Public Prosecutor v Rahmat Bin Abdullah: Drug Trafficking Sentencing Principles
In Public Prosecutor v Rahmat Bin Abdullah and Kalaiselvan A/L Nallathamby, the High Court of Singapore sentenced both defendants for drug trafficking and consumption. Rahmat Bin Abdullah, a 59-year-old taxi driver, and Kalaiselvan A/L Nallathamby, a 45-year-old unemployed Malaysian, pleaded guilty to trafficking 499.9g of cannabis and consuming cannabis. The court, presided over by Justice Choo Han Teck, sentenced both accused to 22 years imprisonment and the second accused was sentenced to 15 strokes of the cane in respect of the trafficking charge; and one year’s imprisonment for each of them in respect of the consumption charge. The terms of imprisonment are to run concurrently with effect from 27 January 2003.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Both accused sentenced to 22 years imprisonment and the second accused was sentenced to 15 strokes of the cane in respect of the trafficking charge; and one year’s imprisonment for each of them in respect of the consumption charge. The terms of imprisonment are to run concurrently with effect from 27 January 2003.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Rahmat Bin Abdullah and Kalaiselvan A/L Nallathamby were sentenced for drug trafficking. The judgment clarifies sentencing principles, considering mitigating factors and drug quantity.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Prosecution | Government Agency | Judgment for the Prosecution | Won | Benjamin Yim of Attorney-General’s Chambers Lee Cheow Han of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Rahmat Bin Abdullah | Defendant | Individual | Convicted and Sentenced | Lost | |
| Kalaiselvan A/L Nallathamby | Defendant | Individual | Convicted and Sentenced | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Choo Han Teck | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Benjamin Yim | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Lee Cheow Han | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- The first accused was 59 years old and a taxi driver.
- The second accused was 45 years old and unemployed.
- The accused pleaded guilty to trafficking 499.9g of cannabis.
- The urine samples of both accused tested positive for controlled drugs.
- The first accused had suffered a stroke four or five years prior.
- The second accused had surgery for an inguinal hernia.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Rahmat Bin Abdullah and Another, CC 34/2003, [2003] SGHC 206
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| The two accused had known each other since 2002. | |
| First accused called the second accused to retrieve a plastic bag containing cannabis. | |
| Second accused collected a bag hidden in a rubbish bin and brought it back to his flat. | |
| The two accused were seen driving off in the first accused’s taxi. | |
| The taxi was intercepted by officers of the Central Narcotics Bureau. | |
| The second accused’s flat was subsequently searched and the drugs which were the subject matter of the trafficking charge were found in a cupboard in his flat. | |
| Urine samples of both accused were taken at the Central Narcotics Bureau. | |
| Both accused were first remanded. | |
| Judgment Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Appropriate sentence of imprisonment
- Outcome: The court considered the range of the prescribed length of imprisonment to be taken into account.
- Category: Substantive
- Mitigatory weight of pleading guilty and lack of previous convictions
- Outcome: The court determined the correct mitigatory weight to ascribe to such factors.
- Category: Substantive
- Relevance of quantity of drugs stated in charge versus actual quantity
- Outcome: The court determined whether the quantity to be taken into account for sentencing should be that stated in the charge.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Imprisonment
- Caning
9. Cause of Actions
- Drug Trafficking
- Drug Consumption
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No cited cases | |||||
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act, Ch 33, s 5(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act, Ch 33, s 5(2) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act, Ch 33, s 12 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act, s 8(b)(i) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Cannabis
- Drug Trafficking
- Mitigation
- Sentencing Principles
- Misuse of Drugs Act
15.2 Keywords
- drug trafficking
- sentencing
- cannabis
- criminal law
- singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Sentencing | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 90 |
| Offences | 80 |
| Criminal Law | 70 |
| Theft | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Offences
- Sentencing