[2026] SGDC 239

District Judge Lim Wee Ming:

[1] The accused is a repeat drug consumption offender. He pleaded guilty to a drug consumption charge. This charge carries a minimum sentence of seven years’ imprisonment and six strokes of the cane and is known as an “LT-2” drug consumption offence. He further pleaded guilty to a drug possession charge.

[2] The accused was sentenced to seven years and six months’ imprisonment and six strokes of the cane. An enhanced sentence of 674 days’ imprisonment was also imposed, arising from the accused having committed the offences, during the period of remission after he was released from prison for earlier offences.

[3] The accused has appealed against the sentence, which he is currently serving.

[4] The accused pleaded guilty to the following drug consumption charge (“the LT-2 charge”):

You, … are charged that you, on or before 9 April 2025, in Singapore, did consume a specified drug listed in the Fourth Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1973 (“the MDA”), to wit, Methamphetamine, without authorisation under the MDA or the Regulations made thereunder and you have thereby committed an offence under Section 8(b)(ii) of the MDA,

and further, that you before the commission of the said offence, were on 6 February 2020, in the State Court No. 11B vide DAC-923280-2019, Singapore, convicted of an offence of consumption of a specified drug, to wit, Methamphetamine, under Section 8(b)(ii) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed), punishable under Section 33A(1) of the said Act, and sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment with 3 strokes of cane, which conviction and sentence have not been set aside to date, and you shall now be punished under Section 33A(2) of the MDA,

and further, that you, from 3 August 2024 to 3 March 2027, were subject to a remission order made by the Commissioner of Prisons under Division 2 of Part 5B of the Prisons Act 1933 (“the PA”), which remission order is subject to the basic condition under Section 50S(1) of the PA, and while the remission order was in effect, you, on 9 April 2025, committed the aforesaid offence and upon conviction and the imposition of a sentence reflected under Section 50S(1)(b) of the PA, shall be deemed to have breached the basic condition of your remission order, and you are thereby liable to be punished under Section 50T(1)(a) of the PA with an enhanced sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding the remaining duration of the remission order of 694 days from 9 April 2025 to 3 March 2027 for that offence.

[5] The accused further pleaded guilty to the following drug possession charge (“the possession charge”):

You, … are charged that you, on 10 June 2025, at about 2.35 p.m., in the vicinity of 360 Balestier Road, Singapore, did have in your possession a Class ‘A’ controlled drug listed in the First Schedule of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1973 (“the MDA”), to wit, two (02) packets of crystalline substance weighing a total of not less than 35.22 grams, which were analysed and found to contain a total of not less than 23.94 grams of Methamphetamine, without any authorisation under the said Act or the Regulations made thereunder and you have thereby committed an offence under Section 8(a) of the MDA,

and further, that you before the commission of the said offence, were on 6 February 2020, in the State Court No. 11B, Singapore, vide DAC-923278-2019, convicted of an offence of possession of a controlled drug, to wit, Methamphetamine, under Section 8(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed), punishable under Section 33(1) of the said Act, and sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment, which conviction and sentence have not been set aside to date, and you shall now be punished under Section 33(3B) of the MDA,

and further, that you, from 3 August 2024 to 3 March 2027, were subject to a remission order made by the Commissioner of Prisons under Division 2 of Part 5B of the Prisons Act 1933 (“the PA”), which remission order is subject to the basic condition under Section 50S(1) of the PA, and while the remission order was in effect, you, on 10 June 2025, committed the aforesaid offence and upon conviction and the imposition of a sentence reflected under Section 50S(1)(b) of the PA, shall be deemed to have breached the basic condition of your remission order, and you are thereby liable to be punished under Section 50T(1)(a) of the PA with an enhanced sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding the remaining duration of the remission order of 632 days from 10 June 2025 to 3 March 2027 for that offence.

