Mohammad Faizal v PP: Constitutionality of Enhanced Drug Penalties
In Mohammad Faizal bin Sabtu v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of Singapore addressed a Special Case regarding the constitutionality of Section 33A of the Misuse of Drugs Act, which prescribes mandatory minimum punishments for repeat drug offenders. The petitioner, Mohammad Faizal bin Sabtu, challenged the law, arguing it violated the separation of powers and Articles 9 and 12 of the Singapore Constitution. The court, led by Chan Sek Keong CJ, ruled against the petitioner, finding the law constitutional and within the powers of the Legislature.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Stated Question answered in the negative.
1.3 Case Type
Constitutional
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court judgment on the constitutionality of s 33A of the Misuse of Drugs Act regarding enhanced penalties for repeat drug offenders. The court found the law constitutional.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Stated Question answered in the negative | Won | Andre Jumabhoy of Attorney-General’s Chambers Tan Ken Hwee of Attorney-General’s Chambers Seraphina Fong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Jeremy Yeo Shenglong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Kwek Chin Yong of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Mohammad Faizal bin Sabtu | Petitioner | Individual | Stated Question answered in the negative | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Sek Keong | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Andre Jumabhoy | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tan Ken Hwee | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Seraphina Fong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Jeremy Yeo Shenglong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Kwek Chin Yong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| S K Kumar | S K Kumar Law Practice LLP |
4. Facts
- The Petitioner was charged with consumption of morphine under s 8(b)(ii) of the MDA.
- Section 33A(1)(a) of the MDA was applicable to the Petitioner due to two prior DRC admissions.
- The Petitioner faced a minimum of five years’ imprisonment and three strokes of the cane if convicted.
- The Petitioner pleaded guilty to the charges and applied to state a Special Case.
- The stated question concerned whether s 33A(1)(a), (d) and/or (e) of the MDA violated the separation of powers.
- The Petitioner argued that s 33A(1)(a) violated Art 12 of the Singapore Constitution.
- The Petitioner argued that the mandatory minimum sentence offended Art 9 of the Singapore Constitution.
5. Formal Citations
- Mohammad Faizal bin Sabtu v Public Prosecutor, Special Case No 1 of 2012, [2012] SGHC 163
- Amazi bin Hawasi v Public Prosecutor, Special Case No 2 of 2012, [2012] SGHC 164
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Petitioner charged with offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act. | |
| Petitioner's first DRC admission. | |
| Petitioner's second DRC admission. | |
| High Court directed District Court to state a Special Case. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Separation of Powers
- Outcome: The court held that s 33A of the Misuse of Drugs Act does not violate the separation of powers.
- Category: Constitutional
- Sub-Issues:
- Legislative intrusion into judicial power
- Executive interference with sentencing
- Usurpation of judicial power
- Right to Equal Protection
- Outcome: The court held that s 33A of the Misuse of Drugs Act does not violate Article 12 of the Singapore Constitution.
- Category: Constitutional
- Sub-Issues:
- Equal treatment under the law
- Discrimination in sentencing
- Right to Personal Liberty
- Outcome: The court held that s 33A of the Misuse of Drugs Act does not violate Article 9 of the Singapore Constitution.
- Category: Constitutional
- Sub-Issues:
- Proportionality of punishment
- Excessive sentencing
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration of Unconstitutionality
- Review of Mandatory Minimum Sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Violation of Constitutional Rights
- Drug Consumption
10. Practice Areas
- Constitutional Litigation
- Criminal Appeals
- Drug Offenses
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kable v The Director of Public Prosecutions for the State of New South Wales | High Court | Yes | [1996] 189 CLR 51 | Australia | Cited regarding legislative intrusion into judicial power. |
| Public Prosecutor v Dato’ Yap Peng | Supreme Court | Yes | [1987] 2 MLJ 311 | Malaysia | Cited regarding judicial power to try and sentence offenders. |
| Moses Hinds and Others v The Queen | Privy Council | Yes | [1977] AC 195 | Jamaica | Cited regarding the principle of separation of powers and transfer of judicial power to executive bodies. |
| Don John Francis Douglas Liyanage and Others v The Queen | Privy Council | Yes | [1967] 1 AC 259 | Sri Lanka | Cited regarding legislative direction of court outcomes. |
| Lim Keng Chia v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR(R) 1 | Singapore | Cited regarding the exercise of judicial function by the Executive. |
| Public Prosecutor v Boon Kiah Kin | High Court | Yes | [1993] 2 SLR(R) 26 | Singapore | Cited regarding legislative intrusion into judicial power. |
| United States v Klein | US Supreme Court | Yes | 80 US 128 (1871) | United States | Cited regarding legislative intrusion into judicial power. |
| Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 3 SLR 489 | Singapore | Cited regarding equal treatment under Article 12 of the Singapore Constitution. |
| Ong Ah Chuan and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1979–1980] SLR(R) 710 | Singapore | Cited regarding Article 9 of the Singapore Constitution and proportionality of punishment. |
| State of South Australia v Totani and Another | High Court | Yes | (2010) 242 CLR 1 | Australia | Cited regarding legislative or executive usurpation of judicial power. |
| Nguyen Tuong Van v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2005] 1 SLR(R) 103 | Singapore | Cited regarding rational relation between legislative classification and societal object. |
| Chu Kheng Lim and Others v The Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs and Another | High Court | Yes | (1992) 176 CLR 1 | Australia | Cited regarding the judicial power including the power to determine the measure of punishment. |
| Kok Wah Kuan v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 5 MLJ 174 | Malaysia | Cited regarding the judicial power including the power to determine the measure of punishment. |
| Reginald Deaton v The Attorney General and the Revenue Commissioners | Supreme Court | Yes | [1963] IR 170 | Ireland | Cited regarding the legislature not prescribing the penalty to be imposed in an individual citizen’s case. |
| Mohammed Muktar Ali v The Queen | Privy Council | Yes | [1992] 2 AC 93 | Mauritius | Cited regarding the legislature not prescribing the penalty to be imposed in an individual citizen’s case. |
| Fraser Henleins Proprietary Limited v Cody | High Court | Yes | (1945) 70 CLR 100 | Australia | Cited regarding ordering a DRC admission not exercising a judicial function. |
| Palling v Corfield | High Court | Yes | (1970) 123 CLR 52 | Australia | Cited regarding the legislature not prescribing the penalty to be imposed in an individual citizen’s case. |
| Huddart, Parker and Co Proprietary Limited v Moorehead | High Court | Yes | (1909) 8 CLR 330 | Australia | Cited regarding the definition of judicial power. |
| The Queen v The Trade Practices Tribunal and Others; Ex parte Tasmanian Breweries Proprietary Limited | High Court | Yes | (1970) 123 CLR 361 | Australia | Cited regarding the definition of judicial power. |
| Nicholas v The Queen | High Court | Yes | (1998) 193 CLR 173 | Australia | Cited regarding the definition of judicial power. |
| Prentis v Atlantic Coast Line Co | US Supreme Court | Yes | 211 US 210 (1908) | United States | Cited regarding the definition of judicial power. |
| Director of Public Prosecutions of Jamaica v Mollison | Privy Council | Yes | [2003] 2 AC 411 | Jamaica | Cited regarding the rule of law. |
| Ex parte United States | US Supreme Court | Yes | 242 US 27 (1916) | United States | Cited regarding the authority to define and fix the punishment for crime is legislative. |
| Mistretta v United States | US Supreme Court | Yes | 488 US 361 (1989) | United States | Cited regarding the power to fix the sentence for a federal crime. |
| Mutart v Pratt, Warden of State Prison | Supreme Court of Utah | Yes | 51 Utah 246 (1917) | United States | Cited regarding the power to fix the punishment to be inflicted for a particular crime. |
| Chew Seow Leng v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] SGCA 11 | Singapore | Cited regarding the legislative power to prescribe punishments for offences. |
| Public Prosecutor v Tan Fook Sum | High Court | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR(R) 1022 | Singapore | Cited regarding the court must pass sentence according to law. |
| Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 2 SLR 49 | Singapore | Cited regarding the Public Prosecutor elects to charge an accused with a non-capital drug trafficking charge. |
| Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 2 SLR 872 | Singapore | Cited regarding the Public Prosecutor elects to charge an accused with a non-capital drug trafficking charge. |
| Quek Hock Lai v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 2 SLR 1012 | Singapore | Cited regarding the Public Prosecutor elects to charge an accused with a non-capital drug trafficking charge. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 33A | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 33A(5)(c) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 34(2) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 34(1) | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) Art 9 | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) Art 12 | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) Art 38 | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) Art 23(1) | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) Art 93 | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) Art 4 | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) Art 58 | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) Art 2(1) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Section 33A
- DRC admission
- Separation of powers
- Mandatory minimum sentence
- Article 9
- Article 12
- Constitutionality
- Judicial power
- Legislative power
- Executive power
15.2 Keywords
- constitutionality
- separation of powers
- drug offenses
- mandatory minimum sentencing
- Singapore
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- judicial review
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Constitutional Law | 85 |
| Criminal Procedure | 70 |
16. Subjects
- Constitutional Law
- Criminal Law
- Drug Law
- Singapore Law