Amin Bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor: Sentencing Principles for Offenders Exempted from Caning
In Amin Bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of Singapore addressed the principles for sentencing offenders exempt from caning under the Criminal Procedure Code. Amin Bin Abdullah appealed against the enhancement of his sentence after being certified medically unfit for caning, following his conviction for drug trafficking and possession. The court dismissed the appeal, providing detailed guidance on when and how sentences should be enhanced in lieu of caning, emphasizing deterrence, retribution, and parity among co-offenders. The court found that the original sentence was unduly low and dismissed the appeal.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The court clarified sentencing principles for offenders exempt from caning, focusing on deterrence, retribution, and parity among co-offenders. The appeal against sentence enhancement was dismissed.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amin Bin Abdullah | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Terence Chua, Chin Jincheng, Du Xuan |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Chao Hick Tin | Judge of Appeal | No |
| See Kee Oon | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Terence Chua | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Chin Jincheng | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Du Xuan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Koh Zhen-Xi Benjamin | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
4. Facts
- The Appellant was convicted of trafficking 13.23g of diamorphine.
- The Appellant was also convicted of possession of 0.27g of diamorphine.
- The Appellant was sentenced to the mandatory minimum of 20 years’ imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane for trafficking.
- The Appellant was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for possession.
- The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
- The Appellant was certified medically unfit for caning.
- The District Judge enhanced the sentence by 30 weeks’ imprisonment in lieu of caning.
5. Formal Citations
- Amin bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9308 of 2016, [2017] SGHC 215
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Magistrate’s Appeal No 9308 of 2016 | |
| Hearing Date | |
| Judgment Date | |
| Criminal Procedure Code came into force |
7. Legal Issues
- Enhancement of Sentence in Lieu of Caning
- Outcome: The court clarified the principles for enhancing sentences in lieu of caning, holding that enhancement should not be the default and outlining factors for and against enhancement.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Deterrent effect of caning
- Retributive effect of caning
- Parity among co-offenders
- Medical grounds
- Old age
- Compassionate grounds
- Proportionality
- Parliamentary intention
- Appropriate Sentence for Drug Trafficking
- Outcome: The court determined that the original sentence was unduly low and provided sentencing guidelines for trafficking in 10–15g of diamorphine.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against sentence enhancement
9. Cause of Actions
- Drug Trafficking
- Drug Possession
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
- Sentencing Guidelines
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Er Boon Huai and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1991] 2 SLR(R) 340 | Singapore | Discusses the imposition of enhanced sentences of imprisonment in lieu of caning under the 1985 CPC. |
| Public Prosecutor v Koh Jin Lie | High Court | Yes | [1998] SGHC 180 | Singapore | Endorsed the possibility of enhancing imprisonment terms where caning is avoided. |
| Public Prosecutor v Yap Siew Luan | High Court | Yes | [2002] SGHC 93 | Singapore | Enhanced the sentence where an offender was exempted from caning. |
| Public Prosecutor v Kalathithara Subran Hilan and others | High Court | Yes | [2003] SGHC 113 | Singapore | Declined to impose an imprisonment term in lieu of caning. |
| Public Prosecutor v Rahmat Bin Abdullah and another | High Court | Yes | [2003] SGHC 206 | Singapore | Declined to impose an imprisonment term in lieu of caning, considering the offender's age and sentence. |
| Public Prosecutor v Krishnasamy s/o Suppiah | District Court | Yes | [2011] SGDC 321 | Singapore | Did not invoke s 325(2) of the CPC to justify a higher sentence. |
| Public Prosecutor v Nguyen Thi Thanh Hai | High Court | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 347 | Singapore | Invoked s 325(2) of the CPC and enhanced the sentence by the maximum 12 months’ imprisonment. |
| Public Prosecutor v Kisshahllini a/p Paramesuvaran | High Court | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 261 | Singapore | Invoked s 325(2) of the CPC and enhanced the sentence by the maximum 12 months’ imprisonment. |
| Public Prosecutor v Razak bin Bashir | High Court | Yes | [2017] SGHC 33 | Singapore | Imposed an additional nine months’ imprisonment in lieu of caning. |
| Public Prosecutor v BMD | High Court | Yes | [2013] SGHC 235 | Singapore | Did not invoke s 328(2) of the CPC and impose an imprisonment term in lieu of caning. |
| Public Prosecutor v BNN | High Court | Yes | [2014] SGHC 7 | Singapore | Decided not to impose an additional imprisonment term on the accused under s 328(2) of the CPC. |
| Chew Soo Chun v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 2 SLR 78 | Singapore | Identified ways in which ill health might be relevant to sentencing. |
| Yap Ah Lai v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 180 | Singapore | Provided guidance on sentencing offenders who are of old age. |