[6] The accused further agreed to the following two charges to be taken into consideration:

(a) A second LT-2 drug consumption charge (“the TIC LT-2 charge”): this offence took place on or before 10 June 2025, around the time of the offence committed in the possession charge that the accused pleaded guilty to.

(b) A charge for possession of utensils intended for consumption of a controlled drug: this offence took place on 10 June 2025, on the same date as the offence in the possession charge that the accused pleaded guilty to.

[7] The relevant extracts from the Statement of Facts are set out below.

[8] The accused is a 32-year-old male Singaporean.

[9] On 10 June 2025 at about 2.35 p.m., the accused was arrested by Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) officers at Balestier Road for drug-related offences.

[10] During the arrest, a search was conducted on the accused and the following exhibits, amongst others, were recovered and seized from the accused’s possession:

[11] The accused admitted to the ownership and possession of the exhibits. Subsequently, the accused and the exhibits were brought to the Police Cantonment Complex CNB office for investigations.

[12] On 11 June 2025, the exhibits set out above were sent to the Health Sciences Authority (“HSA”) for analysis.

[13] On 10 July 2025, Tang Shi Ying Angeline, an analyst with the Illicit Drugs Laboratory from the HSA issued certificates under section 16 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1973 (“the MDA”) stating that the exhibits set out above were found to contain the following:

(a) A1A1: One packet of crystalline substance weighing not less than 15.56 grams, which was analysed and found to contain not less than 10.57 grams of Methamphetamine.

(b) A1A2: One packet of crystalline substance weighing not less than 19.66 grams, which was analysed and found to contain not less than 13.37 grams of Methamphetamine.

[14] The exhibits weighed a total of not less than 35.22 grams were analysed and found to contain a total of not less than 23.94 grams of Methamphetamine. Methamphetamine is a Class ‘A’ controlled drug listed in the First Schedule to the MDA.

[15] The accused admitted possession of the exhibits when he was arrested. He knew the exhibits contained “Ice” (a street name for Methamphetamine), and it was meant for his own consumption. The accused claimed that he had purchased the said exhibits from an unidentified male subject sometime in early June 2025 before his arrest.

[16] The accused is not authorised under the MDA, or the Regulations made thereunder to have in his possession Methamphetamine, and he has thereby committed an offence under section 8(a) of the MDA.

[17] Further, before the commission of the aforesaid offence, the accused had been convicted on 6 February 2020 in the State Court No. 11B vide DAC-923278-2019, Singapore, for an offence of possession of a controlled drug, Methamphetamine, under section 8(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed), punishable under Section 33(1) of the said Act, and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, which conviction and sentence have not been set aside to date, and he is to be punished under section 33(3B) of the MDA.

[18] On 3 August 2024, the accused was subjected to a supervision order for a period of 60 months with effect from 3 August 2024 to 2 August 2029, issued under Regulation 15(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Approved Institutions, Medical Observation and Treatment and Rehabilitation) Regulations (Cap 185, Reg 3) (“the Regulations”).

[19] Pursuant to a notice under Regulation 15(3)(f) of the Regulations, the accused was required to present himself to provide a specimen of his urine for urine tests at the Tanglin Police Divisional Headquarters (“E Division”) CNB office, on every Wednesday of each month, from 9.30 a.m. to 10.00 p.m., commencing on 3 August 2024, during the period that the accused was subjected to supervision.

[20] Investigations revealed that on 9 April 2025 at about 9.04 p.m., the accused, being subject to a supervision order, presented himself at the E Division CNB office for a routine urine test and he was arrested for suspected drug consumption by CNB officers.

[21] Following his arrest, the accused provided two bottles of his urine samples which were sealed “CENTRAL NARCOTICS BUREAU” and marked “C-SE-25-04805-1 HASSAN PUTRA BIN SULEIMAN [NRIC Number]” and "C-SE-25-04805-2 HASSAN PUTRA BIN SULEIMAN [NRIC Number]" respectively in his presence. The said urine samples were sent to the HSA on 10 April 2025 for analysis.

