Public Prosecutor v Lua Guan Jie

[2023] SGDC 47
Case Number : DAC 904885/2021 and others, Magistrate's Appeal 9019/2023/01
Decision Date : 14 March 2023
Tribunal/Court : District Court
Coram : Carol Ling Feng Yong
Counsel Name(s) : Etsuko Lim (Attorney-General's Chambers) for the Prosecution; Kalidass
Murugaiyan/Ashvin Hariharan (Kalidass Law Corporation) for the
Accused
Parties : Public Prosecutor — Lua Guan Jie
Criminal Procedure and Sentencing – Drug Trafficking – Other Offences – Offender under 21
years old – Sentence – Imprisonment
[LawNet Editorial Note: An appeal to this decision has been filed in MA 9019/2023/01.]
14 March 2023

District Judge Carol Ling Feng Yong:

Introduction

1 The Accused pleaded guilty to a total of four charges:

DAC 904885/2021
You, are charged that you, on 2 November 2020, at about 5.55pm, in Block 484 Segar
Road, #XXX, Singapore, did traffic in a Class A controlled drug listed in the First
Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”), namely, by
having in your possession for the purpose of trafficking three packets containing not
less than 315.1g of crystalline substance, which was analysed and found to contain not
less than 214.2g of methamphetamine, without authorisation under the MDA or the
regulations made thereunder, and you have thereby committed an offence under
section 5(1)(a) read with section 5(2) and punishable under section 33(1) of the MDA.
DAC 914173/2022
You, are charged that you, on 20 July 2021 at about 10pm, in Block 484 Segar Road,
#XXX, Singapore, did consume norketamine, which is a specified drug listed in the
Fourth Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”), without
authorisation under the MDA or the regulations made thereunder, and you have
thereby committed an offence under section 8(b)(ii) and punishable under section
33(3A) of the MDA.
DAC 914291/2022
 You, are charged that you, on 4 January 2022, at about 8.44am, at the open-air
carpark of Block 313, Hougang Avenue 5, Singapore, did voluntarily cause grievous
hurt to one Ong Chi Heng (“Mr Ong”), namely, by punching his face repeatedly,
knowing yourself to be likely to cause grievous hurt, and thereby causing Mr Ong to
sustain displaced nasal septum and nasal bone fractures, and you have thereby
committed an offence punishable under section 325 of the Penal Code 1871.
DAC 914324/2022
You, are charged that you, on 21 July 2021, at about 5.39am, along Mount Pleasant
Road towards the Pan Island Expressway, near lamppost N714, in Singapore, did drive
a motor car bearing registration number SLC470T, when you were not the holder of a
valid Class 3 driving licence, and you have thereby contravened section 35(1) of the
Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed), which contravention is an offence punishable
under section 35(3)(a) read with section 42(1)(a) of the said Act.

2 20 other charges covering a variety of offences were taken into consideration (TIC) in
sentencing. This included offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act, Penal Code, Road Traffic
Act, Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act 1960, Computer Misuse Act
(Chapter 50A, Rev Ed 2007) as well as the Criminal Procedure Code (Chapter 68, 2012 Rev
Ed).

3 The Accused was 20 years old when he pleaded guilty (Date of Birth: 22 October 2001).
The Reformative Training (RT) suitability report called for prior to sentencing found the
Accused physically and mentally suitable for reformative training at Level Two intensity i.e. a
minimum of 12 months detention in an RT centre. Notwithstanding the contents in the RT
report, I imposed the following sentences:
Charge Offence Sentence
Number
1 DAC Section 5(1)(a) Misuse of Drugs Act Twenty (20) years' imprisonment and
904885/2021 (Cap 185, Rev Ed 2008) r/w Section fifteen (15) strokes of the cane.
5(2) Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, (consecutive)
Rev Ed 2008) p/u Section 33(1)
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, Rev
Ed 2008)
2 DAC Section 8(b)(ii) Misuse of Drugs Act One (1) year's imprisonment
914173/2022 (Cap 185, Rev Ed 2008) p/u Section
33(3A) Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap
185, Rev Ed 2008)
3 DAC Section 325 Penal Code 1871 Ten (10) months' imprisonment
 914291/2022
4 DAC Section 35(1) Road Traffic Act (Cap Four (4) weeks' imprisonment.
914324/2022 276, Rev Ed 2004) p/u Section Disqualified from holding or
35(3)(a) Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, obtaining all classes of driving
Rev Ed 2004) r/w Section 42(1) licences for a period of two (2) years
Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, Rev Ed with effect from date of release
2004) (consecutive)
Total sentence:
Twenty (20) years' and four (4) weeks' imprisonment with effect from 2-
November-2020 and fifteen (15) strokes of the cane.
Disqualified from holding or obtaining all classes of driving licences for a
period of two (2) years with effect from date of release

4 I ordered the sentence to be backdated to 2 November 2020 (Accused’s date of arrest)

and for it to take into account the periods of remand and to exclude the bail period. The
Accused was on bail/on the run from 19 March 2021 to 2 April 2022.

