Tan Gek Young v Public Prosecutor: Illicit Sale of Codeine Cough Preparations
Tan Gek Young, a doctor, appealed against the district court's sentence of 24 months' imprisonment and a fine of $130,000 for selling over 2,300 litres of codeine cough preparations for non-medical purposes between 2014 and 2015. The Public Prosecutor also appealed, arguing the sentence was too lenient. The High Court dismissed both appeals in part, varying some individual sentences but maintaining the aggregate sentence of 24 months' imprisonment and a $130,000 fine.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeals dismissed in part; individual sentences varied, aggregate sentence remains.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Doctor Tan Gek Young appeals against a 24-month sentence for selling over 2,300 litres of cough preparations illegally. The High Court considers sentencing principles.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent, Appellant | Government Agency | Appeal dismissed in part | Partial | Grace Lim of Attorney-General’s Chambers Tan Wen Hsien of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tan Gek Young | Appellant, Respondent | Individual | Appeal dismissed in part | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Judge of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Grace Lim | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tan Wen Hsien | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Toh Cher Han | Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
| Christopher Chong | Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
| Amogh Chakravarti | Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
4. Facts
- Tan, a doctor, sold over 2,300 litres of codeine cough preparations for non-medical purposes from 2014 to 2015.
- The Health Sciences Authority (HSA) brought 55 charges against Tan, proceeding with 15.
- Tan pleaded guilty to 12 charges under s 6(1)(a)(i) of the Poisons Act, two under s 6(3)(b), and one under s 24 of the Medicines Act.
- Tan also consented to 40 charges being taken into consideration for sentencing.
- Tan sold unlabelled 90-ml bottles for $25-$30 and 3.8-litre canisters for $1,000-$1,100.
- Tan knew the buyers were abusing the cough preparations and some were reselling them.
- The HSA investigations revealed that Tan earned a profit of between $289,073.86 and $379,873.99 from the illegal sales.
5. Formal Citations
- Tan Gek Young v Public Prosecutor, , [2017] SGHC 203
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Offences began | |
| HSA learnt clinic was selling cough preparations to abusers | |
| Joint operation conducted at the clinic | |
| Tan resumed selling codeine cough preparations | |
| Health Products (Therapeutic Products) Regulations 2016 came into force | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Illicit Sale of Codeine Cough Preparations
- Outcome: The court upheld the conviction but varied the individual sentences, maintaining the aggregate sentence.
- Category: Substantive
- Sentencing Principles
- Outcome: The court reviewed sentencing guidelines and principles, emphasizing deterrence and proportionality.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2007] 2 SLR(R) 814
- [2015] 1 SLR 96
- [2016] 3 SLR 682
- [2005] 3 SLR(R) 1
- [2008] 4 SLR(R) 500
- [1992] 1 MLJ 304
- [2015] 5 SLR 122
- [2017] SGCA 25
- [2012] 3 SLR 776
- [2011] 1 SLR 481
- [2016] 2 SLR 335
- [2013] 1 SLR 809
- [2004] 3 SLR(R) 203
- [2015] 5 SLR 1395
- [2008] 4 SLR(R) 83
- [2010] 1 SLR 874
- [2003] 2 SLR(R) 334
- [2007] 4 SLR(R) 753
- [2008] 4 SLR(R) 879
- [2016] 4 SLR 1220
- [2015] 2 SLR 229
- [2014] 2 SLR 998
- [2014] 3 SLR 180
- [2014] 4 SLR 1287
- [2017] SGHC 47
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against sentence
- Review of sentencing guidelines
9. Cause of Actions
- Violation of s 6(1)(a)(i) of the Poisons Act
- Violation of s 6(3)(b) of the Poisons Act
- Violation of s 24 of the Medicines Act
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
11. Industries
- Healthcare
- Pharmaceutical
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Law Aik Meng | High Court | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 814 | Singapore | Cited for circumstances where general deterrence assumes significance in sentencing. |
| Mehra Radhika v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 96 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that increased maximum punishment signals a need for a deterrent stance in sentencing. |
| Public Prosecutor v GS Engineering & Construction Corporation | High Court | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 682 | Singapore | Cited regarding the increase in maximum sentence allowing for greater flexibility in sentencing. |
| Dinesh Singh Bhatia s/o Amarjeet Singh v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR(R) 1 | Singapore | Cited for the importance of benchmarks in providing a frame of reference for sentencing decisions. |
| Public Prosecutor v UI | High Court | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 500 | Singapore | Cited for the desirability of consistency in sentencing to reflect fairness in the legal system. |
| Yong Foo Kee v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1992] 1 MLJ 304 | Malaysia | Cited for the general rule that a judge who makes reference to the prevalence of an offence should have some evidence to support such a view. |
