Public Prosecutor v Alagesan Nathan and another [2017] SGHC 67

Introduction

The two accused persons pleaded guilty to the offence of importing a controlled drug under s 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”). I imposed the mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane on both accused persons. They have appealed against their sentences for being unreasonable and excessive, and I now set out my grounds of decision.

The first accused (“Alagesan”) and the second accused (“Chidananda”) are 21-year-old male Malaysians. Alagesan faced two charges under the MDA, of which the Prosecution proceeded on one charge. He pleaded guilty to that charge, the particulars of which were as follows:

Chidananda also faced two charges under the MDA, of which the Prosecution also proceeded on one charge. He pleaded guilty to that charge, the particulars of which were as follows:

The facts

The facts, as set out by the Prosecution in the Statement of Facts, to which both accused persons admitted without qualification, were as follows:

The Statement of Facts went on to explain that two blocks of vegetable matter were recovered from each accused person and seized by the CNB officers. The accused persons were thereafter placed under arrest. The blocks of vegetable matter were sent to the Health Sciences Authority for analysis. The two blocks recovered from Alagesan were found to contain not less than 362.2g of vegetable matter which was analysed and found to be cannabis, and the two blocks recovered from Chidananda were found to contain not less than 344.1g of vegetable matter which was analysed and found to be cannabis.

The Statement of Facts continued as follows:

After ensuring that both Alagesan and Chidananda understood the nature and consequences of their plea of guilt and the punishment prescribed for the offences above, I found them guilty as charged and convicted them accordingly. One further charge for each accused person was taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing. Both of them had no known antecedents. The Prosecution submitted that the mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane would be adequate for each accused person.

Mitigation

Defence counsel for both Alagesan and Chidananda urged the court to impose the minimum sentence as submitted by the Prosecution. In brief, defence counsel for Alagesan stated that Alagesan had cooperated fully with the authorities after his arrest and had indicated his desire to plead guilty from the very beginning. Also, Alagesan was only 19 years old at the time of the offence and he had committed the offence as he needed the money. In addition, this was not a case where the actual amount of the analysed drugs was above the amount that attracted capital punishment. Defence counsel for Chidananda stated that Chidananda had committed the offence as he was financially in dire straits and was merely 20 years old at the material time. Further, Chidananda, a first-time offender, had admitted to the Statement of Facts without qualification and had cooperated with the authorities.

Sentence

As each of the accused persons had been found to traffic in cannabis where the quantity was not less than 330g and not more than 500g, the mandatory minimum sentence under the MDA is 20 years’ imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane: see the Second Schedule to the MDA. I sentenced Alagesan and Chidananda each to the mandatory minimum sentence, namely, 20 years’ imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane. I also backdated their sentences to 25 June 2015, the date which, according to the Prosecution, the accused persons were first charged in court and remanded.

I saw no reason to depart from the mandatory minimum sentence. Apart from the fact that the Prosecution had not asked for more than the mandatory minimum sentence, I also found no aggravating factors to warrant a higher sentence. Although both Alagesan and Chidananda each had one additional charge (of importation of cannabis mixture of not less than 549.1g and 549.9g, respectively) taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing, I took into account the mitigating factors raised by defence counsel. Hence, even though both accused persons have appealed on the basis that their sentences were unreasonable and excessive, the sentence imposed on each of them was essentially the prescribed mandatory minimum sentence.

Finally, the Prosecution applied to forfeit the motorcycle (and the keys to the motorcycle) under s 28(2) of the MDA, as it was used in connection with the offences. Defence counsel for both accused persons did not object, and I granted the forfeiture. I was satisfied that the motorcycle was used in connection with the offence because that was the vehicle which both accused persons had travelled on and had used to smuggle the drugs into Singapore. As for the other exhibits, they were disposed of in accordance with the Prosecution’s application. I ordered all exhibits to be forfeited or returned to the accused persons (as the case may be) only after the period for appeal had lapsed or after any final disposal of the appeal.

Audrey LimJudicial Commissioner