5 This is the Accused’s appeal against the sentence

Statement of Facts

6 In order to appreciate the facts of the case, the key portions of the Statement of Facts
is reproduced in the following paragraphs. The Accused admitted to the Statement of Facts
without qualification.

Background Facts

7 The Accused started consuming ketamine and “ecstasy” (a street name for MDMA) in
October 2019. He got to know one “Ah Siao” over Telegram in November 2019. “Ah Siao”
became the Accused’s regular supplier of ketamine and “ecstasy” from then on. Over time,
the Accused also purchased “Erimin-5” and “ice”, which are street names for nimetazepam
and methamphetamine respectively, from “Ah Siao”.

8 The Accused initially purchased small amounts of drugs from “Ah Siao” about once
every fortnight, but his drug orders increased in quantity and frequency over time. In June
2020, “Ah Siao” offered the Accused a $300 discount per drug order in exchange for
collecting and safekeeping drugs on his behalf. The Accused agreed as he wanted to
purchase drugs at a discount. From June 2020 until the Accused’s first arrest on 2 November
2020, the Accused would collect “ice”, “ecstasy” or ketamine from various locations on “Ah
Siao”’s instructions. The Accused would safekeep the drugs and await “Ah Siao”’s
instructions. When “Ah Siao” asked for the drugs, the Accused would place them in a
discreet location, knowing that they would be collected by “Ah Siao”’s other runners for
eventual sale or distribution. The Accused would inform “Ah Siao” of where he had left the
drugs.

9 Between June 2020 and end September 2020, “Ah Siao” gave the Accused a $300
discount per drug order whenever the Accused collected drugs on his behalf. During this
period, the Accused typically collected about 50g to 100g of “ice”, 50 to 100 tablets of
“ecstasy” or 20g to 30g of ketamine. From end September 2020 onwards, “Ah Siao” would
ask the Accused to collect drugs even when the Accused had not ordered any drugs. The
Accused nevertheless agreed. Between end September 2020 and 2 November 2020, the
Accused collected about 500g to 1kg of “ice”, 100 to 200 tablets of “ecstasy” or 50g of
ketamine on “Ah Siao”’s behalf each time. “Ah Siao” paid the Accused $500 for each
collection during this period.

Facts Pertaining to DAC 904885/2021 – Trafficking in Methamphetamine

10 On the night of 31 October 2020, the Accused agreed to collect 1kg of “ice” on “Ah
Siao”’s behalf at Northstar @ AMK, located at 7030 Ang Mo Kio Avenue 5, Singapore
(“Northstar”). The Accused knew that “ice” was methamphetamine. He arrived at Northstar
at about 11.20pm. On “Ah Siao”’s instructions, the Accused collected a red plastic bag
containing a white plastic package near a rubbish bin on the ninth floor. The Accused then
headed home to Block 484 Segar Road, #XXX, Singapore.

11 On 1 November 2020, at about 12.50am, the Accused opened the white plastic
package that he had collected. It contained a large transparent plastic packet (“the Large
Packet”), which in turn contained some crystalline substance. The Accused knew that the
crystalline substance was “ice”. On “Ah Siao”’s instructions, the Accused repacked the “ice”
in the Large Packet into eight smaller packets as follows:

a) Four packets each containing 125g of “ice”;

b) Two packets each containing 150g of “ice”;

c) One packet containing 100g of “ice”; and

d) One packet containing 88g of “ice”.

12 The Accused informed “Ah Siao” at about 2.11am that there was a shortfall of about
14g of “ice”. Later that day, the Accused repacked the “ice” further and placed five of the
eight smaller packets of “ice” at a different location each. “Ah Siao” paid the Accused $600
for collecting the “ice” in the Large Packet and depositing the five smaller packets of “ice” at
various locations.

13 On 2 November 2020, at about 5.30pm, officers from the Central Narcotics Bureau
(“CNB”) arrested the Accused near Block 449, Clementi Avenue 3, Singapore for drug
offences. They then escorted the Accused to his home. At about 5.55pm, CNB officers
searched the Accused and his bedroom. Among other items in the Accused’s bedroom, CNB
officers recovered a white plastic package (later marked exhibit “A1”) containing three
packets of crystalline substance (later marked exhibit “A1A” collectively). The mandatory
death penalty notice was served on the Accused at about 6.55pm.

