Public Prosecutor v Mohamed Farook s/o Mohamed Yusoof [2026] SGDC 217

Introduction

Less than a month after being released on remission, while emplaced on a community-based programme at Selarang Halfway House ("Selarang") for his previous drug offences, the accused, Mohamed Farook s/o Mohamed Yusoof, re-offended. He was arrested at Selarang for the possession of methamphetamine. At the time of the offence, he had almost three years left in his remission period. He was subsequently released on bail, but this did not deter him. Two months later, he was again arrested at Selarang for the same offence. Upon being brought back to the Central Narcotics Bureau, a check was conducted on his personal belongings, during which he took out additional packets of methamphetamine and discarded them into a box – an act captured on the cameras in the lock-up area.

The accused eventually faced eight charges for the possession of methamphetamine, diamorphine, and ketamine. These constituted his third convictions for the possession of controlled drugs, and he therefore faced mandatory minimum sentences. His previous conviction for the same offence had already resulted in an imprisonment term of two years and three months. In addition, all his charges were committed while he was on remission for his prior drug offences.

The Prosecution proceeded with three charges for the enhanced possession of methamphetamine under s 8(a) punishable under s 33(3B) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1973 (“MDA”), punishable under s 50T(1)(a) of the Prisons Act 1933.

The accused pleaded guilty to the three proceeded charges and consented to the rest of the charges being taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing.

After considering parties’ submissions, I sentenced the accused as follows:

Charge No

Underlying sentence

Enhanced sentence under s 50T(1)(a) Prisons Act

DAC-900266-2024 (Possession of not less than 7.46g of methamphetamine)

Two years’ and six months’ imprisonment (consecutive)

Nil (as the maximum remaining duration of remission at the date of the earliest offence was reached upon imposing enhanced sentences for the other two charges)

DAC-903796-2024 (Possession of not less than 3.64g of methamphetamine, re-offended on bail)

Two years’ and nine months’ imprisonment (consecutive)

days

DAC-903799-2024 (Possession of methamphetamine, re-offended on bail)

Two years’ and eight months’ imprisonment (concurrent)

days

Global sentence

Four years’ and 15 months’ imprisonment and an enhanced sentence of 1,030 days.

Sentence was backdated to 29 October 2023 (date of first arrest) and took into account the periods of custody and excluded the period not in custody/on bail.

The accused was not in custody/on bail from 30 October 2023 (date transferred to the drug rehabilitation centre, then released on bail) to 5 January 2024 (date of second arrest, following which the accused was in remand).

The sentences imposed were broadly in line with both parties’ submissions. In fact, two of three of the base sentences were lower than what Defence Counsel sought at the hearing.

The accused, who is now unrepresented, filed an appeal against the sentence imposed. He is presently serving his sentence.

When I delivered my decision on sentence, I provided brief oral grounds. These are the full reasons for my decision.

Facts

The following facts are based on the Statement of Facts, which the accused admitted to without qualification.

At the time of the offences, the accused was placed on a community-based programme for his previous drug offences. He resided at Selarang at 1825 Upper Changi Road North, Singapore since 3 October 2023. He was working as a cleaner.

Facts relating to DAC- 900266-2024

On 29 October 2023, at about 3.15am, acting on information received, police officers arrested the accused at Selarang for drug-related offences under the MDA. During the arrest, six packets of crystalline substance (later marked “C”) were seized from the accused.

The accused and the exhibit were then brought to the Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) at Police Cantonment Complex for further investigations.

On 30 October 2023, the exhibit marked “C” was sent to the Health Sciences Authority (“HSA”) for analysis.

On 23 November 2023, Dr See Kum Foong Larrisa, an analyst with the Illicit Drug Laboratory (“IDL”) of the HSA, having conduct of the analysis of exhibit “C”, issued a certificate under s 16 of the MDA bearing Lab. No. 2319174-ID-003, stating that the exhibit marked “C” was found to be six packets of crystalline substance weighing not less than 11.02g, which was analysed and found to contain not less than 7.46g of methamphetamine.

Methamphetamine is a Class A Controlled Drug listed in the First Schedule to the MDA.

The accused admitted to having the exhibit marked “C” in his possession at the time of his arrest. He knew that the exhibit contained methamphetamine and had intended it for his own consumption. Prior to his arrest, the accused bought the exhibit marked “C” from an unknown Chinese man in the vicinity of Geylang Lorong 20, Singapore, for $300.

