Abdul Karim v Public Prosecutor: Dual Charging Practice under Misuse of Drugs Act

In Abdul Karim bin Mohamed Kuppai Khan v Public Prosecutor, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal against sentence for a drug trafficking offense under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The court reaffirmed its holding in Saravanan Chandaram v Public Prosecutor, disallowing the Dual Charging Practice where the prosecution brings separate charges for cannabis and cannabis mixture arising from a single compressed block. The court dismissed the appeal against the sentence, finding it not manifestly excessive.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore Court of Appeal reaffirms the impermissibility of the Dual Charging Practice under the Misuse of Drugs Act.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Abdul Karim bin Mohamed Kuppai KhanAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLostRamesh Chandr Tiwary
Public ProsecutorRespondentGovernment AgencyAppeal DismissedWonAnandan Bala, Wong Woon Kwong, Nicholas Wuan Kin Lek, Zhou Yihong, Jotham Tay

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Sundaresh MenonChief JusticeYes
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJustice of the Court of AppealNo
Judith PrakashJustice of the Court of AppealNo
Tay Yong KwangJustice of the Court of AppealNo
Steven ChongJustice of the Court of AppealNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Ramesh Chandr TiwaryRamesh Tiwary
Anandan BalaAttorney-General’s Chambers
Wong Woon KwongAttorney-General’s Chambers
Nicholas Wuan Kin LekAttorney-General’s Chambers
Zhou YihongAttorney-General’s Chambers
Jotham TayAttorney-General’s Chambers

4. Facts

  1. Appellant pleaded guilty to abetting Ilango to possess not less than 329.99g of cannabis for trafficking.
  2. Appellant consented to a similar charge pertaining to 659.99g of cannabis mixture being taken into consideration.
  3. Ilango was instructed by the appellant to collect cannabis at Jurong Port.
  4. Ilango was directed by the appellant to visit the SPC Petrol Kiosk along Jalan Buroh and to board a lorry at the kiosk.
  5. Appellant instructed Ilango to cut and repackage the drugs to certain sizes.
  6. Appellant intended to traffic in all the drugs after he had taken possession of them from Ilango.
  7. Appellant offended while on bail.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Abdul Karim bin Mohamed Kuppai Khan v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Appeal No 35 of 2019, [2021] SGCA 27

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Appellant and Ilango met to discuss a “job”.
Appellant instructed Ilango to collect cannabis at Jurong Port.
Appellant remanded.
Appellant pleaded guilty to abetting Ilango to traffic cannabis.
Hearing concluded; court maintained holding in Saravanan.
Grounds of Decision issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Dual Charging Practice
    • Outcome: The court reaffirmed its holding in Saravanan that the Dual Charging Practice is impermissible.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Impermissibility of charging both cannabis and cannabis mixture from a single compressed block
    • Related Cases:
      • [2020] 2 SLR 95
  2. Manifestly Excessive Sentence
    • Outcome: The court found that the sentence imposed by the Judge was not manifestly excessive.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Appropriateness of the custodial term
      • Weight given to mitigating and aggravating factors
    • Related Cases:
      • [2015] 5 SLR 122

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Reduction of Imprisonment Term

9. Cause of Actions

  • Abetting Trafficking of Cannabis

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Law
  • Drug Offences
  • Appeals

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Saravanan Chandaram v Public Prosecutor and another matterCourt of AppealYes[2020] 2 SLR 95SingaporeReaffirmed the impermissibility of the Dual Charging Practice.
Suventher Shanmugam v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2017] 2 SLR 115SingaporeProsecution sought to reconsider the sentence imposed on the accused.
Public Prosecutor v Suventher ShanmugamHigh CourtYes[2016] SGHC 178SingaporeProsecution sought to set aside the High Court’s decision to take into consideration a cannabis mixture charge.
Public Prosecutor v Manogaran s/o R RamuCourt of AppealYes[1996] 3 SLR(R) 390SingaporeAddressed the issue of cannabis mixture.
Mohammad Azli bin Mohammad Salleh v Public Prosecutor and another appeal and other mattersCourt of AppealYes[2020] 1 SLR 1374SingaporeAddressed the mens rea requirement.
Public Prosecutor v Arun Raj s/o ChandranState CourtsYes[2020] SGDC 213SingaporeInstance of the Dual Charging Practice interacting with the consecutive sentencing regime.
Vasentha d/o Joseph v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2015] 5 SLR 122SingaporeAddressed the issue of offending while on bail.
Public Prosecutor v Sivasangaran s/o SivaperumalDistrict CourtYes[2016] SGDC 214SingaporeAddressed the sentencing framework.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Dual Charging Practice
  • Cannabis
  • Cannabis Mixture
  • Created Fragmented Vegetable Matter
  • HSA Certification
  • Mens Rea
  • Actus Reus
  • Compressed Block
  • Group 1 Material
  • Group 2 Material

15.2 Keywords

  • Drug Trafficking
  • Cannabis
  • Cannabis Mixture
  • Singapore
  • Criminal Law
  • Sentencing
  • Misuse of Drugs Act
  • Dual Charging Practice

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Drug Trafficking
  • Sentencing
  • Criminal Procedure

17. Areas of Law

  • Criminal Law
  • Statutory Offences
  • Criminal Procedure and Sentencing
  • Drug Trafficking
  • Misuse of Drugs Act