14 Upon analysis by the Illicit Drugs Laboratory of the Health Sciences Authority (“HSA”),
the exhibit marked “A1A” was found to be three packets containing not less than 315.1g of
crystalline substance, which was analysed and found to contain not less than 214.2g of
methamphetamine. Methamphetamine is a Class A controlled drug listed in the First
Schedule to the MDA. At all material times, the Accused knew that he possessed exhibits
“A1” and “A1A”. Exhibit “A1” was the white plastic package that he had collected at
Northstar on 31 October 2020 while exhibit “A1A” contained the leftover “ice” from the
Large Packet. The Accused also knew that exhibit “A1A” contained “ice”.

15 The Accused was in possession of exhibit “A1A” for the purpose of trafficking. He
intended to follow “Ah Siao’s” instructions to place the three packets of “ice” in exhibit
“A1A” at various locations, where they would be collected by “Ah Siao”’s other runners for
eventual sale or distribution. The Accused never intended to consume any of the “ice” in
exhibit “A1A” as he had stopped consuming “ice” in mid-October 2020.

16 The Accused was remanded after his arrest on 2 November 2020. He was charged and
released on court bail on 15 March 2021.

Facts Pertaining to DAC 914324/2022 – Driving without a Licence

17 Whilst on court bail, on 21 July 2021, at about 2am, the Accused drove a motor car
bearing registration number SLC470T (“the Car”) to his friend’s house in Jalan Besar,
Singapore. The Accused had fraudulently rented the Car from Shariot Car Sharing with his
father’s particulars as he did not hold a valid Class 3 driving licence.

18 At about 3am, the Accused drank a fifth of a cup of hard liquor at his friend’s house. He
left at about 5am and sent another friend home. The Accused was driving the Car along
Mount Pleasant Road towards the Pan Island Expressway, near lamppost N714, when he
collided into a centre guard railing at about 5.39am. He drove off after the collision.

Facts Pertaining to DAC 914173/2022 – Consumption of Norketamine

19 On 21 July 2021, at about 5.49am, police officers on patrol saw that the Accused had
stopped the Car along Whitley Road, Singapore. They subsequently arrested the Accused
and escorted him to Police Cantonment Complex (“PCC”), located at 391 New Bridge Road,
Singapore, for further investigations.

20 At about 7.40am that morning, the police searched the Accused at PCC and found
various drug exhibits on him. As the Accused was suspected to have committed drug
offences, he was asked to provide two bottles of his urine. The urine samples were
subsequently sent to the HSA on 22 July 2021 for analysis. Upon analysis, the HSA issued
two certificates under section 16 of the MDA stating that the two urine samples were
analysed and found to contain norketamine.

21 Norketamine is a specified drug listed in the Fourth Schedule to the MDA. It is a

metabolite of ketamine. The Accused admitted to consuming ketamine since October 2019.
He would place some ketamine in a line on a flat surface and snort the ketamine either
directly or with a straw. He snorted about 1g of ketamine every two days, or about 3g to 5g
of ketamine per week. His urine sample was found to contain norketamine as he had
snorted about 1g of ketamine at home at around 10pm on 20 July 2021.

22 The Accused committed this offence while on bail for the earlier drug offence (DAC
904885/2021).

23 The Accused was produced in court on 2 August 2021. When he failed to attend court
on 30 August 2021, a warrant to arrest was issued against him. He remained at large until he
was arrested for the third time on 1 April 2022.

Facts Pertaining to DAC 914291/2022 – Causing Grievous Hurt

24 The victim is Ong Chi Heng (“Mr Ong”), a 52-year-old male Singaporean. At the
material time, he was the driver of a car bearing registration number SJR1284C.

25 On 4 January 2022, at about 8.39am, Mr Ong was in his car in a parking lot at the
openair carpark of Block 313, Hougang Avenue 5, Singapore. The Accused, who was driving
a car bearing registration number SJP7152X and which he had fraudulently rented, stopped
his car right in front of Mr Ong’s. The Accused was on the run at the material time.
26 At about 8.44am, Mr Ong attempted to drive off but could not do so as his path was
blocked by the Accused’s car. He alighted from his car and kicked and knocked on the
Accused’s car door. The Accused alighted from his car and was shoved by Mr Ong. He
responded by punching Mr Ong’s face repeatedly, knowing himself to be likely to cause
grievous hurt. Although Mr Ong tried to shove and punch the Accused in return, he mostly
failed to land any blows on the Accused. At one point, Mr Ong grabbed the Accused to stop
the Accused from punching him further. They both fell and continued scuffling.

27 Mr Ong eventually got up and asked some passers-by to call the police. The Accused
tried to enter his car, but Mr Ong prevented him from doing so by standing in front of his
car door. Soon after, a passer-by shouted that he had called the police. Upon hearing this,
the Accused punched Mr Ong’s face and chest repeatedly. Mr Ong did not retaliate. When
the Accused eventually calmed down, he told Mr Ong that he could not afford to encounter
the police. He also offered to pay Mr Ong not to pursue the matter. Mr Ong declined the
offer and insisted on having the police settle the matter. An ambulance arrived at the scene
at about 9am. As Mr Ong was talking to a paramedic, the Accused fled on foot.