[22] On 2 May 2025, the HSA issued two certificates under Section 16 of the MDA as follows:

(a) Lab No. 2505439-AT-001: Ng Chee Ann, an analyst with the Analytical Toxicology Laboratory (“ATL”) of the HSA, having conducted the analysis of the urine sample marked “C-SE-25-04805-1 HASSAN PUTRA BIN SULEIMAN [NRIC Number]” issued the certificate stating that on analysis, the said urine sample was found to contain Methamphetamine; and

(b) Lab No. 2505439-AT-002: Sim Sze Mun Chermaine, an analyst with the ATL of the HSA, having conducted the analysis of the urine sample marked “C-SE-25-04805-2 HASSAN PUTRA BIN SULEIMAN [NRIC Number]” issued the certificate stating that on analysis, the said urine sample was found to contain Methamphetamine.

[23] Methamphetamine is a specified drug listed in the Fourth Schedule to the MDA. The accused had knowingly consumed Methamphetamine at his home on or before 9 April 2025 prior to his arrest. The accused’s urine samples were found to contain Methamphetamine as a result of his consumption. According to the accused, he took about ten puffs of “Ice” using a lighter, an improvised glass apparatus and one rubber tube. The accused had purchased the “Ice” from an unidentified male subject.

[24] The accused is not authorised under the MDA, or the Regulations made thereunder to consume Methamphetamine, and he has thereby committed an offence under Section 8(b)(ii) of the MDA.

[25] Further, before the commission of the aforesaid offence, the accused had been convicted on 6 February 2020 in the State Court 11B vide DAC-923280-2019, Singapore, for an offence of consumption of a specified drug, Methamphetamine, under section 8(b) (ii) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed), punishable under Section 33A(1) of the said Act, and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment with three strokes of the cane, which conviction and sentence have not been set aside to date, and he is to be punished under Section 33A(2) of the MDA.

[26] After his arrest on 9 April 2025, the accused was released from custody on the same day pending further investigations. After the accused repeatedly failed to report back to CNB for further investigations, a Police Gazette was issued for the accused’s arrest in May 2025.

[27] Further, the accused was, from 3 August 2024 to 3 March 2027, subject to a remission order made by the Commissioner of Prisons under Division 2 of Part 5B of the Prisons Act 1933 (“the PA”), which remission order was subject to the basic condition under Section 50S(1) of the PA. While the remission order was in effect, the accused, on 9 April 2025 (DAC-924351-2025) and 10 June 2025 (DAC-910859-2025), committed the two above offences, respectively. Upon his conviction and the imposition of sentences reflected under Section 50S(1)(b) of the PA, the accused shall be deemed to have breached the basic condition of his remission order. He is thereby liable to be punished under Section 50T(1)(a) of the PA with enhanced sentences of imprisonment for a term not exceeding the remaining duration of the remission order of 694 days from 9 April 2025 to 3 March 2027 and 632 days from 10 June 2025 to 3 March 2027. Pursuant to Section 50T(2)(b) of the PA, the aggregate length of all the enhanced sentences should not exceed 694 days in the present case, as determined based on the date of the earliest offence committed.

[28] The accused was arrested on 9 April 2025 and released from custody on the same day pending further investigations. Following his re-arrest on 10 June 2025, the accused was charged in Court on 12 June 2025 and has been in remand since as he could not furnish the court bail.

[29] Both charges had mandatory minimum sentences, as follows:

(a) The LT-2 charge: mandatory minimum of seven years’ imprisonment and six strokes of the cane.

(b) The possession charge: mandatory minimum of two years’ imprisonment.

[30] The remaining duration of the accused’s remission period at the time he committed the offences were as follows:

(a) The LT-2 charge: 694 days.

(b) The possession charge: 632 days.