| Vasentha d/o Joseph v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 122 | Singapore | Cited for the Misuse of Drugs Act providing minimum and maximum sentences based on drug quantity. |
| Suventher Shanmugam v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] SGCA 25 | Singapore | Cited for the Misuse of Drugs Act providing minimum and maximum sentences based on drug quantity. |
| Ong Chee Eng v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2012] 3 SLR 776 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that benchmarks for offences should emerge organically from judicial decisions. |
| Public Prosecutor v Chow Yee Sze | High Court | Yes | [2011] 1 SLR 481 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court should determine when it would be appropriate to impose a custodial sentence rather than a fine. |
| Public Prosecutor v Chow Chian Yow Joseph Brian | High Court | Yes | [2016] 2 SLR 335 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court should determine when it would be appropriate to impose a custodial sentence rather than a fine. |
| Yang Suan Piau Steven v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 809 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a custodial sentence should not be lightly imposed unless the nature of the offence justifies it. |
| Public Prosecutor v Cheong Hock Lai | High Court | Yes | [2004] 3 SLR(R) 203 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a fine may be sufficient if it is high enough to have a deterrent effect. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lim Choon Teck | High Court | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 1395 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a fine may be sufficient if it is high enough to have a deterrent effect. |
| Wuu David v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 83 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the shame of being prosecuted can provide deterrence for one-off offenders. |
| ADF v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 874 | Singapore | Cited for the two-stage process in sentencing for multiple distinct offences. |
| Chen Weixiong Jerriek v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2003] 2 SLR(R) 334 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a stiffer sentence is called for to reflect the offender’s blatant disrespect for the law. |
| Public Prosecutor v Loqmanul Hakim bin Buang | High Court | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 753 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a stiffer sentence is called for to reflect the offender’s blatant disrespect for the law. |
| Zhao Zhipeng v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 879 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that those who commit crimes out of self-interest and greed will rarely be treated with much sympathy. |
| Lim Ying Ying Luciana v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2016] 4 SLR 1220 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the offender who has been coerced or pressured into committing the criminal act may be regarded as less culpable. |
| Ding Si Yang v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 229 | Singapore | Cited for the purpose of imposing a fine in addition to an imprisonment term is to disgorge the offender’s substantial benefit from his offending. |
| Mohamed Shouffee bin Adam v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 998 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that ordering more than two sentences to run consecutively is only done in exceptional cases. |
| Yap Ah Lai v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 180 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an older offender might be entitled to a moderation in his punishment if a term of imprisonment would be disproportionate and crushing by reason of his age. |
| Lim Ghim Peow v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 1287 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the sentencing objective of general deterrence should still be accorded full weight if the mental disorder is not serious, not causally related to the offence, or if the offence is a serious one. |
| Chong Yee Ka v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2017] SGHC 47 | Singapore | Cited for the crucial question of whether the mental disorder in question can be said to have contributed so significantly to the offending conduct that it diminishes the offender’s capacity to exercise self-control and restraint. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Poisons Act (Cap 234, 1999 Rev Ed) s 6(1)(a)(i) | Singapore |
| Poisons Act (Cap 234, 1999 Rev Ed) s 6(3)(b) | Singapore |
| Medicines Act (Cap 176, 1985 Rev Ed) s 24 | Singapore |
| Poisons Act s 16(1) | Singapore |
| Medicines Act s 35(3) | Singapore |
| Health Products Act (Cap 122D, 2008 Rev Ed) s 17(1) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Codeine cough preparations
- Poisons Act
- Medicines Act
- Health Sciences Authority
- Sentencing guidelines
- Deterrence
- Illicit sale
- Abuse
- Resale
- Medical practitioner
- Pharmacist
- HSA
- SMC conviction
15.2 Keywords
- Codeine
- Cough Preparations
- Poisons Act
- Medicines Act
- Illegal Sale
- Sentencing
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Sentencing | 95 |
| Pharmaceutical Law | 80 |
| Criminal Procedure | 70 |
| Criminal Law | 60 |
| Administrative Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Health Law
- Pharmaceutical Law