Murugesan a/l Arumugam v Public Prosecutor: Appeal Against Sentence for Trafficking Diamorphine Under Misuse of Drugs Act
Murugesan a/l Arumugam appealed to the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore against the decision of the High Court, which convicted him of trafficking in not less than 14.99g of diamorphine under s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act and sentenced him to 25 years’ imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane. The Court of Appeal, comprising Andrew Phang Boon Leong JCA, Tay Yong Kwang JCA, and Quentin Loh JAD, dismissed the appeal, upholding the original sentence. The primary legal issue was the appropriateness of the custodial sentence imposed. The court found no reason to intervene, holding that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Ex Tempore Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Murugesan a/l Arumugam appeals against his sentence for trafficking diamorphine. The Court of Appeal upholds the High Court's decision, dismissing the appeal and affirming the original sentence.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Sentence Upheld | Won | Terence Chua of Attorney-General’s Chambers Regina Lim of Attorney-General’s Chambers Isabella Nubari of Attorney-General’s Chambers Lu Yiwei of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Murugesan a/l Arumugam | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Quentin Loh | Judge of the Appellate Division | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Terence Chua | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Regina Lim | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Isabella Nubari | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Lu Yiwei | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- Appellant pleaded guilty to trafficking not less than 14.99g of diamorphine.
- On 24 March 2016, the appellant delivered two packets of drugs in exchange for $5,880.
- The drugs contained 20.55g and 90.17g of diamorphine, respectively.
- Appellant admitted to collecting drugs from an Indian man and passing them to a Malay man.
- Appellant was promised 500RM for delivering the drugs.
- Appellant was riding a motorcycle while under disqualification on the day of the drug transaction.
- The High Court backdated the sentence to 26 March 2016.
5. Formal Citations
- Murugesan a/l Arumugam v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Appeal No 23 of 2020, [2021] SGCA 32
- Public Prosecutor v Murugesan a/l Arumugam, , [2020] SGHC 203
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant rode a motorcycle into the HDB carpark at Lengkong Tiga. | |
| Appellant met Ansari and Bella at the void deck of Block 106 of Lengkong Tiga. | |
| Central Narcotics Bureau officers arrested the appellant, Ansari, Bella and Jufri. | |
| Appellant remanded. | |
| Appellant disqualified from driving for 24 months. | |
| High Court judge's decision in Public Prosecutor v Murugesan a/l Arumugam [2020] SGHC 203. | |
| Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. |
7. Legal Issues
- Appropriateness of Sentence
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2015] 5 SLR 122
- [2017] SGHC 146
- [2019] SGHC 151
- [2017] SGHC 168
- [2018] 2 SLR 557
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against Sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Trafficking in Diamorphine
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
- Drug Trafficking
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Murugesan a/l Arumugam | High Court | Yes | [2020] SGHC 203 | Singapore | The present case is an appeal against the decision of the High Court judge. |
| Vasentha d/o Joseph v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 122 | Singapore | Set out the general approach to be applied for cases involving trafficking in diamorphine in quantities of up to 9.99 grams. |
| Public Prosecutor v Tan Lye Heng | High Court | Yes | [2017] SGHC 146 | Singapore | Extended and applied the Vasentha framework to cases where there was trafficking between 10 and 15 grams of diamorphine. |
| Public Prosecutor v Vashan a/l K Raman | High Court | No | [2019] SGHC 151 | Singapore | Cited as an authority where a similarly-situated accused person had been sentenced with 25 years of imprisonment. |
| Public Prosecutor v Hari Krishnan Selvan | High Court | No | [2017] SGHC 168 | Singapore | Cited as an authority where a similarly-situated accused person had been sentenced with 26 years of imprisonment. |
| Adri Anton Kalangie v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | No | [2018] 2 SLR 557 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a sentence is only manifestly excessive if there is a need for a substantial alteration to remedy the injustice. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 5(1)(a) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Drug Trafficking
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Sentence
- Culpability
- Mitigating Factors
- Aggravating Factors
- Manifestly Excessive
15.2 Keywords
- drug trafficking
- diamorphine
- criminal appeal
- singapore
- misuse of drugs act
- sentence
- criminal law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Statutory offences | 85 |
| Sentencing | 70 |
| Appeal | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Sentencing