[31] In relation to the enhanced sentences, both parties referred to the sentencing framework in Abdul Mutalib Bin Aziman & others v PP [2021] 4 SLR 1220 (“Abdul Mutalib”). In summary, the High Court in that case, held that the sentencing framework for enhanced sentences under section 50T of the Prisons Act is as follows (at [87]):

(a) First, the court should consider the gravity of the fresh offence committed by the offender while on remission, the offender’s rehabilitative prospects and all other relevant circumstances.

(i) The gravity of the fresh offence will ordinarily be a significant factor in the sentencing court’s consideration. In general, the more severe the fresh offence committed by the offender and the greater the harm caused, the longer the enhanced sentence. The underlying sentence imposed for the fresh offence committed by the offender will be a significant limiting factor in relation to any enhanced sentence that may be imposed.

(ii) The offender’s rehabilitative prospects: In assessing the offender’s rehabilitative prospects, the court should consider the totality of the circumstances, including the similarity between the original offence and the fresh offence, the timing of the fresh offence relative to the date of the offender’s release from prison on remission and any evidence of a lack of commitment to rehabilitation and reintegration on the offender’s part.

(iii) All other relevant circumstances: This is a residual catch-all category which informs the court’s overall sentencing analysis, although care should be taken to avoid double counting any factors.

(b) Next, based on the above factors, the court should determine which sentencing band the case at hand falls under. There are three sentencing bands:

(i) Band 1: This comprises cases of low severity, which attract sentences of up to one-third of the remaining duration of the remission order at the time of the relevant offence.

(ii) Band 2: This comprises cases of moderate severity, which attract sentences of between one-third and two-thirds of the remaining duration of the remission order at the time of the relevant offence.

(iii) Band 3: This comprises cases of high severity, which attract sentences of between two-thirds and the full remaining duration of the remission order at the time of the relevant offence.

(c) Where multiple fresh offences are involved, the court should take note of the following:

(i) The cumulative enhanced sentences imposed under must not exceed the remaining duration of the remission order at the time of the offender’s earliest offence. The court should determine the appropriate enhanced sentence to impose in order of the most serious to the least serious of the fresh offences, stopping once the whole of the remaining duration of the remission order at the time of the offender’s earliest offence has been rescinded.

(ii) In order not to exceed the remaining duration of the offender’s remission order at the time of his earliest offence (which is the outer limit to the cumulative enhanced sentence that may be imposed), the court may have to make adjustments to the individual sentences and/or may decide not to impose any enhanced sentence for one or more of the fresh offences.

(d) 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 is crushing and not in keeping with the offender’s past record and future prospects. If any adjustments are made at this stage, there should be good and cogent reasons for doing so.

[32] The prosecution sought the following sentences:

(a) The LT-2 charge:

(i) Seven years and six months’ imprisonment and six strokes of the cane.

(ii) Enhanced sentence of 463 days.

(b) The possession charge:

(i) An appropriate uplift from the mandatory minimum sentence of two years’ imprisonment. In the interest of totality and proportionality, the term of imprisonment for this charge should run concurrently.

(ii) Enhanced sentence of 211 to 421 days.

[33] The prosecution highlighted that the accused was previously sentenced on 6 February 2020 to a total of seven years and nine months’ imprisonment with nine strokes of the cane for drug trafficking, drug possession and LT-1 consumption.

[34] For the enhanced sentence for the LT-2 charge, the prosecution submitted for an enhanced sentence of 463 days, being the lower end of Band 3, ie about two-thirds of the remaining remission duration of 694 days. The prosecution relied on the holding in Abdul Mutalib, that an LT-2 offence is of moderate to high gravity.

[35] For the enhanced sentence for the possession charge, the prosecution submitted for an enhanced sentence of 211 to 421 days, being the Band 2 range of one-third to two-thirds of the remaining duration period of 632 days.

[36] The total sentence sought by the prosecution was a term of imprisonment of seven years and six months’ imprisonment and six strokes of the cane and an enhanced sentence not exceeding 694 days.

[37] For the LT-2 charge, the defence submitted that a sentence of seven years and three months’ imprisonment and six strokes of the cane is appropriate, with an uplift of three months to account for the TIC LT-2 charge while recognising that this is the accused’s first LT-2 conviction.