The accused was not authorised under the MDA or the Regulations made thereunder to possess methamphetamine, and he had thereby committed an offence under s 8(a) of the MDA.

Further, the accused, before the commission of the said offence, was on 7 September 2018, in District Court No. 7, vide DAC 902964-2018, convicted of an offence of possession of a controlled drug, to wit, methamphetamine, under Section 8(a) and punishable under s 33(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev. Ed) and sentenced to two years and three months’ imprisonment, which conviction and sentence had not been set aside to date, and he was thus liable to be punished under s 33(3B) of the MDA.

Further, the accused, from 3 October 2023 to 27 August 2026, was subjected to a remission order made by the Commissioner of Prisons under Division 2 of Part 5B of the Prisons Act, which remission order was subject to the basic condition under s 50S(1) of the Prisons Act and while the remission order was in effect the accused, on 29 October 2023, committed the said offence and upon conviction and the imposition of a sentence reflected under s 50S(1)(b) of the Prisons Act, was deemed to have breached the basic condition of his remission order, and he was thereby liable to be punished under Section 50T(1)(a) of the Prisons Act with an enhanced sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding the remaining duration of the remission order of 1,030 days from 29 October 2023 to 27 August 2026.

On 30 October 2023, the accused was committed to the drug rehabilitation centre (“DRC”) for medical observation. He was discharged from the DRC on 3 November 2023 and released on bail on the same day.

Facts relating to DAC -903796-2024 and DAC 903799-2024

On 5 January 2024 at about 12.15am, acting on information received, police officers arrested the accused at Selarang for drug-related offences under MDA. During the arrest, one packet of granular/powdery substance (later marked “B1”) was seized from the accused.

The accused and the exhibit were then brought to the CNB at Police Cantonment Complex for further investigations.

On 5 January at about 1.15am, at the Police Cantonment Complex Regional Lock-up (“PCC lock-Up”) at 391 North Bridge Road, Singapore, while the police officers were checking his personal belongings, the accused took out the following exhibits and threw them into a box.

Marking

Description

A1A

one (1) straw of granular/powdery substance weighing not less than 0.99g

A4

one (1) packet containing crystalline substance weighing not less than 3.88g

A1B

two (2) packets containing crystalline substance weighing not less than 1.45g

The accused’s act was caught on the closed-circuit camera at the PCC lock-up.

On 5 January 2024, the exhibits marked “B1”, “A1A”, “A4” and “A1B” were sent to the HSA for analysis.

On 1 February 2024, Jesslyn Oh Su Yun, an analyst with the IDL of the HSA, having conduct of the analysis of exhibits “B1”, “A1A”, “A4” and “A1B”, issued the following certificates under Section 16 of the MDA:

HSA Certificate

Exhibit

Description

Analysis

2400298-ID-008

“B1”

one (1) packet of granular/powdery substance weighing not less than 4.05g

Found to contain methamphetamine.

2400298-ID-001

“A1A”

one (1) straw of granular/powdery substance weighing not less than 0.99g

Found to contain methamphetamine

2400298-ID-007

“A4”

one (1) packet of crystalline substance weighing not less than 3.88g

Found to contain not less than 2.65g of methamphetamine

2400298-ID-002

“A1B”

two (2) packets of crystalline substance weighing not less than 1.45g

Found to contain not less than 0.99g of methamphetamine.

The exhibits contained a total of not less than 3.64g of methamphetamine. Methamphetamine is a Class A Controlled Drug listed in the First Schedule of the MDA.

The accused admitted to having exhibits marked “B1”, “A1A”, “A4” and “A1B” in his possession at the time of his arrest. The accused knew that the exhibits “B1”, “A1A” “A4” and “A1B” contained methamphetamine. All the seized exhibits were for his own consumption. Prior to his arrest, the accused bought the exhibits marked “B1”, “A1A”, “A4” and “A1B” from an unknown Chinese man in the vicinity of Geylang Lorong 20, Singapore.

The accused was not authorised under the MDA or the Regulations made thereunder to possess methamphetamine. He had thereby committed the following two offences under s 8(a) of the MDA:

(a) DAC-903796-2024: for possessing exhibits marked “A1A”, “A4” and “A1B”; and

(b) DAC-903799-2024: for possessing the exhibit marked “B1”.

