Vasentha v PP: Trafficking, Diamorphine, Sentencing Principles

In Vasentha d/o Joseph v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by Vasentha Joseph against her 11-year imprisonment sentence for possession of 8.98g of diamorphine for trafficking. The Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon allowed the appeal, reducing the sentence to 8 years, emphasizing that sentencing precedents should consider the offender's culpability in addition to the quantity of drugs involved. The court found the original sentence manifestly excessive, considering the appellant's circumstances and relatively low culpability.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Vasentha Joseph appeals her 11-year sentence for trafficking 8.98g of diamorphine. The High Court reduces the sentence to 8 years, emphasizing culpability.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Vasentha d/o JosephAppellantIndividualAppeal AllowedWonTito Isaac, Jonathan Wong
Public ProsecutorRespondentGovernment AgencyAppeal Partially LostLostMarcus Foo Guo Wen

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Sundaresh MenonChief JusticeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Tito IsaacTito Isaac & Co LLP
Jonathan WongTito Isaac & Co LLP
Marcus Foo Guo WenAttorney-General's Chambers

4. Facts

  1. Appellant was apprehended at a car park in Jurong West on 5 November 2012.
  2. Appellant was in possession of a weighing scale and six packets of brown granular substance.
  3. The substance weighed 501.91g and contained not less than 8.98g of diamorphine.
  4. Appellant pleaded guilty to possession of 8.98g of diamorphine for trafficking.
  5. Appellant was sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment by the district judge.
  6. Appellant was a housewife with three children at the time of her arrest.
  7. Appellant's husband was arrested for a drug-related offence in September 2012.
  8. Appellant received drugs from a person known as "Muru" for sale.
  9. Appellant delivered or sold drugs to six individuals between October and November 2012.
  10. Appellant claimed to have received a total of $20 from all deliveries.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Vasentha d/o Joseph v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate's Appeal No 160 of 2014, [2015] SGHC 197
  2. Public Prosecutor v Vasentha d/o Joseph, , [2014] SGDC 315
  3. Public Prosecutor v Kovalan a/l Mogan, , [2013] SGDC 395
  4. Ong Ah Chuan and another v Public Prosecutor, , [1979-1980] SLR(R) 710
  5. Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor and another matter, , [2010] 3 SLR 489
  6. Public Prosecutor v Hardave Singh s/o Gurcharan Singh, , [2003] SGHC 237
  7. Jeffery bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor, , [2009] 3 SLR(R) 414
  8. Ng Teng Yi Melvin v Public Prosecutor, , [2014] 1 SLR 1165
  9. Tan Kay Beng v Public Prosecutor, , [2006] 4 SLR(R) 10
  10. Muhammad Saiful bin Ismail v Public Prosecutor, , [2014] 2 SLR 1028
  11. Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-General, , [2012] 2 SLR 49
  12. Zhao Zhipeng v Public Prosecutor, , [2008] 4 SLR(R) 879
  13. Tan Kheng Chun Ray v Public Prosecutor, , [2012] 2 SLR 437
  14. Angliss Singapore Pte Ltd v Public Prosecutor, , [2006] 4 SLR(R) 653
  15. Poh Boon Kiat v Public Prosecutor, , [2014] 4 SLR 892
  16. Dinesh Singh Bhatia s/o Amarjeet Singh v Public Prosecutor, , [2005] 3 SLR(R) 1
  17. Public Prosecutor v BNN, , [2014] SGHC 7
  18. Chen Weixiong Jerriek v Public Prosecutor, , [2003] 2 SLR(R) 334
  19. Public Prosecutor v Goh Lee Yin and another appeal, , [2008] 1 SLR(R) 824
  20. Ng So Kuen Connie v Public Prosecutor, , [2003] 3 SLR(R) 178
  21. Lai Oei Mui Jenny v Public Prosecutor, , [1993] 2 SLR(R) 406
  22. Public Prosecutor v Yue Mun Yew Gary, , [2013] 1 SLR 39
  23. Public Prosecutor v Sivanantha Danabala, , [2015] SGHC 154
  24. Idya Nurhazlyn bte Ahmad Khir v Public Prosecutor and another appeal, , [2014] 1 SLR 756
  25. Public Prosecutor v Perumal s/o Suppiah, , [2000] 2 SLR(R) 145

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Appellant's husband arrested for a drug-related offence
Appellant received drugs from Muru for sale
Appellant apprehended by CNB officers
District Judge sentenced the appellant to 11 years’ imprisonment
Appeal heard by the High Court
Counsel submitted further arguments
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Manifestly Excessive Sentence
    • Outcome: The court found the original sentence manifestly excessive, reducing it from 11 years to 8 years.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to consider offender's culpability
      • Overemphasis on quantity of drugs
  2. Sentencing for Drug Trafficking
    • Outcome: The court outlined a framework for sentencing offenders convicted of trafficking in diamorphine, emphasizing the consideration of culpability and aggravating/mitigating factors.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Consideration of offender's culpability
      • Weight given to quantity of drugs
      • Aggravating and mitigating factors

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Appeal against sentence
  2. Reduction of imprisonment term

9. Cause of Actions

  • Drug Trafficking
  • Possession of Controlled Drugs

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Law
  • Drug Offences
  • Sentencing