[38] For the possession charge, the defence submitted that the appropriate sentence was two years and six months’ imprisonment with a six months’ uplift above the mandatory minimum of two years, in view of the accused’s possession antecedent. The defence accepted the prosecution’s position that the term of imprisonment for this charge should run concurrently.

[39] For the enhanced sentence for the LT-2 charge, the defence submitted that it should fall at the lower end of Band 2, not more than 231 days (about one-third of the remaining remission period of 694 days). In support of this, the defence submitted:

(a) The LT-2 charge is of moderate to high gravity, but this is the accused’s first LT-2 conviction. A first LT-2 breach falls on the lower end of the LT-2 gravity spectrum and should attract a correspondingly lower band placement than a repeat LT-2 breach.

(b) The accused remained compliant with his mandatory urine reporting obligations at E Division CNB office for a period after his release on 3 August 2024 before his relapse on or before 9 April 2025. This period of compliance demonstrates that the accused is not wholly without the capacity for rehabilitation.

(c) The accused consumed the drugs solely for his own use. Neither the LT-2 proceeded charge nor the TIC LT-2 charge involves any element of trafficking, distribution, or supply.

(d) All other relevant circumstances: The accused's ailing mother is gravely ill and unable to visit him in prison. His fiancée and her young daughter are a continuing source of motivation for his rehabilitation. His early guilty plea reflects genuine remorse and a commitment to taking responsibility for his offending.

[40] In relation to the enhanced sentence for the possession charge, the defence submitted that this should be no more than 211 days (one-third of the remaining duration of 632 days), at the lower end of Band 2 or the upper end of Band 1, as the possession offence is of lower gravity than the LT-2 charge and the drugs were for his personal consumption.

[41] The defence submitted that the total sentence should be seven years and three months’ imprisonment and six strokes and an enhanced sentence of 442 days.

[42] I sentenced the accused as follows:

(a) For the LT-2 charge, the accused was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of seven years and six months, six strokes of the cane and an enhanced sentence of 463 days.

(b) For the possession charge, the accused was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years and six months, and an enhanced sentence of 211 days.

[43] The terms of imprisonment were to run concurrently, whereas as mandated by law, the enhanced sentences were to run consecutively. The total sentence was a term of imprisonment of seven years and six months, six strokes of the cane and an enhanced sentence of 674 days’ imprisonment.

[44] My grounds for the underlying sentence and the enhanced sentence are set out below.

[45] For the LT-2 charge, in relation to the underlying sentence for this offence, the difference between the imprisonment sought by the prosecution of seven years and six months and that sought by the defence of seven years and three months, was just three months or 3.6% of the mandatory minimum of seven years’ imprisonment for this charge.

[46] I disagree with the defence’s submission of an uplift of only three months above the mandatory minimum of seven years’ imprisonment for the following reasons:

(a) The TIC LT-2 charge took place around 10 June 2025, just two months after the proceeded LT-2 charge which took place around 9 April 2025. After the accused’s arrest on 9 April 2025, the accused was released from custody but repeatedly failed to report back to CNB for investigations. The accused’s consumption of drugs within such a short period thereafter while he was still being investigated, shows that the accused is a recalcitrant drug offender with poor prospects for rehabilitation.

(b) In Abdul Mutalib, one of the accused, Amanshah, was sentenced by the lower court to a term of imprisonment of seven years and six months (at [116(2)]) for an LT-2 charge, taking into consideration a further drug consumption charge (at [116(a)]). The High Court’s decision in Abdul Mutalib focused on the enhanced sentence. Nevertheless, the aforesaid term of imprisonment of seven years and six months in the lower court, which was maintained by the High Court (at [126(d)]), for an LT-2 charge taking into consideration a further drug consumption charge, supports the term of imprisonment of seven years and six months in the present case, for the proceeded LT-2 charge with a TIC LT-2 charge.

