[2017] SGHC 107
General Division of the High Court of Singapore11 May 2017Criminal Case No 62 of 2015
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Cited in 1 later decision. No negative treatment detected.
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Later cases and laws citing this decision
“These grounds of decision are supplemental to the first grounds of decision that I issued on 11 May 2017 (see Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Nur Sallehin bin Kamaruzaman [2017] SGHC 107). At that time the Accused, Muhammad Nur Sallehin bin Kamaruzaman, had only appealed against the sentence of life imprisonment and 15 st”
Earlier cases and laws this decision relies on
No outgoing citations detected.
Auto-detected from judgment text; not a substitute for a citator check.
1
These grounds of decision are written in response to an appeal against a sentence of life imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane, which I imposed on the Accused, Muhammad Nur Sallehin Bin Kamaruzaman. The Accused was convicted on the charge that he:
2
The Accused claimed trial to the charge but after a twelve-day trial he was found guilty. Upon his conviction, the Prosecution and the Defence confirmed that the Accused was a courier for the purposes of s 33B(2)(a) of the MDA, and the Prosecution tendered the Public Prosecutor’s certificate issued under s 33B(2)(b) that the Accused had rendered substantive assistance to the Central Narcotics Bureau in disrupting drug trafficking activities.
3
In the circumstances, the Accused came under s 33B(2)(a) and s33B(1)(a), and is liable to be sentenced to death or to the alterative sentence of life imprisonment and caning of not less than 15 strokes. The Prosecution did not seek for the death penalty to be imposed on the Accused.
4
The sentence under appeal was imposed on the Accused on 14 February 2017, with the custodial sentence backdated to commence from the date of his arrest, 7 February 2012.
5
The Accused filed a Notice of Appeal on 22 February 2017 against the sentence, on the ground that it is manifestly excessive. He has not appealed against his conviction.
6
The Accused was represented by counsel during the trial and sentencing. However, he has filed the appeal in person against the sentence
para
although it is the minimum sentence prescribed by s 33B(1)(a) of the MDA which allows for a sentence of life imprisonment and caning of 15 or more strokes.
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.