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Public Prosecutor v Vasentha d/o JosephDistrict CourtYes[2014] SGDC 315SingaporeCited as the District Judge's decision being appealed against.
Public Prosecutor v Kovalan a/l MoganDistrict CourtYes[2013] SGDC 395SingaporeCited for the table of sentencing precedents for cases involving trafficking or importation of diamorphine.
Ong Ah Chuan and another v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[1979-1980] SLR(R) 710SingaporeCited for the principle that the quantity of drugs trafficked has a direct correlation with the degree of harm to society.
Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor and another matterCourt of AppealYes[2010] 3 SLR 489SingaporeCited for the principle that quantity serves as a reliable indicator of the seriousness of the offence.
Public Prosecutor v Hardave Singh s/o Gurcharan SinghHigh CourtYes[2003] SGHC 237SingaporeCited for the principle that the sentence should be proportionate to the quantity of drugs trafficked in ordinary cases.
Jeffery bin Abdullah v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2009] 3 SLR(R) 414SingaporeCited for the sentencing factors relevant when sentencing an offender for drug trafficking.
Ng Teng Yi Melvin v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2014] 1 SLR 1165SingaporeCited for the principle that an unyielding focus on deterrence must not displace the need to ensure that the sentence meted out is one that fits both the offence and the offender.
Tan Kay Beng v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2006] 4 SLR(R) 10SingaporeCited for the principle that deterrence must always be tempered by proportionality in relation to the severity of the offence committed as well as by the moral and legal culpability of the offender.
Muhammad Saiful bin Ismail v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2014] 2 SLR 1028SingaporeCited for the principle that proportionality acts as a counterbalance to the principles of deterrence, retribution and prevention in the sentencing matrix.
Zhao Zhipeng v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 879SingaporeCited for the principle that motive affects the degree of an offender’s culpability for sentencing purposes.
Tan Kheng Chun Ray v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2012] 2 SLR 437SingaporeCited for the principle that motive affects the degree of an offender’s culpability for sentencing purposes.
Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-GeneralCourt of AppealYes[2012] 2 SLR 49SingaporeCited for the principle that it would be illogical to treat all members of drug syndicates as equally culpable.
Angliss Singapore Pte Ltd v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2006] 4 SLR(R) 653SingaporeCited for the principle that the maximum sentence is usually reserved for the “worse type of cases falling within the prohibition”.
Poh Boon Kiat v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2014] 4 SLR 892SingaporeCited for the principle that the cases should generally utilise the full spectrum of possible sentences.
Dinesh Singh Bhatia s/o Amarjeet Singh v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2005] 3 SLR(R) 1SingaporeCited regarding the consideration of prior drug abuse in sentencing.
Public Prosecutor v BNNHigh CourtYes[2014] SGHC 7SingaporeCited for the principle that consideration ought to be given to whether the sentence should be enhanced if the offences were similar in nature to those being proceeded with.
Chen Weixiong Jerriek v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2003] 2 SLR(R) 334SingaporeCited for the principle that reoffending on bail may indicate that the offender is not genuinely remorseful.
Public Prosecutor v Goh Lee Yin and another appealHigh CourtYes[2008] 1 SLR(R) 824SingaporeCited for the principle that the sentencing judge must guard against the possibility that offender is seeking in truth to escape the legal consequences of his offence by pretending to suffer from some form of mental condition.
Ng So Kuen Connie v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2003] 3 SLR(R) 178SingaporeCited for the principle that if the offender cannot establish that there is a causal connection between the mental condition and the commission of the offence, then the offender ought to be sentenced in accordance with the usual sentencing principles and benchmarks.
Lai Oei Mui Jenny v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[1993] 2 SLR(R) 406SingaporeCited for the principle that, except in the most exceptional circumstances, hardship to the offender’s family has very little, if any, mitigating value.
Public Prosecutor v Yue Mun Yew GaryHigh CourtYes[2013] 1 SLR 39SingaporeCited for the principle that, except in the most exceptional circumstances, hardship to the offender’s family has very little, if any, mitigating value.
Public Prosecutor v Sivanantha DanabalaHigh CourtYes[2015] SGHC 154SingaporeCited for the principle that the time spent in remand should not be disregarded simply because the accused was granted bail.
Idya Nurhazlyn bte Ahmad Khir v Public Prosecutor and another appealHigh CourtYes[2014] 1 SLR 756SingaporeCited for the principle that the “Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood” had no causal connection with the offence and therefore could not be considered as a mitigating factor.
Public Prosecutor v Perumal s/o SuppiahHigh CourtYes[2000] 2 SLR(R) 145SingaporeCited for the principle that, except in the most exceptional circumstances, hardship to the offender’s family has very little, if any, mitigating value.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 33 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 33B of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Diamorphine
  • Drug trafficking
  • Sentencing
  • Culpability
  • Mitigating factors
  • Aggravating factors
  • Misuse of Drugs Act
  • Deterrence
  • Proportionality

15.2 Keywords

  • Drug trafficking
  • Diamorphine
  • Sentencing
  • Singapore
  • Criminal Law

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Sentencing
  • Drug Trafficking

17. Areas of Law

  • Criminal Law
  • Drug Trafficking
  • Sentencing Principles