28 Mr Ong was examined at the Emergency Department at Sengkang General Hospital

(“SGH”) later that morning. In a medical report dated 19 January 2022, Dr Ruban a/l
Dayalan, a resident physician at SGH, noted that Mr Ong had sustained displaced nasal
septum and nasal bone fractures, a right thumb contusion, and tenderness over his nose
bridge and right thumb. Mr Ong was also noted to have bled from his right nostril. He was
discharged on the same day.

29 Mr Ong attended a follow-up appointment on 10 January 2022. In a medical report

dated 26 January 2022, Dr Christina Ng Hui Lee, an associate consultant in the Department
of Otorhinolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery at SGH, stated the following:

a) Mr Ong had sustained a mildly displaced nasal bone fracture and leftward
displacement of nasal septum fracture;

b) Mr Ong had complained of left nasal obstruction arising from his injury, but he
declined manipulation and reduction of his nasal bone fracture. His nasal obstruction
may persist.

30 Due to the Accused’s assault, Mr Ong incurred medical bills totalling $857.51. The
Accused’s parents made full compensation on his behalf on 1 October 2022.

31 The Accused committed this offence while on the run. He was subsequently arrested
on 1 April 2022 for further drug offences. He was produced in court on 2 April 2022 and has
been in remand since.
The Approach to Sentencing Young Offenders

32 The Accused was under 21 years old at the time of the offences and when he pleaded
guilty to the charges.
33 Where young offenders are concerned, the approach to sentencing is well-established.
It involves a two-step approach as set out in Public Prosecutor v Mohammad Al-Ansari bin
Basri [2008] 1 SLR(R) 449 (“Al-Ansari”). From [77] of Al- Ansari:
“First, the court must ask itself whether rehabilitation can remain a predominant
consideration. If the offence was particularly heinous or the offender has a long history
of offending, then reform and rehabilitation may not even be possible or relevant,
notwithstanding the youth of the offender. In this case, the statutorily prescribed
punishment (in most cases a term of imprisonment) will be appropriate.
However, if the principle of rehabilitation is considered to be relevant as a dominant
consideration, the next question is how to give effect to this….”
34 The Al-Ansari framework was elaborated upon in Public Prosecutor v Koh Wen Jie Boaz
(“Boaz”) [2016] 1 SLR 334 and affirmed by the Court of Appeal in Public Prosecutor v
ASR [2019] SLR 941. As stated by the Court of Appeal in See Li Quan Mendel v Public
Prosecutor [2020] SGCA 61 (“Mendel”), at [15]:
“We reiterate the point that where young offenders are concerned, the sentencing
framework remains the two-step approach set out in Al-Ansari ([7] supra) and Boaz
Koh as affirmed and explained in ASR. The inquiry proceeds from the foremost
question of whether rehabilitation remains the dominant sentencing
principle, before considering whether probation or reformative training or some other
type or combination of community-based sentences would be the correct way to
achieve this. At the first stage, the court should not be asking whether the offender
showed enough rehabilitative potential for probation, as opposed to reformative
training. Rather, at that stage of the inquiry, the question is whether in all the
circumstances, the presumptive emphasis on rehabilitation has been displaced. If it
has, then rehabilitative options such as probation or reformative training would
typically not be available; and if it has not been displaced, then such options may be
considered.”
35 The approach to sentencing young offenders is as clear as it is imperative. Having
regard to the first stage of the Al-Ansari framework which required the Court to consider all
the circumstances of the case when coming to a final determination as to whether
rehabilitation remained the primary sentencing consideration [note: 1], I called for an RT report.
I did not consider it necessary or appropriate to call for a pre-sentence Probation suitability
report, given the nature and number of offences the Accused faced.
36 The Reformative Training pre-sentencing report dated 20 October 2022 found the
Accused physically and mentally fit for reformative training and a Level 2 intensity of
rehabilitation was recommended.
Prosecution’s Sentencing Position[note: 2]

37 Notwithstanding the fact that the Accused was found physically and mentally fit for
reformative training, the Prosecution sought an aggregate sentence of 20 years and 10-11
months’ imprisonment, 15 strokes of the cane and two years’ disqualification from all
classes of driving licences (“DQAC”).