Further, the accused, before the commission of the said offence, was on 7 September 2018, in District Court No. 7, vide DAC 902964-2018, convicted of an offence of possession of a controlled drug, to wit, methamphetamine, under s 8(a) and punishable under s 33(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) and sentenced to two years and three months’ imprisonment, which conviction and sentence had not been set aside to date, and he was thus liable to be punished under s 33(3B) of the MDA.

Further, the accused, from 3 October 2023 to 27 August 2026, was subjected to a remission order made by the Commissioner of Prisons under Division 2 of Part 5B of the Prisons Act which remission order was subject to the basic condition under s 50S(1) of the Prisons Act and while the remission order was in effect the accused, on 5 January 2024, committed the said offence and upon conviction and the imposition of a sentence reflected under Section 50S(1)(b) of the Prisons Act, was deemed to have breached the basic condition of his remission order, and he was thereby liable to be punished under Section 50T(1)(a) of the Prisons Act with an enhanced sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding the remaining duration of the remission order of 966 days from 5 January 2024 to 27 August 2026.

The accused was first arrested on 29 October 2023. After his arrest on 30 October 2023, the accused was referred to DRC for medical observation. He was discharged from the DRC on 3 November 2023 and released on agency bail on the same day. The accused was subsequently arrested on 5 January 2024 and remained in custody until he was charged in Court on 6 January 2024. The accused has been in remand since 6 January 2024.

Relevant provisions

The relevant provisions of the MDA are as follows:

The provisions governing the enhanced sentence under the Prisons Act are set out below:

Antecedents

The accused is traced with multiple antecedents. His relevant drug-related antecedents are set out below:

Date

Offence

Outcome

July 1993

Section 8(b) read with s 37(2)(b) MDA (morphine)

DRC six months; DRC extension 11 months.

December 1994 – placed on 24 months’ drug supervision

February 1995

Section 8(b) read with s 37(2)(b) MDA

DRC six months; DRC extension 11 months

August 1996 – placed on 24 months’ drug supervision

May 1997

Section 8(b) read with s 37(2)(b) MDA (morphine)

DRC six months; DRC extension 15 months

February 1999 – placed on 24 months’ drug supervision.

March 1999

Section 8(b)(ii) read with s 33A(1) MDA (morphine)

Five years’ imprisonment and three strokes of the cane (LT1)

July 2011

Two counts of s 8(b)(ii) read with s 33A(2) MDA (morphine)

Seven years’ and six months’ imprisonment and six strokes of the cane (LT2) per charge (concurrent)

One count of s 8(a) MDA (diamorphine)

months’ imprisonment (consecutive)

One count of s 9 MDA

months’ imprisonment (concurrent)

Two counts of s 8(b)(ii) read with s 33A(2) MDA (morphine)

TIC

One count of s 9 MDA

TIC

November 2016 - placed on 24 months’ drug supervision.

September 2018

Section 8(b)(ii) read with s 33A(1) MDA (methamphetamine)

Seven years’ and nine months’ imprisonment and six strokes of the cane.

Section 8(a) MDA (methamphetamine)

Two years’ and three months’ imprisonment

Section 9 MDA

months’ imprisonment

s 8(a) MDA (diamorphine)

TIC

October 2023 - placed on 24 months’ drug supervision.

Parties’ submissions on sentence

Prosecution’s submissions on sentence

For each of the charges under s 8(a) punishable under s 33(3B) of the MDA, the Prosecution submitted for an appropriate uplift from the accused’s previous sentence of two years’ and three months’ imprisonment for the same offence. The Prosecution left the length of the uplift to the Court, and submitted that the sentences for two of the proceeded charges to run consecutively pursuant to s 307(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (“CPC”).

In relation to the enhanced sentence, the Prosecution applied the framework in Abdul Mutalib Bin Aziman v Public Prosecutor and other appeals [2021] 4 SLR 1220 (“Abdul Mutalib”):

(a) In terms of the gravity of the offence, the Prosecution pointed out that the accused’s offence of possession of a Class A controlled drug under s 8(a) punishable under s 33(3B) of the MDA was one of moderate gravity, as it was punishable with not less than two years’ and not more than 10 years’ imprisonment, and the offender was also liable to a fine not exceeding $20,000. The quantity of the drugs was not low. The total quantity of methamphetamine in the accused’s possession was about 11.10g.

