence of trafficking of a Class A controlled drug under section 5(1)(a) read with section 5 (2) and punishable under section 33(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, in accordance with the second schedule to the Act, is mandatory minimum imprisonment of 5 years with 5 strokes of the cane and the maximum is 20 years imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane. With regard to trafficking in cannabis, the punishment for trafficking in not less than 300 grams is a mandatory minimum of 20 years imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane while the maximum would be 30 years imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane. 11 The pernicious effects of drug activities in whatever form, whether trafficking, consumption or possession, direct or indirect, have been universally acknowledged. It has resulted in petty addicts who are unable to find the funds to pay for their illicit drugs to commit other petty crimes like theft, shoplifting etc. The law therefore takes a stern view of drug activities and this is reflected in the prescribed sentences in the Misuse of drugs Act. The objectives of the Act are to eliminate the possession, consumption, importation and trafficking of illegal drugs. Having regard to the objectives of the Act, deterrence and prevention were the predominant sentencing considerations I had in mind when I turned to the facts of the instant case. 12 In this case, the accused has been convicted of 1 count of trafficking of 242. 96 grams of cannabis. He has also admitted trafficking in 210.58 grams of cannabis mixture and fortunately for him, this charge had been offered by the prosecution to be taken into consideration only. Nevertheless, in totality the amount of controlled drugs he had trafficked came to almost 500 grams. This was in my view substantially high. Even if I were to just consider the proceeded charge, the amount of 242.96 grams of cannabis was no paltry amount. 13 From various sentencing precedents on drug trafficking cases, it is undoubtedly clear that the weight or the quantity of the drugs involved is one of the dominant factors in determining the appropriate sentence. The gravity of the offence of drug trafficking lay therefore not in the offender’s personal circumstances but in the amount that was trafficked and where there are no exceptional circumstances, the sentence should be proportionate to the quantity of the drugs that is being trafficked in. Where the punishment is concerned, the range therefore applicable to the accused in terms of the quantity of the cannabis would be from less than 1 gram to 329 grams. The amount of 242.96 grams of cannabis in this case is, in my view, rather close to 330 grams of cannabis, being more than 70% of this amount which would have resulted in a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane. As such, the mandatory minimum of 5 years imprisonment would have been manifestly inadequate as it would fail to make a distinction between traffickers like the accused and a trafficker of only 1 gram of cannabis. 14 With regard to his mitigation, I was prepared to give little weight to his previous convictions since they did not involve any offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act. While they were for petty offences it did reflect a person who has scant regard for the law as his criminal history stretched from 1999 to 2008. As for his personal circumstances that he resorted to trafficking because he was financially strapped, this was not an acceptable explanation and even his counsel conceded that it was not an excuse. The accused admitted that he was naïve to risk himself for $500. However, I noted that the accused is not some youngster but a mature married man of 35 years of age. He was not forced to become a trafficker. He made the choice himself when he went to Johor Bahru to collect the cannabis and then passed them to Halim. 15 The sentencing norm has always been a deterrent sentence for even first offenders of drug trafficking unless there are strong exceptional circumstances. The courts have consistently maintained an uncompromising position with regard to such offences. In this instance I did not see any reason to depart from the norm. In conclusion, having to regard to all the relevant circumstances of the case, including his plea in mitigation, I sentenced him to 10 years imprisonment and 5 strokes of the cane. This sentence was identical to the one imposed on Halim . I also exercised leniency towards the accused in that I did not increase the number of strokes while mindful that in view of the quantity involved the strokes could have gone as high as 10 strokes. 16 The accused, being dissatisfied, is now appealing against his sentence. He is currently serving his sentence
Mohamed Raffid Bin Zainal Abidin
M/35 yrs (DOB: 14.02.74)
NRIC S7403628-G