38 The Prosecution was of the view that the dominant sentencing objective was
deterrence, not rehabilitation, given the number and severity of offences committed, the
high degree of harm caused, the Accused’s culpability for the trafficking offence and his
recalcitrance. The evidence of Accused’s rehabilitative potential was equivocal and even if
there was some evidence, it was unexceptional.
Defence’s Mitigation/Submissions[note: 3]

39 Defence Counsel, on the other hand, urged the Court to impose a term of reformative
training.
40 In his mitigation, Defence Counsel urged the Court to consider the Accused’s young
age, his genuine remorse and plea of guilt, his co-operation with authorities and the fact
that he had made compensation for the offence under section 325 Penal Code. In respect of
the circumstances surrounding the trafficking offence, Defence Counsel stated that “Ah
Siao” had manipulated the Accused into working for him[note: 4].
41 In addition, Defence Counsel emphasized the Accused’s “mental illness” which he
submitted, adversely affected the Accused’s judgment in respect of the drug trafficking
charge. He highlighted a portion in the RT report where Dr Jason Lee noted that the Accused
had a history of substance use disorder and persistent depressive disorder and would
benefit from psychiatric review during RTC [note: 5]. The Accused also had the support of his
family in his rehabilitation.

Reasons for the Sentence

42 I recognised at the outset that this was a difficult case. The Accused was young - 18
years old when he committed the extremely serious offence of trafficking in a large amount
of drugs which would have attracted the mandatory death penalty [note: 6] - the mandatory
death penalty notice was served on the Accused at the point of his arrest. Even when he
went on to commit the other offences and pleaded guilty before me, the Accused was
below 21 years old. Hence, the presumptive emphasis was rehabilitation.
43 There were also circumstances which favoured rehabilitation. Apart from the matters
raised in Defence Counsel’s mitigation, the Accused submitted a personal hand-written
letter, explaining his dependence on drugs and expressing remorse for his involvement in its
distribution. There was evidence of contrition, self-reflection and a sincere plea for a second
chance. There was also a heart-felt letter from one Mdm Wong Lai Khuan. the Accused’s
mother, in which she pleaded for a chance for her son and conveyed her and the family’s
support for the Accused’s rehabilitation.
44 However, the Court in Boaz reminded at [30]:
“…..[R]ehabilitation is neither singular nor unyielding. The focus on rehabilitation can
be diminished or even eclipsed by such considerations as deterrence or retribution
where the circumstances warrant. Broadly speaking, this happens in cases where
(a) the offence is serious, (b) the harm caused is severe, (c) the offender is hardened
and recalcitrant, or (d) the conditions do not exist to make rehabilitative sentencing
options such as probation or reformative training viable.”
45 In determining the appropriate sentence for the Accused, the first and key question for
the Court was whether rehabilitation remained the dominant sentencing consideration in
this case or had it been diminished or eclipsed by deterrence or retribution. It was only
when this question in the first step of the Al Ansari framework had been answered in the
affirmative that the court may proceed to consider what type of rehabilitative sentence
would be suitable for the Accused.
46 Hence, whilst I accepted Defence Counsel’s submissions on how deterrent and
effective an RT regime can be for the Accused, the level of intensity in an RTC and even after
the Accused is released on supervision, the existence of targeted programmes as well as
their ability to handle offenders such as the Accused [note: 7], they all begged the question as to
whether rehabilitation was the dominant sentencing consideration in the first place. As
Prosecution rightly observed: “The key question is not whether deterrence can be achieved
but whether it is the primary sentencing objective”.[note: 8]

Rehabilitation had been Displaced as the Dominant Sentencing Principle

47 Upon a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case, I was
compelled to find that the presumptive emphasis on rehabilitation had been displaced as
the dominant sentencing consideration.

Gravity of the Offence

48 The Accused committed a total of 24 offences which ranged from drug trafficking to
drug possession, drug consumption, hurt, cheating and traffic-related offences. The most
serious of all was the offence of drug trafficking.
49 The amount of drugs involved in the drug trafficking offence was large. Given the net
weight of methamphetamine trafficked at 214.2 grams, the prescribed punishment was a
minimum term of imprisonment of 20 years and a maximum imprisonment term of 30 years
or imprisonment for life. The offence also carried mandatory caning of 15 strokes. It was just
35.8 grams short of 250 grams – the weight of methamphetamine if trafficked in, which
would have been punishable by death. As observed by the High Court in the case
of Vasentha d/o Joseph v Public Prosecutor [2015] 5 SLR 122 at [19], the quantity of drugs
trafficked in, served as a reliable indicator of the seriousness of the offence.
50 Correspondingly, there was a high degree of harm caused by the Accused’s act of
trafficking. As stated in the same passage in Vasentha, the net weight of drugs trafficked had
a direct correlation with the degree of harm caused to society[note: 9].
51 The Accused’s level of culpability was high. Net weight of drugs aside, he played a
significant role in the distribution of drugs. By the time of his arrest, the Accused was
already deep in the business of trafficking. He was arrested on 2 November 2020 but the
facts revealed that from June 2020, he had been an active participant in “Ah Siao”’s
trafficking network - collecting “ice”, “ecstasy” or ketamine from various locations on “Ah
Siao”’s instructions, safekeeping them before placing them in discreet locations for
collection by other runners for sale or distribution [note: 10]. What started out as an incentive
for getting his drugs at a discount turned into outright financial gain as the Accused began
getting paid for each collection he did, in quantities which grew larger with time [note: 11]. At
the time of his arrest, the Accused was even collecting large amounts of “ice” and re-
packing them into smaller packets of various amounts for distribution [note: 12] in his home; he
was not merely involved in its distribution.
52 The seriousness of the offence of drug trafficking was an important consideration in
determining if rehabilitation remained the dominant sentencing consideration for the
Accused. On this note, Defence Counsel was right in pointing out that RTC had been
imposed in cases where youthful offenders had committed very serious offences such as
rape[note: 13], robbery[note: 14] and even drug trafficking[note: 15]. I was not oblivious to that fact.
However, the seriousness of the offence was not the only factor to be considered; it was but
one aspect of a total and holistic consideration of all circumstances of the case in order to
arrive at a final determination of what the dominant sentencing consideration ought to be
in each particular case.

