Shan Kai Weng v Public Prosecutor: Drug Possession, Misuse of Drugs Act, Criminal Revision, and Sentencing

In Shan Kai Weng v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of Singapore heard a criminal revision petition and an appeal against the sentence of Shan Kai Weng, who was convicted in a subordinate court for possession of nimetazepam under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Shan Kai Weng claimed he was unaware the tablet was a controlled drug, believing it to be a sleeping pill. The High Court, while dismissing the revision petition, found the six-month imprisonment sentence manifestly excessive, reducing it to one month, considering Shan's lack of prior convictions and the circumstances of his possession.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Petition dismissed. Appeal allowed.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Shan Kai Weng appeals against a drug possession conviction under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The High Court dismisses the revision but reduces the sentence.

1.7 Decision Date

5 November 2003

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Public Prosecutor	Respondent	Government Agency	Appeal partially lost	Partial	James E Lee of Deputy Public Prosecutor
Shan Kai Weng	Appellant	Individual	Appeal allowed in part	Partial	Bhargavan Sujatha of Bhargavan & Co

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Yong Pung How	Chief Justice	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
James E Lee	Deputy Public Prosecutor
Bhargavan Sujatha	Bhargavan & Co

4. Facts

Appellant was stopped at Woodlands Checkpoint while driving into Singapore.
Police found a tablet containing nimetazepam in the appellant's car.
Appellant admitted ownership of the tablet.
Appellant claimed he believed the tablet was a sleeping pill.
Appellant pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled drug in subordinate court.
Appellant was sentenced to six months imprisonment.

5. Formal Citations

Shan Kai Weng v Public Prosecutor, Cr Rev 13/2003, MA 144/2003, [2003] SGHC 274

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2003-05-01	Appellant complained about having constant headaches.
2003-05-01	Acquaintance gave the appellant a tablet, which the appellant believed to be a sleeping pill.
2003-06-19	Appellant underwent minor surgery to remove three of his wisdom teeth.
2003-07-07	Appellant was stopped by the police at Woodlands Checkpoint.
2003-07-07	Police found a tablet inside a red wrapper at the driver’s seat near the dashboard.
2003-07-07	Appellant admitted to ownership of the tablet and was placed under arrest.
2003-08-05	Appellant appeared before the district judge and pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of drugs.
2003-11-06	High Court dismissed the application for revision, but allowed the appeal against sentence and reduced the sentence imposed.

7. Legal Issues

Validity of Plea of Guilt
- Outcome: The court found the plea of guilt to be valid.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Understanding the nature and consequences of plea
  - Admission of offence without qualification
- Related Cases:
  - [1996] 3 SLR 560
  - [1998] 1 SLR 815
  - [2002] 3 SLR 28
Manifestly Excessive Sentence
- Outcome: The court found the sentence of six months to be manifestly excessive and reduced it to one month.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [1986] SLR 126
  - [2001] 1 SLR 674

8. Remedies Sought

Criminal Revision
Appeal Against Sentence

9. Cause of Actions

Possession of a Controlled Drug

10. Practice Areas

Criminal Law
Appeals

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Mok Swee Kok v PP	High Court	Yes	[1994] 3 SLR 140	Singapore	Cited for the principle that revisionary powers are discretionary and exercised sparingly.
Teo Hee Heng v PP	High Court	Yes	[2000] 3 SLR 168	Singapore	Cited to emphasize that criminal revision is not a backdoor appeal.
Ang Poh Chuan v PP	High Court	Yes	[1996] 1 SLR 326	Singapore	Cited for the principle that failure to exercise revisionary powers must result in serious injustice.
Ngian Chin Boon v PP	High Court	Yes	[1999] 1 SLR 119	Singapore	Cited for the principle that failure to exercise revisionary powers must result in serious injustice.
Balasubramanian Palaniappa Vaiyapuri v PP	High Court	Yes	[2002] 1 SLR 314	Singapore	Cited for the principle that failure to exercise revisionary powers must result in serious injustice.
Sarjit Singh s/o Mehar Singh v PP	High Court	Yes	[2002] 4 SLR 762	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a revisionary court should confine itself to errors of law or procedure.
Ganesun s/o Kannan v PP	High Court	Yes	[1996] 3 SLR 560	Singapore	Cited for the procedural safeguards to ensure a plea of guilt can safely form a basis for conviction.
Rajeevan Edakalavan v PP	High Court	Yes	[1998] 1 SLR 815	Singapore	Cited for the procedural safeguards to ensure a plea of guilt can safely form a basis for conviction.
Koh Thian Huat v PP	High Court	Yes	[2002] 3 SLR 28	Singapore	Cited for the procedural safeguards to ensure a plea of guilt can safely form a basis for conviction.
PP v Hla Win	High Court	Yes	[1995] 2 SLR 424	Singapore	Cited for the principle that it is open to the accused to rebut the presumptions under ss 18(1) and 18(2) of the MDA.
Lim Lye Huat Benny v PP	High Court	Yes	[1996] 1 SLR 253	Singapore	Cited for the principle that it is open to the accused to rebut the presumptions under ss 18(1) and 18(2) of the MDA.
Tan Ah Tee & Another v PP	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1978-1979] SLR 211	Singapore	Cited for the explanation required to rebut the presumption of knowledge of the nature of the drug under s 18(2) of the MDA.
R v Warner	House of Lords	Yes	[1969] 2 AC 256	United Kingdom	Cited for construing the word “possession” in the MDA.
PP v Chan Choon Chye	District Court	Yes	MA 59/2002, DC, unreported judgment dated 25/4/2002	Singapore	Cited for the principle that ignorance of the qualities of the drug may be accepted as a valid mitigating factor.
Toh Lam Seng v PP	High Court	Yes	[2003] 2 SLR 346	Singapore	Cited for the requirement that the accused must admit to all the ingredients of the offence contained in the Statement of Facts without qualification.
Tang Wai Mun v PP	District Court	Yes	MA 298/2001, DC, unreported judgment dated 20/11/2001	Singapore	Cited as a case involving possession of the same quantity of nimetazepam tablets.
Tan Wang Hiang Dawn v PP	District Court	Yes	MA 13/2002, DC, unreported judgment dated 22/1/2002	Singapore	Cited as a case involving possession of nimetazepam tablets.
Ching Ling Kah @ Lincoln Cheng v PP	High Court	Yes	MA 235/95, HC, unreported judgment dated 27/2/1996	Singapore	Cited as a case where the jail sentence was set aside and the appellant was ordered to pay the maximum fine instead.
Tan Koon Swan v PP	High Court	Yes	[1986] SLR 126	Singapore	Cited for the principles governing an appellate court when faced with an appeal against sentence.
Lim Poh Tee v PP	High Court	Yes	[2001] 1 SLR 674	Singapore	Cited for the principles governing an appellate court when faced with an appeal against sentence.
Sim Boon Chai v PP	High Court	Yes	[1982] 1 MLJ 353	Malaysia	Cited for the principle that a sentence may be manifestly excessive when it fails to accommodate the extenuating circumstances or mitigating circumstances.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185)	Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322)	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Nimetazepam
Controlled Drug
Criminal Revision
Sentencing
Plea of Guilt
Mitigating Factors
Manifestly Excessive
Possession
Woodlands Checkpoint

15.2 Keywords

drug possession
nimetazepam
criminal revision
sentencing appeal
misuse of drugs act
singapore high court

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Misuse of Drugs Act	90
Sentencing	80
Criminal Procedure	75

16. Subjects

Criminal Law
Drug Offences
Criminal Procedure
Sentencing