(c) The defence submitted for an uplift of six months for the possession charge. The LT-2 charge is far more serious than the possession charge, as reflected in the LT-2 charge carrying a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of seven years as compared to the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of two years for the possession charge. In the premises, the defence’s submission of a lower uplift of three months for the LT-2 charge, is illogical and inconsistent with the uplift of six months that they submitted for the possession charge.

[47] In the premises, I am unable to accept the defence’s submission that the term of imprisonment for the LT-2 charge should be seven years and three months. I agree with the prosecution’s submission that the appropriate term of imprisonment for that charge is seven years and six months.

[48] In relation to the possession charge, I sentenced the accused to two years and six months’ imprisonment, which is the term of imprisonment sought by the defence. As agreed by the parties, this sentence is to run concurrently.

[49] In relation to the enhanced sentence, the key difference between the prosecution and the defence arises from whether the enhanced sentence for the LT-2 charge falls under the lower end of Band 3 as submitted by the prosecution, or the lower end of Band 2 as submitted by the defence.

[50] I agree with the prosecution’s submissions that the enhanced sentence for the LT-2 charge should fall under the lower end of Band 3, rather than the lower end of Band 2, for the following reasons:

(a) In Abdul Mutalib, the High Cout held that an LT-2 offence is “a serious one of moderate to high gravity” (at [103(a)]). In that case, the High Court ordered enhanced sentences for LT-2 offences for three accused persons, ranging from the high end of Band 2 (at [103], [113]) to the mid-point of Band 3 (at [122]).

(b) The application of the mid-point of Band 3 was in relation to the accused, Amanshah, who was a repeat LT-2 offender (at [121(a)]) and committed the fresh offence less than three months after his release from prison (at [121(b)]). Although the accused in the present case did not have a prior LT-2 antecedent, he did have a TIC LT-2 charge. I note that the present accused had stayed away from re-offending for a longer period after he was released from prison than Amanshah. Although this justifies a downward adjustment from the mid-point of Band 3 for Amanshah, in view of the TIC LT-2 charge, this adjustment should not be below Band 3. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the lower end of Band 3 would be appropriate in this case.

(c) The defence submitted that the enhanced sentence for the possession charge falls under the lower end of Band 2. As the LT-2 charge is far more serious, carrying a much heavier mandatory minimum sentence than the possession charge, I am of the view that the band for the enhanced sentence for the LT-2 charge has to be significantly higher as well and cannot be the same as the band for the enhanced sentence for the possession charge. In the premises, I agree with the prosecution’s submission that the lower end of Band 3 was the appropriate band for the LT-2 charge.

[51] In relation to the band for the enhanced sentence for the possession charge, both parties agreed that the appropriate band was Band 2. Although the prosecution submitted that the range of the band for this charge could run from one-third to two-thirds of the remaining remission period, I am of the view that the lower end of the band is more appropriate, to draw a clear distinction from the banding for the much more serious LT-2 charge. Furthermore, applying the lower end of Band 2 is sufficient to take up much of the remaining remission period of 694 days.

[52] Accordingly, I sentenced the accused to the following enhanced sentences:

(a) For the LT-2 charge, I sentenced the accused to an enhanced sentence of 463 days, which is at the lower end of Band 3 or about two-thirds of the remaining duration of the remission period of 694 days.

(b) For the possession charge, I sentenced the accused to an enhanced sentence of 211 days, which is at the lower end of Band 2 or about one-third of the remaining duration of the remission period of 632 days.

[53] The total enhanced sentence was 674 days of imprisonment.

[54] In conclusion, I sentenced the accused to a term of imprisonment of seven years and six months, six strokes of the cane, with an enhancement of 674 days’ imprisonment. The sentence was backdated to the date of his arrest on 10 June 2025.

SPO Lee Cheng Wah, Attorney General’s Chambers,

for the prosecution

Siddartha Bodi, CLAS Assigned,

for the accused