Faisal bin Tahar v Public Prosecutor: Appeal Against Enhanced Drug Consumption Sentence
Faisal bin Tahar appealed to the High Court of Singapore against his sentence for consuming monoacetylmorphine, a specified drug, after pleading guilty in the District Court. The High Court, presided over by See Kee Oon JC, heard the appeal on January 15 and March 16, 2016, and dismissed it on July 1, 2016. Tahar argued that he did not qualify for enhanced punishment under the Misuse of Drugs Act because his prior admission to a Drug Rehabilitation Centre (DRC) was unconstitutional. The court rejected this argument, finding no merit in the claim that the sentence was invalid.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Faisal bin Tahar appeals against his enhanced sentence for drug consumption, arguing his prior DRC admission was unconstitutional. The appeal was dismissed.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Shen Wanqin of Attorney-General’s Chambers Chee Min Ping of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Faisal bin Tahar | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| See Kee Oon | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Shen Wanqin | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Chee Min Ping | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Udeh Kumar s/o Sethuraju | S K Kumar Law Practice LLP |
4. Facts
- Appellant pleaded guilty to consuming monoacetylmorphine.
- Appellant had a previous conviction for consuming cannabinol derivatives in 1997.
- Appellant was admitted to a Drug Rehabilitation Centre (DRC) in 2010 for consuming morphine.
- The charge stated that the appellant had one previous admission and one previous conviction for consumption of specified drugs.
- Appellant argued that his admission to the DRC was unconstitutional because it did not last for a minimum period of six months and was not accompanied by treatment.
- The District Judge sentenced the appellant to the mandatory minimum sentence of five years’ imprisonment and three strokes of the cane.
5. Formal Citations
- Faisal bin Tahar v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 118 of 2015, [2016] SGHC 125
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant convicted of consuming cannabinol derivatives and sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment. | |
| Appellant was the subject of a drug supervision order. | |
| Appellant admitted to the Cluster B (Changi Prison Complex) Drug Rehabilitation Centre for consuming morphine. | |
| Appellant had prior convictions for possessing controlled drugs. | |
| Appellant was the subject of a drug supervision order. | |
| Appellant arrested on suspicion of consuming a specified drug. | |
| District Judge sentenced the appellant to the mandatory minimum sentence of five years’ imprisonment and three strokes of the cane. | |
| Appellant filed an appeal. | |
| Appellant's petition of appeal filed. | |
| Prosecution wrote to invite the court to reject the appellant’s appeal summarily under s 384(1) of the CPC. | |
| Appeal hearing. | |
| Appeal hearing restored. | |
| Appeal dismissed. |
7. Legal Issues
- Validity of Enhanced Punishment under Misuse of Drugs Act
- Outcome: The court held that the appellant's admission to the DRC was constitutional and that the enhanced punishment was valid.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Constitutionality of DRC admission
- Interpretation of s 33A of the MDA
- Related Cases:
- [2015] 2 SLR 892
- [2012] 4 SLR 947
- Summary Rejection of Appeal
- Outcome: The court determined that the appeal raised a question of law and was therefore not suitable for summary rejection.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Interpretation of 'question of law' under s 384(1) of the CPC
- Conditions for summary rejection
- Related Cases:
- [2015] SGHC 313
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting aside the sentence
- Reduction of sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Drug Consumption
- Appeal Against Sentence
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
- Drug Offences
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mohd Fauzi bin Mohamed Mydin v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2015] SGHC 313 | Singapore | Cited for the ambit of the court’s power to summarily reject an appeal under s 384(1) of the CPC and the proper procedure to adopt if an accused wishes to plead guilty to a charge but nevertheless intends to challenge the constitutionality of the punishment statutorily prescribed for the offence. |
| Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v Bairstow and another | N/A | Yes | [1956] 1 AC 14 | United Kingdom | Cited for the traditional position on the distinction between a question of law and a question of fact. |
| Novelty Dept Store Pte Ltd v Collector of Land Revenue | N/A | Yes | [2016] 2 SLR 766 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that the line of demarcation between a question of law and a question of fact varies depending on the context and the purpose to which the distinction is being put. |
| Chan Heng Pye v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [1961] 1 MLJ 161 | Malaysia | Cited as an example where the court exercised the power of summary rejection of its own motion under s 309 of the FMS CPC. |
| Lee Chuan Meng v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 892 | Singapore | Cited for the argument that a DRC stint which lasts for less than six months and/or which is not accompanied by treatment or rehabilitative programmes cannot be an “admission” within the meaning of s 33A(1)(d) read with s 33A(5)(c) of the MDA. |
| Mohammad Faizal bin Sabtu v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 947 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that Parliament is vested with the power to make laws prescribing the punishments for any defined offence, whether fixed or within a defined range, and the duty of the courts is to pass sentence according to law. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mohammed Liton Mohammed Syeed Mallik | N/A | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 601 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the power under s 384(1) is a discretionary power, and like all discretionary powers, it must be exercised judiciously and with due regard for the object and purposes of its grant. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lim Yong Soon Bernard | N/A | Yes | [2015] 3 SLR 717 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Court of Appeal does not have the authority to entertain an appeal from a decision made by the High Court in the exercise of its appellate criminal jurisdiction. |
| Bhavashbhai slo Baboobhai v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 1281 | Singapore | Cited as an example of an applicant who sought to set aside his LT2 sentence by challenging the legality of his prior LT1 conviction. |
| Tan Eng Hong v Attorney General | N/A | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 1059 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that Art 9(1) has a Janus-faced quality to it: on the one hand, it proscribes deprivations of life and liberty unless they are sanctioned by law; on the other hand, it also permits deprivations of life and liberty which are carried out in accordance with law. |
| Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney General | N/A | Yes | [2012] 2 SLR 49 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a presumption of legality attaches to the acts of public officials. |
| Chu Kheng Lim and others v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs and another | High Court of Australia | Yes | (1992) 110 ALR 97 | Australia | Cited for the question of whether certain statutory provisions which provided for the compulsory detention of non-citizens pending their expulsion or deportation were unconstitutional because they amounted to a vesting of the judicial power to punish in the executive. |
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(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 384(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 375 of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 33A(1)(d) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 33A(5)(c) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 34(2)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 34(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) | Singapore |
| Art 9 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) | Singapore |
| Art 9(6)(b) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) | Singapore |
| Art 9(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Monoacetylmorphine
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Drug Rehabilitation Centre
- Enhanced punishment
- Summary rejection
- Question of law
- Constitutionality
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Long Term Imprisonment
- Admission to DRC
15.2 Keywords
- Drug consumption
- Enhanced punishment
- Drug Rehabilitation Centre
- Constitutionality
- Criminal appeal
- Singapore High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Procedure | 90 |
| Sentencing | 85 |
| Appeal | 80 |
| Criminal Law | 75 |
| Constitutional Law | 40 |
| Administrative Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Law
- Constitutional Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Sentencing