The Accused’s Recalcitrance

53 If the Accused had stopped offending upon his first arrest on 2 November 2020 and
after being charged in court, the case might have taken on a different complexion.
54 It has been duly recognised that young offenders should be given a second chance
because of their “youthful folly and inexperience”[note: 16]. As stated in Public Prosecutor v
Mok Ping Wuen Maurice [1998] 3 SLR(R) 439 at [21]:
Compassion is often shown to young offenders on the assumption that the young
“don’t know any better” and they may not have had enough experience to realise the
full consequences of their actions on themselves and on others. Teens may also be
slightly less responsible than older offenders, being more impressionable, more easily
led and less controlled in their behaviour.
55 I was constantly mindful that prior to his plea of guilt, the Accused had no antecedents;
he was a first offender. As an explanation for the Accused’s involvement in drug trafficking,
one might submit that he had not been through the maturing process and the rigours of
court proceedings such that "he should know better". However, this submission would not
have gone far in view of the Accused’s subsequent conduct.
56 Despite knowing that he could very well face the death penalty should the weight of
methamphetamine in his possession exceed the capital threshold on his first arrest on 2
November 2020, the Accused remained undeterred [note: 17]. He persisted in his errant ways
and committed more offences whilst on court bail. Instead of disassociating himself with
drugs, he continued to dabble in them, resulting in more drug charges in other drug
varieties other than methamphetamine[note: 18] such as MDMA[note: 19], ketamine[note: 20], and
norketamine[note: 21] et cetera[note: 22]. He was arrested a second time on 21 July 2021 and
released on bail. On 30 August 2021, he failed to turn up in court [note: 23] and a warrant of
arrest was issued against him. While he was on the run, he continued to possess illegal
drugs[note: 24] and committed further offences.
57 As pointed out by the Prosecution[note: 25], the Accused’s offending spanned more than
2.5 years, on various occasions, from 21 September 2019 [note: 26] to 1 April 2022[note: 27]. He had
to be arrested on two further occasions before he was finally remanded until the date of
sentence. In my mind, youthful folly, inexperience and/or the failure on the part of a young
offender to realise the full consequences of his or her actions, even if accepted in respect of
the Accused’s initial offending, could not excuse his conduct in the period of time where he
persisted in committing multiple offences whilst court proceedings were on-going.
58 In the same vein, even if this court could accept that the Accused was manipulated by
“Ah Sio” and/or “Ah Siao”’s threats to kill himself played on the Accused’s mind and led to
him continuing to work for “Ah Sio” even though he wanted to stop doing so before he was
caught[note: 28], the fact of that would only have moderated Accused’s culpability in respect of
the trafficking offence but would again, be of little value in explaining Accused’s lingering
association with drugs after the first arrest. In any case, other than the Accused’s assertion
based on a few messages between “Ah Sio “and the Accused, there was no evidence before
the court that the Accused had been so manipulated by “Ah Sio” that he had no choice but
to commit the offence of drug trafficking.

