Amazi bin Hawasi v Public Prosecutor: Constitutionality of s 33A(5)(a) of Misuse of Drugs Act
In Amazi bin Hawasi v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of Singapore addressed the constitutionality of section 33A(5)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The Petitioner, Amazi bin Hawasi, was charged with drug consumption and possession. The District Court referred a question of law regarding whether deeming previous convictions for controlled drugs as convictions for specified drugs violated the separation of powers. Chan Sek Keong CJ held that the provision was constitutional, finding that it did not alter the nature of previous convictions but merely served as an aggravating factor for sentencing.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
The High Court determined that section 33A(5)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act does not violate the principle of separation of powers.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court held that s 33A(5)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act does not violate the principle of separation of powers. The court found that the deeming provisions do not change the character of previous convictions.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | 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 |
| Amazi bin Hawasi | Petitioner | Individual | 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 drug consumption under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
- The Petitioner had previous convictions for drug consumption.
- Morphine was reclassified as a 'specified' drug in 1998.
- Section 33A of the MDA provides for enhanced punishment for repeat drug consumption.
- The District Court referred a question on the constitutionality of s 33A(5)(a) of the MDA to the High Court.
- The Petitioner argued that the deeming provisions violated the separation of powers.
5. Formal Citations
- Amazi bin Hawasi v Public Prosecutor, Special Case No 2 of 2012, [2012] SGHC 164
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Amazi bin Hawasi charged under s 8(b)(ii) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | |
| Amazi bin Hawasi convicted | |
| Petitioner convicted of morphine consumption | |
| Petitioner convicted of cannabinol derivatives consumption | |
| Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Act 1998 came into force | |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Amendment of Fourth Schedule) Order 2007 came into force | |
| District Court referred question of law to High Court | |
| High Court answered the Stated Question in the negative |
7. Legal Issues
- Separation of Powers
- Outcome: The court held that section 33A(5)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act does not violate the principle of separation of powers.
- Category: Constitutional
- Constitutionality of deeming provisions
- Outcome: The court found the deeming provisions in s 33A(5)(a) of the MDA to be constitutional.
- Category: Constitutional
8. Remedies Sought
- No remedies sought
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v Klein | US Supreme Court | Yes | United States v Klein 80 US 128 (1871) | United States | Cited by the Petitioner to argue that the impugned MDA deeming provisions violated the principle of separation of powers. |
| Pennsylvania v Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Company | US Supreme Court | Yes | Pennsylvania v Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Company 59 US 421 (1855) | United States | Cited by the Petitioner, but deemed not relevant by the court as it did not involve the principle of separation of powers. |
| United States v Padelford | US Supreme Court | Yes | United States v Padelford 9 Wallace 531 (1870) | United States | Mentioned in relation to the discussion of United States v Klein. |
| The Queen v Humby, Ex parte Rooney | High Court of Australia | Yes | The Queen v Humby, Ex parte Rooney (1973) 129 CLR 231 | Australia | Cited by the amicus curiae to support the validity of deeming provisions that do not direct the court to treat invalid orders as valid. |
| Re Macks and Others, Ex parte Saint | High Court of Australia | Yes | Re Macks and Others, Ex parte Saint (2000) 204 CLR 158 | Australia | Cited by the amicus curiae to support the validity of deeming provisions that do not direct the court to treat ineffective judgments as valid. |
| Bainbridge v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship | Federal Court of Australia | Yes | Bainbridge v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2010) 181 FCR 569 | Australia | Cited by the amicus curiae as an example of a deeming provision that was declared unconstitutional because it directed the court to treat a decision as valid. |
| Sales v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship | Australian Federal Court | Yes | Sales v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2008) 171 FCR 56 | Australia | Mentioned in relation to the discussion of Bainbridge v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. |
| Nicholas v The Queen | High Court of Australia | Yes | Nicholas v The Queen (1998) 193 CLR 173 | Australia | Cited by the amicus curiae in relation to the principle of separation of powers. |
| Chu Kheng Lim and Others v The Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs and Another | High Court of Australia | Yes | Chu Kheng Lim and Others v The Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs and Another (1992) 176 CLR 1 | Australia | Cited by the amicus curiae in relation to the principle of separation of powers. |
| Mohammad Faizal bin Sabtu v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | Mohammad Faizal bin Sabtu v Public Prosecutor [2012] SGHC 163 | Singapore | Companion grounds of decision cited regarding Parliament's power to prescribe conditions for minimum enhanced punishments. |
| Don John Francis Douglas Liyanage and Others v The Queen | Privy Council | Yes | Don John Francis Douglas Liyanage and Others v The Queen [1967] 1 AC 259 | United Kingdom | Cited by the amicus curiae in relation to the principle of separation of powers. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 8(b)(ii) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 33A of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 8(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 9 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 33A(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 33A(1)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 33A(5)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 33A(5)(d) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 33A(5)(c) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 31(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Act 1998 (Act 20 of 1998) | Singapore |
| Singapore Armed Forces Act | Singapore |
| Matrimonial Causes Act 1971 (Cth) | Australia |
| Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Act 1999 (SA and Qld) | Australia |
| Migration Legislation Amendment Act (No 1 of 2008) (Cth) | Australia |
| Migration Act 1958 (Cth) | Australia |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Separation of Powers
- Deeming Provision
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Specified Drug
- Controlled Drug
- Constitutionality
- Enhanced Punishment
- Previous Conviction
15.2 Keywords
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Separation of Powers
- Constitutionality
- Deeming Provision
- Drug Offences
- Singapore Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Sentencing | 80 |
| Criminal Law | 75 |
| Criminal Procedure | 60 |
| Constitutional Law | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Constitutional Law
- Criminal Law
- Drug Law
- Separation of Powers