| Mohamed Shouffee bin Adam v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 998 | Singapore | Discusses the principle of proportionality in sentencing decisions. |
| Chong Han Rui v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2016] SGHC 25 | Singapore | Endorses the principle of parity, which urges that sentences meted out to co-offenders should not generally be unduly disparate. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ramlee and another action | High Court | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 95 | Singapore | Endorses the principle of parity, which urges that sentences meted out to co-offenders should not generally be unduly disparate. |
| Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 1129 | Singapore | Considered and disposed of the point of whether the court should proceed on the presumptive basis that once an offender is exempted from caning, his sentence of imprisonment should be enhanced. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lee Meng Soon | High Court | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 240 | Singapore | Observed that it is beliefs about the probability of detection rather than the quantum of punishment which are more likely to influence human behaviour. |
| Chia Kim Heng Frederick v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR 361 | Singapore | A sentence of caning may be imposed to meet the sentencing objectives of deterrence and/or retribution. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mohammad Rohaizad bin Rosni | High Court | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR 804 | Singapore | A sentence of caning may be imposed to meet the sentencing objectives of deterrence and/or retribution. |
| Public Prosecutor v Tan Kok Leong and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2017] SGHC 188 | Singapore | Illustrates when a court might enhance an offender’s sentence to give effect to the sentencing objective(s) of deterrence and/or retribution. |
| Suventher Shanmugam v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 115 | Singapore | Applied the sentencing approach in drug cases that had been laid down in Vasentha d/o Joseph v Public Prosecutor [2015] 5 SLR 122. |
| Vasentha d/o Joseph v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 122 | Singapore | The full spectrum of possible sentences should be utilised and the indicative starting points should be broadly proportional to the quantity of drugs trafficked or imported. |
| Pham Duyen Quyen v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] SGCA 39 | Singapore | The sentencing range (for cannabis) in Suventher was recently applied by the Court of Appeal to a case of importing methamphetamine, where the range of prescribed punishment is the same, that is between 20 and 30 years’ imprisonment. |
| Public Prosecutor v Amin Bin Abdullah | District Court | Yes | [2016] SGDC 352 | Singapore | The decision of the learned District Judge. |
| Public Prosecutor v Yeo Meng Teck Nelson | District Court | Yes | [2008] SGDC 369 | Singapore | The accused was sentenced to a total sentence of seven years and six months’ imprisonment and five strokes of the cane for drug trafficking and other drug-related offences. He was subsequently found to be unfit for caning and his sentence of imprisonment was enhanced by six months. |
| Public Prosecutor v Abdullah Bin Abdul Rahman | District Court | Yes | [2011] SGDC 380 | Singapore | The accused person in Abdullah, who pleaded guilty to three such charges and another less serious charge under the MLA, was sentenced to a total sentence of 16 weeks’ imprisonment and nine strokes of the cane. He was subsequently sentenced to a further term of nine weeks’ imprisonment in lieu of the nine strokes of the cane (one week’s imprisonment per stroke that was avoided). |
| Public Prosecutor v Song Hui | District Court | Yes | [2012] SGDC 125 | Singapore | He was originally sentenced to a total of 24 months’ imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane. Subsequently, he was sentenced to a further term of six months’ imprisonment in lieu of 12 strokes of the cane (two weeks’ imprisonment per stroke that was avoided). |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| 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(1) 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 33(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 325(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 325(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 328(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 328(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 328(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 331 of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 332(2)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 67 of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 304(1)–(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| ss 6 and 15 of the Immigration Act (Cap 133, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| ss 6(3)(a) and 15(3)(b) of the Immigration Act | Singapore |
| s 354(1) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 328 of the Penal Code | Singapore |
| ss 28(2)(a) and 28(3)(b)(i) of the Moneylender’s Act (Cap 188, 2010 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 28(1)(b) of the Moneylender’s Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Caning
- Enhancement of sentence
- Deterrence
- Retribution
- Parity
- Drug trafficking
- Sentencing guidelines
- Medical unfitness
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal procedure
- Sentencing
- Caning
- Drug trafficking
- Singapore
- High Court
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
- Criminal Procedure
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Sentencing
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking