Public Prosecutor v Lim Bee Hoon and another

Lee Seiu Kin J:

[1] The first accused is Lim Bee Hoon, a 41 year old female Singaporean, and the second accused is Lim Boon Cheh, a 56 year old male Singaporean. At the material time, the accused persons were in a relationship and living together.

[2] The first accused faced five charges under the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”) of which the prosecution proceeded with three. She pleaded guilty to the three charges ie, two trafficking charges and an enhanced consumption charge. The particulars of the proceeded charges read as follows:

[3] The second accused faced 16 charges of which the prosecution proceeded with four. He pleaded guilty to the proceeded charges ie, three trafficking charges and one enhanced consumption charge. The particulars of the four charges read as follows:

[4] On 6 May 2011, at about 7.52pm, the second accused was arrested by Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) officers at the grass patch behind Blk 44 Sims Drive. During the arrest, a white and blue plastic bag belonging to the accused was recovered. The said plastic bag was found to contain two packets of powdery substance which were later found to contain not less than 690.3g of ketamine (“the ketamine exhibits”), one packet containing four smaller packets of crystalline substance, one black coloured plastic bag containing one big packet of white powdery substance and five ecstasy tablets. Also found on him were, inter alia, two packets of granular substance, one straw of powdery substance and one Marlboro box containing one straw of brown substance. The second accused was then escorted to his registered address where a search yielded various substances and drug paraphernalia which were unrelated to the proceeded charges.

[5] On 6 May 2011, at about 9.10pm, the first accused was arrested outside the main gate of 21 Lorong Tahar. A search was conducted on the first accused and four keys were recovered. One of the keys was used to enter Room 3 in #05-01 (“the Lorong Tahar room”). The first accused was then escorted into the Lorong Tahar room where more substances and drug paraphernalia were recovered. Among the items recovered, there were two packets of brown granular substances that were later found to contain not less than 15.77 grams of diamorphine (“the diamorphine exhibits”) and 18 packets of crystalline substances that were later found to contain not less than 68.51g of methamphetamine (“the methamphetamine exhibits”).

[6] The diamorphine exhibits and methamphetamine exhibits formed the subject of the first charge and second charge against each accused person respectively. At the time of their arrests, the accused persons had in their possession the keys to access the Lorong Tahar room where the diamorphine exhibits and methamphetamine exhibits were found. They were in a relationship since early 2011 and were staying together in the Lorong Tahar room since a few days before their arrests on 6 May 2011.

[7] The accused persons knew that the diamorphine exhibits and methamphetamine exhibits were present in the Lorong Tahar room and they further admitted that these substances belonged to them. They also admitted that the abovementioned substances were in their possession for the purposes of sale to other persons.

[8] The first accused’s urine samples were found to contain methamphetamine and this formed the subject of the third charge against her. She admitted that she had consumed methamphetamine prior to her arrest on 6 May 2011. She would consume methamphetamine about three to four times a week. She would heat up the methamphetamine, let the smoke pass through a glass container containing some water and inhale the smoke thereafter. The first accused was previously convicted of the same offence in 2003.

[9] The ketamine exhibits formed the subject of the seventh charge against the second accused. At the time of his arrest, the second accused knew that the ketamine exhibits were inside the white and blue plastic bag and further admitted to the possession of the said plastic bag as well as the ketamine exhibits in it. He had received the ketamine exhibits from one “Ah Boy” and he intended to sell them to other people.

[10] The second accused’s urine samples were found to contain morphine and this formed the subject of the fifteenth charge against him. He admitted that he had consumed morphine a few hours prior to his arrest on 6 May 2011. The second accused obtained his morphine from one “Ah Boy” and would consume morphine on a daily basis. He would put the morphine on a foil, burn the bottom of the foil and inhale the fumes using a rolled-up paper. The second accused was previously convicted of the same offence in 1996 and was admitted to DRC in 1999 for morphine consumption.

[11] After ensuring that the accused persons understood the nature and consequences of their plea of guilt and the sentences prescribed for the offences, I found them guilty as charged and convicted them accordingly.

[12] The accused persons had numerous antecedents including drug related offences. Their antecedents are set out in the following tables.

[13] In his written mitigation plea, defence counsel for the first accused urged the Court to be lenient on the following grounds – that the first accused had a troubled past which drove her to substance abuse; that she played a relatively minor role in the trafficking offences; and that she pleaded guilty and cooperated with the authorities.

[14] The defence counsel for the second accused similarly urged the Court to be lenient on the basis that the second accused was remorseful and had fully cooperated with the CNB officers. He further submitted that the second accused was unlikely to reoffend given his age and the long imprisonment term he faced.

[15] In sentencing the accused persons, I took into account their antecedents, the charges taken into consideration as well as their respective mitigation pleas.

[16] The first accused was a female offender and therefore was not liable to be caned (see s 325(1)(a) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) (“the CPC”)). As such, the first accused faced imprisonment for a term of not less than 20 years, five years and three years for the first to third charges respectively. On top of these charges, the first accused consented for the remaining two charges to be taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing (“the TIC charges”). The TIC charges pertained to the following offences:

(a) Fourth charge: Possession of utensils intended to be used for consuming a controlled drug – s 9 of the MDA.

(b) Fifth charge: Possession of methamphetamine – s 8(a) of the MDA.

[17] I noted that the first accused had pleaded guilty to the proceeded charges and that she had played a minor role in the trafficking offences. I was also mindful of her difficult life circumstances that had led her to make bad choices along the way. However, I also took into account the TIC charges and the fact that this was not her first brush with the law, particularly in relation to drug offences.

[18] Having regard to all of the above, I sentenced her to 20 years’ imprisonment for the first charge of trafficking 14.99 grams of diamorphine, 6 years’ imprisonment for the second charge of trafficking 68.51 grams of methamphetamine and 3 years’ imprisonment for the third charge of enhanced consumption. I ordered the sentences for the third charge to run consecutively with that for the first charge and the sentence for the second charge to run concurrently with that for the first charge. The total sentence would therefore be 23 years’ imprisonment. The sentences were also backdated to 6 May 2011, the date of her arrest.

[19] Pursuant to s 325(1)(b) of the CPC, the second accused was not liable to be caned since he was above the age of 50. As such, the prescribed punishment of the charges against the second accused were imprisonment of not less than 20 years for the first charge, and five years for each of the second charge, seventh charge and fifteenth charge. The second accused consented for the remaining 12 charges against him to be taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing. These 12 charges pertained to the following offences:

(a) Third charge: Possession of 5.77g of diamorphine for the purpose of trafficking – s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the MDA.

(b) Fourth charge: Possession of Nimetazepam (enhanced) – s 8(a) of the MDA.

(c) Fifth charge: Possession of 0.35g of diamorphine (enhanced) – s 8(a) punishable under s 33(1) of the MDA.

(d) Sixth charge: Possession of drug utensils – s 9 of the MDA.

(e) Eighth charge: Possession of 17.29g of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking – s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the MDA.

(f) Ninth charge: Possession of 0.40g of N,a-dimethyl-3,4-(methylenedioxy)-phenethylamine (enhanced) – s 8(a) punishable under s 33(1) of the MDA.

(g) Tenth charge: Possession of 0.40g of ketamine (enhanced) – s 8(a) punishable under s 33(1) of the MDA.

(h) Eleventh charge: Possession of 0.83g of diamorphine (enhanced) – s 8(a) punishable under s 33(1) of the MDA.

(i) Twelfth charge: Possession of 0.29g of methamphetamine (enhanced) – s 8(a) punishable under s 33(1) of the MDA.

(j) Thirteenth charge: Possession of methamphetamine (enhanced) – s 8(a) punishable under s 33(1) of the MDA.

(k) Fourteenth charge: Possession of drug utensils – s 9 of the MDA.

(l) Sixteenth charge: Consumption of methamphetamine (enhanced) – s 8(b)(ii) punishable under s 33A(1) of the MDA.

[20] I noted the second accused’s remorse as reflected in his personal mitigation plea and his low likelihood of reoffending given his age and long term of imprisonment he faced. However, in view of his lengthy antecedents and the large number of charges taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing, I sentenced him to 22 years’ imprisonment for trafficking in 14.99g of diamorphine, 7 years’ imprisonment for trafficking in 68.51g of methamphetamine, 7 years’ imprisonment for trafficking in not less than 690.3g of ketamine, and 6 years’ imprisonment for the enhanced consumption charge. I ordered the sentence for the second charge to run consecutively with that for the first charge, and sentence for the seventh charge and the fifteenth charge to run concurrently with that for the first charge. This would make a total imprisonment term of 29 years. The sentences were also backdated to 6 May 2011, the date of his arrest.