Accused’s Mental Condition

59 The nature and gravity of Accused's mental condition was over-stated by Defence
Counsel. The first IMH report dated 30 November 2020 did speak of the Accused having
Substance Use Disorder (SUD), and a history of Persistent Depressive Disorder (PDD) which
according to Dr Koh Wun Wu Kenneth “adversely affected his judgment when he first
started dealing in drugs for his supplier as he had catastrophic and blinkered cognitive
distortions”.[note: 29] However, in a subsequent report dated 3 November 2022 in response to
the queries of the Investigation Officer, Dr Wu clarified that the Accused’s SUD and PDD
“did not affect or control the Accused’s offending impulses, his knowledge of the legal
rightness or wrongness of his actions and his awareness of the moral rightness of wrongness
of his actions when he committed the drug trafficking offence”.[note: 30]
60 Hence, whilst the Accused may have had some challenges in terms of his mental
health, the assessment of his condition by Dr Wu put the Accused’s mental state in
perspective. Despite the disorders, it was clear that the Accused knew right and wrong, and
the right from wrong of his actions at the material time. Further as of 2 November 2020, the
Accused was already recovering from his PDD and that his symptoms if any, were
minimal[note: 31].

Overall Assessment
61 The Accused's capacity for rehabilitation was not so demonstrably high that it would
not be overshadowed by the need for deterrence. On the evidence before me, there was
nothing exceptional about the surrounding circumstances of this case or the degree of
remorse shown by the Accused, or the level of familial support that would be available to
the Accused strong as it may be, so as to justify maintaining an overriding focus on the
Accused’s rehabilitation despite the serious nature of the offences he had committed and
the circumstances of the case. As evident from the RT report, the Accused presented
attitudes supportive of criminal behaviour. His persistent offending also revealed his
disregard for consequences. Despite a pledge of support from his family, there was a
consistent account by both the Accused and his mother that his relationship with his family
was distant. Since July 2021, the Accused had stayed away from his family even though he
still cared for his mother[note: 32].

62 On the reasons elaborated above, I found that deterrence had come to the fore as the
dominant sentencing consideration in this case; not rehabilitation. Reformative training
which primarily has its focus on rehabilitation, was therefore not a viable sentencing option
for the Court.
The Appropriate Sentence

DAC 904885/2021 - Trafficking in 214.2g of Methamphetamine

63 The minimum sentence for the Accused’s drug trafficking offence was 20 years
imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane. The sentence may seem prohibitive for an
offender as young as the Accused. However, as highlighted by the Prosecution in a table,
precedents have shown that the courts have not shied away from sentencing young and
untraced offenders to imprisonment terms of this length [note: 33], where the circumstances
warranted it.
64 The quantity of drugs trafficked would have justified an imprisonment term of about
25 years and 15 strokes of the cane [note: 34]. Bearing in mind the age of the Accused and the
prospect of a long period of incarceration which he faced, I did not see the need to impose a
sentence higher than the minimum sentence of 20 years imprisonment and 15 strokes of
the cane.

DAC 914324/2022 – Driving without a Licence

65 The benchmark sentence of four weeks’ imprisonment for an offence under section
35(1) of the Road Traffic Act was laid down in the case of Public Prosecutor v Rizuwan bin
Rohmat (MA 9176/2021[note: 35]).

66 I was of the view that four weeks’ imprisonment would be sufficient for this Accused. I
further disqualified him from holding or obtaining all classes of driving licences for a period
of two years with effect from his date of release.

DAC 914173/2022 – Consumption of Norketamine

67 The minimum sentence prescribed for an offence under section 8(b)(ii) punishable
under section 33(3A) Misuse of Drugs Act, was one year’s imprisonment. It was sufficient
and I did not see the need to impose a sentence higher than the minimum sentence.

DAC 914291/2022 – Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt

68 I imposed an imprisonment term of 10 months.

69 In arriving at this sentence, I was guided by Public Prosecutor v BDB [2018] 1 SLR
127 (“BDB”), where the High Court noted at [55] that the indicative starting sentence should
be based on the seriousness of the hurt caused to the victim. The indicative starting
sentence should then be adjusted based on the accused’s culpability and the relevant
aggravating and mitigating factors[note: 36].
70 Prosecution highlighted the case of Saw Beng Chong v Public Prosecution [2022] SGHC
175 (“Saw Beng Chong”) which was helpful in arriving at the appropriate sentence for the
Accused. The court in Saw Beng Chong noted at [40] that “where there are multiple
fractures that are not of a more serious nature – as was the case in BDB – and that cause a
victim to suffer some degree of disruption and persistent pain, a starting point of between 9
and 14 months’ imprisonment would be appropriate.”
71 In this case, the victim, Mr Ong, sustained a mildly displaced nasal bone fracture and
leftward displacement of nasal septum [note: 37] fracture. He was discharged on the same day
and had a follow-up appointment about a week later. His injuries resulted in nasal
obstruction which may persist[note: 38]. The indicative sentence would be in the range of nine
to 14 months’ imprisonment.
72 I bore in mind the aggravating facts of this case. Although the victim had been hostile
by kicking and knocking on the Accused’s car door, it was the Accused who initiated the
violence. His reaction was disproportionate as he punched Mr Ong repeatedly [note: 39]. The
Accused also committed this offence while on bail and on the run. Balancing these facts with
the Accused’s plea of guilt and the compensation made to the victim, I was of the view that
a sentence of 10 months’ imprisonment would be appropriate.