(b) In relation to the accused’s rehabilitative prospects, the period of remission was from 3 October 2023 to 27 August 2026. The first set of offences was committed on 29 October 2023, which was approximately four weeks after being placed on the remission order. Given the length of the remission order (1,030 days), the accused re-offended very soon after being placed on remission. He then re-offended on 5 January 2024, while on bail for his earlier offence of the same type. He committed the offences while he was at Selarang. His repeated offending while on remission suggested a lack of commitment to rehabilitation and integration.

The Prosecution placed the accused’s overall level of severity of the fresh offences at Band 3 of the Abdul Mutalib framework, which provided for a sentencing range of between 2/3 to the full remaining duration of the remission order (ie, between 686 and 1030 days for DAC-900266-2024, and between 644 and 966 days for DAC -903796 and DAC 903799 of 2024). The Prosecution left the exact length of the enhanced sentences to the Court’s calibration, while pointing out that any enhanced sentence imposed should not ordinarily exceed the underlying sentence imposed for the fresh offence (Abdul Mutalib at [55]).

Defence’s submissions on sentence

For DAC-900266-2024, the offence on 29 October 2023, the Defence sought a sentence of two years’ and seven months’ imprisonment. This was an uplift of four months from his previous sentence imposed for the same offence. The Defence also submitted for an enhanced sentence of 30% of 1,030 days, or 309 days.

For DAC-903796-2024 and DAC-903799-2024, the offences on 5 January 2024, the Defence acknowledged that the accused committed similar offences while on bail. The Defence thus sought a sentence of two years’ and nine months’ imprisonment per charge. For the enhanced sentence, the Defence submitted for 40% of the remaining duration of remission of 966 days, or 386 days. However, the Defence argued that an enhanced sentence should only be imposed on one of these two charges, as the total enhanced sentence would otherwise be too onerous when served on top of his underlying sentence.

The Defence asked for the base sentences for DAC-900266-2024 and DAC-903796-2024 to run consecutively, for a global sentence of five years’ and four months’ imprisonment and an enhanced sentence of “less than 1,030 days”.

The Defence also stated that the accused was genuinely remorseful for his actions and promised to stay away from trouble and to be a present and responsible parent to his daughters. Personal mitigation letters from his two daughters as well as a letter from the accused’s social worker were attached to the mitigation plea.

The Court’s decision on sentence

I will now explain the sentences imposed on the accused.

Underlying sentences for the offences

On 7 September 2018, the accused was sentenced to two years’ and three months’ imprisonment for one charge of enhanced possession of methamphetamine. In the present case, I thus imposed an uplift on the previous sentence:

(a) For DAC-900266-2024, the offence on 29 October 2023, I applied a three-month uplift to two years’ and six months’ imprisonment.

(b) For DAC-903796-2024 and DAC-903799-2024, which were committed on 5 January 2024, further uplifts were warranted on account of the accused re-offending while on bail for his earlier offence. For DAC-903799-2024, I imposed two years’ and eight months’ imprisonment. For DAC-903796-2024, the sentence was set at two years’ and nine months’ imprisonment, as I was of the view that the accused's act of throwing additional packets of methamphetamine into a box while police officers were conducting a search of his personal belongings at the PCC lock-up was designed to avoid liability for further offences. It was fortuitous that this was captured by the cameras at the lock-up.

As I had earlier indicated, the base sentences I imposed for two out of the three charges – DAC-900266-2024 and DAC-903799-2024 – were lower than the Defence’s submissions (see [39]-[40] above). The sentence for DAC-903796-2024 was in line with the Defence’s submissions.

Pursuant to s 307(1) of the CPC, as the accused had been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for three offences, at least two of these sentences must run consecutively. I ordered that the sentences for DAC-900266-2024 and DAC-903796-2024 (offences committed on different days) run consecutively, resulting in a total base sentence of four years’ and 15 months’ imprisonment. This was again lower than the global sentence sought by the Defence.

Enhanced sentence

In light of [45]-[46] above, I discern that the accused’s main ground for appeal is in relation to his enhanced sentence, which I will focus on in the rest of this judgment.

The Abdul Mutalib framework

The High Court framework in Abdul Mutalib applied to enhanced sentences under s 50T of the Prisons Act. The framework comprised three bands, with classifications of “low”, “moderate” and “high” depending on the level of severity of the fresh offence in question. The appropriate sentence under each of these three sentencing bands would be, respectively, up to one-third, between one-third and two-thirds, and between two-thirds and the full remaining duration of the remission order at the time of the relevant offence (at [47]):

Band

Degree of severity

Sentencing range (based on the remaining duration of the remission order)

1

Low

Up to 1/3

2

Moderate

1/3 to 2/3

3

High

2/3 to the full remaining duration

The sentencing factors relevant to the court’s determination of the applicable sentencing band could be broadly classified into three categories (at [53]):

(a) Factors going towards the gravity of the offence committed by the offender while on remission (s 50T(3)(a) Prisons Act). This would ordinarily be a significant factor in determining the appropriate sentencing band. The gravity of the fresh offence committed by the offender may be gleaned from, amongst other things, the underlying sentence imposed for that offence. In general, the more severe the fresh offence committed by the offender and the greater the harm caused, the longer the enhanced sentence under s 50T (at [54]).

(b) Factors going towards the offender’s rehabilitative prospects (s 50T(3)(b) and (c) Prisons Act). The Court should consider the similarity of the fresh offence committed by the offender while on remission to the original offence for which he was released on remission (at [57] and [59]). It should also consider the window of time between the offender’s release from prison and his commission of a fresh offence (at [58]), and any evidence of a lack of commitment to rehabilitation and reintegration on the offender’s part (at [63]).

(a) All other relevant circumstances (s 50T(3)(d) Prisons Act). This was a residual catch-all provision meant to ensure that the court’s sentencing discretion is not fettered (at [64]).

Having regard to the statutory factors set out in ss 50T(3)(a)–50T(3)(d) of the Prisons Act, the sentencing court should determine which sentencing band the case at hand falls under. It should further identify the appropriate degree of severity within a particular sentencing band, for example, the low end, mid-point or upper end of Bands 1, 2 or 3, and arrive at a fraction or percentage of the remaining duration of the remission order at the time of the relevant offence (at [48]).

The underlying sentence should be regarded as a significant limiting factor in relation to any enhanced sentence that might be imposed under s 50T. Consequently, any enhanced sentence imposed should ordinarily not exceed the underlying sentence imposed for the fresh offence: at [55].

In cases involving multiple fresh offences, the court should, as a practical matter, determine the appropriate enhanced sentence to impose (if any) in order of the most serious to the least serious of the fresh offences. Once the maximum duration of the enhanced sentence(s) that could be imposed had been reached (ie, once the whole of the remaining duration of the remission order at the time of the offender’s earliest offence had been rescinded), the sentencing court did not need to engage in a separate analysis of the appropriate enhanced sentence to impose (if any) for each of the other fresh offences: at [78].

Finally, the court should take a “last look” at all the facts and circumstances of the case at hand to determine whether the aggregate sentence was crushing and not in keeping with the offender’s past record and future prospects: at [86].

Application of the Abdul Mutalib framework

I now explain how I applied the Abdul Mutalib framework in the present case.

In terms of gravity of each of the enhanced possession offences, the offence was of moderate gravity as it was punishable with a minimum of two years' imprisonment and up to 10 years' imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $20,000. The accused was previously sentenced to two years’ and three months’ imprisonment. He was sentenced in the present case to between two years’ and six months’ and two years’ and nine months’ imprisonment.

In relation to his rehabilitative prospects, DAC-900266-2024 was committed on 29 October 2023, less than a month after the start of his remission order (spanning almost three years) on 3 October 2023. DAC 903796-2024 and DAC-903799-2024 were committed on 5 January 2024, two months after he was released on bail for his 29 October 2023 offences. The offences of possession of controlled drugs were also identical to one of the offences for which the accused was released on remission, and similar to the other offences (consumption of a specified drug and possession of drug utensils). Furthermore, the accused had a string of drug-related antecedents which dated all the way back to the 1990s. These related to the possession of controlled drugs, the consumption of specified drugs and the possession of drug utensils. He also committed the offences when he was supposed to be on community rehabilitation at Selarang. The pattern of offending evinced a lack of commitment to rehabilitation and reintegration.