Total Sentence

73 As obliged under section 307(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, I ordered the
imprisonment sentences on the drug trafficking offence (DAC 904885/2021) and the offence
of driving without a licence (DAC 914324/2022) to run consecutively. The total sentence
was: 20 years and 4 weeks’ imprisonment, and 15 strokes of the cane, and a disqualification
of two years upon the Accused’s release from prison.
74 The sentence was backdated to 2 November 2020 (the Accused’s first date of arrest)
and I further directed the prisons to take into account the periods of remand and to exclude
the bail period[note: 40]. Accused was remanded at the time of his guilty plea and when
sentence was passed.

75 Taking a last look at the sentence, I was satisfied that the sentence was not manifestly
excessive. On account of the totality principle, I had imposed minimum or benchmark
sentences where applicable, and also extended the maximum measure of leniency to the
Accused in view of his age at the time when the offences were committed.

Conclusion

76 I am in the hope that with the Accused's remorse, his willingness to mend his ways and
armed with an aspiration to further his studies, coupled with the external but unwavering
support of his mother and family, the Accused will be able to emerge from prison, a wiser
and better young man, a useful and contributing member of society.
77 The Accused is currently serving the sentence.

[note: 1]See Li Quan Mendel v PP, [14]

[note: 2]
Prosecution’s Sentencing Submissions
[note: 3]
Plea-in-Mitigation; Further Address on Sentence
[note: 4]
Defence’s Further Address on Sentence, [13]-[15]
[note: 5]
Reformative Training Report, section B, p 3
[note: 6]
On basis of the gross weight of drugs at the point of arrest - 315.1 grams of
methamphetamine
[note: 7]
NE 18 January 2023, 13/21-15/10
[note: 8]
NE 18 January 2023, 17/15-17
[note: 9]
Prosecution’s Sentencing Submissions, [5b]
[note: 10]
Statement of Facts, [4]
[note: 11]
Statement of Facts, [5]
[note: 12]
Statement of Facts, [6]-[7]
[note: 13]
NE 3 October 2022, 15/18-28; 18 January 2023, 12/27- 13/13; Public Prosecutor v
Loew Zi Xiang [2016] SGDC 251
[note: 14]
Public Prosecutor v Mohammad Al-Ansari bin Basri [2008] 1 SLR(R) 449
[note: 15]
Public Prosecutor v Maximillian Ngo Seng Heng [2017] SGDC 163
[note: 16]
A Karthik v Public Prosecutor [2018] 5 SLR 128; Public Prosecutor v Abdul Qayyum bin
Abdul Razak and another appeal [2020] SGHC 57
[note: 17]
Prosecution’s Sentencing Submissions, [5d]
[note: 18]
TIC charge - DAC 914170/2022
[note: 19]
TIC charge - DAC 914169/2022
[note: 20]
TIC charge – DAC 914168/2022
[note: 21]
Proceeded charge – DAC 914173/2022
[note: 22]
TIC charges – DAC 914171/2022, DAC 914172/2022
[note: 23]
TIC charge - MAC 906432/2022
[note: 24]
TIC charges – DAC 914174/2022. DAC 914175/2022, DAC 914176/2022
[note: 25]
Prosecution’s Sentencing Submissions, [5d]
[note: 26]
TIC charge – DAC 914611/2022
[note: 27]
TIC charge - DAC 914174/2022
[note: 28]
Defence’s Further Address on Sentence, [13]-[15]
[note: 29]
IMH report dated 30 November 2022, [14a]
[note: 30]
IMH report dated 3 November 2022, [3]-[5]
[note: 31]
IMH report dated 3 November 2022, [4]
[note: 32]
Reformative Training Report, p 6
[note: 33]
Prosecution’s Sentencing Submissions, [14]
[note: 34]
Adri Anton Kalangie v Public Prosecutor [2018] 2 SLR 557; Prosecution’s Sentencing
Submissions, [17]
[note: 35]
MA 9176/2021 - Oral Grounds
[note: 36]
Prosecution’s Sentencing Submissions, [23]
[note: 37]
The nasal septum separates the left and right airways of the nasal cavity, dividing the
two nostrils, Wikipedia
[note: 38]
Prosecution’s Sentencing Submissions, [24a]
[note: 39]
Statement of Facts, [27]; Prosecution’s Sentencing Submissions, [25]
[note: 40]
The Accused was on bail/on the run from 19 March 2021 to 2 April 2022
COPYRIGHT © 2023 LAWNET, A SERVICE PROVIDED BY
THE SINGAPORE ACADEMY OF LAW. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
TERMS & CONDITIONS⋅ SINGAPORE ACADEMY OF LAW