I thus considered that the present case fell minimally at the upper end of Band 2 of the Abdul Mutalib framework, which resulted in the imposition of an enhanced sentence of 2/3 of the remaining period of remission.

I began with the enhanced sentence for the most serious charge for which the highest underlying sentence was imposed – DAC-903796-2024. I imposed an enhanced sentence of 2/3 of the remaining period of 966 days, ie, 644 days.

I moved on to the second most serious charge – DAC-903799-2024. I would have similarly imposed an enhanced sentence of 2/3 of the remaining period of 966 days. However, this would have exceeded the remaining duration of remission as at the date of the accused’s earliest offence. I thus reduced the enhanced sentence for this charge to 386 days.

None of the enhanced sentences imposed exceeded the underlying sentence imposed for each of the fresh offences.

Since the maximum remaining duration of remission as at the date of the earliest offence (1,030 days) had been reached, I did not impose an enhanced sentence on the last charge, DAC-900266-2024.

I should add that even if I had imposed a shorter enhanced sentence for DAC-903796-2024 and DAC-903799-2024 (ie, such that the cumulative enhanced sentence for these two charges was less than 1,030 days), I would nonetheless have imposed an enhanced sentence on DAC-900266-2024 based on the analysis of the factors above. In all likelihood, the maximum duration of the remission order as at the date of the earliest offence (1,030 days) would still have been reached.

At the last step of the analysis, I did not consider that the aggregate sentence was crushing on the accused, given his long history of drug-related antecedents since the 1990s, his commission of offences while being emplaced on community rehabilitation, his re-offending on bail, the number of similar offences he faced (including in the five TIC charges), and the variety of drugs he possessed.

Pursuant to s 50T(5) of the Prisons Act, the enhanced sentence imposed must run consecutively to all other terms of imprisonment imposed on the accused, and I so ordered.

Backdating of sentence

The accused’s sentence was backdated to 29 October 2023, the date of his first arrest. The period during which the accused was not remanded in custody or was on bail were excluded from the calculation.

On 30 October 2023, the accused was committed to DRC for medical observation. He was discharged and released on bail on 3 November 2023 (see [20] above). As committal to the DRC was an order made by the Director of the CNB under s 34(1) of the MDA, this period did not constitute time “remanded in custody” in relation to the offence within the meaning of s 318(5)(b) of the CPC.

Accordingly, the period excluded from the backdating calculation was 30 October 2023 to 5 January 2024. This comprised two consecutive segments: first, from 30 October 2023 to 3 November 2023, when the accused was committed to DRC, which did not constitute time “remanded in custody” as explained above; and second, from 3 November 2023 to 5 January 2024, when the accused was on bail following his discharge from the DRC, until the date of his second arrest. The accused had been in remand since 5 January 2024.

Global sentence

The global sentence imposed was four years’ and 15 months’ imprisonment, with an enhanced sentence of 1,030 days. The sentence was backdated to 29 October 2023, but excluded the period during which the accused was not in custody or on bail from 30 October 2023 to 5 January 2024.

Conclusion

In granting an offender remission, the State is releasing him from serving a portion of the term of incarceration to which he has been sentenced. The rationale for this is two-fold: first, as a “carrot” or a reward for his good conduct and behaviour in prison; second, as a “stick” to deter ex-inmates from re-offending during the remission period. Should he slip back into criminal conduct, the incentive previously granted stands to be forfeited by an enhanced sentence under s 50T of the Prisons Act. The sooner the offender reoffends after his release, the longer the enhanced sentence is likely to be: see Abdul Mutalib at [75], Muhammad Isa bin Ahmad v Public Prosecutor [2024] 3 SLR 1359 at [24] and Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (20 January 2014) vol 91.

An offender such as the accused who takes for granted the privilege of being released on remission and the reprieve it accords from serving a substantial part of his sentence should have this privilege rescinded. This is especially so where, as in this case, the accused committed the very same offence almost immediately after being released, re-offended while on bail, and faced multiple charges of the same nature as a result. In my view, the enhanced sentence imposed in the present case aligns with the legislative objective and is commensurate with the level of severity of the accused’s offences.

The accused is presently serving his sentence.