Muhamad Azmi bin Kamil v Public Prosecutor: Trafficking Methamphetamine under Misuse of Drugs Act
In [2022] SGCA 68, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard the appeal of Muhamad Azmi bin Kamil against his sentence for trafficking in not less than 249.99 grams of methamphetamine, an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Muhamad Azmi bin Kamil pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane. The Court of Appeal, comprising Sundaresh Menon CJ, Judith Prakash JCA, and Steven Chong JCA, dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the arguments raised by the appellant.
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
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court of Appeal dismissed Muhamad Azmi bin Kamil's appeal against his sentence for trafficking methamphetamine, upholding the 25-year imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Anandan Bala of Attorney-General’s Chambers Jaime Pang of Attorney-General’s Chambers Bharat Punjabi of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Muhamad Azmi bin Kamil | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | No |
| Judith Prakash | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Steven Chong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Anandan Bala | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Jaime Pang | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Bharat Punjabi | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Hassan Esa Almenoar | R. Ramason & Almenoar |
| Diana Foo | Tan See Swan & Co. |
| Liane Yong | R. Ramason & Almenoar |
4. Facts
- The appellant pleaded guilty to trafficking not less than 249.99 grams of methamphetamine.
- The appellant was a courier for Ahmad, a Malaysia-based supplier.
- The appellant transported drugs from Malaysia to Singapore in his car.
- On 2 May 2017, drugs were found in the appellant's car at Woodlands Checkpoint.
- The appellant knew he was delivering drugs to Ahmad's customers, Adeeb and Fazri.
- Ahmad pleaded guilty to a lesser charge and was sentenced to 22 years’ imprisonment.
5. Formal Citations
- Muhamad Azmi bin Kamil v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Appeal No 10 of 2022, [2022] SGCA 68
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Drugs found in the appellant’s car at Woodlands Checkpoint | |
| Appellant arrested | |
| Ahmad arrested in Singapore | |
| Appellant filed Notice of Appeal | |
| Appellant appointed counsel | |
| Court considered arguments raised by the appellant | |
| Appeal dismissed |
7. Legal Issues
- Sentencing for Drug Trafficking
- Outcome: The court upheld the sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane, finding it was not manifestly excessive.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Appropriateness of indicative starting sentence
- Consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors
- Parity principle in sentencing co-offenders
- Related Cases:
- [2017] 2 SLR 115
- [2018] 2 SLR 557
- [2020] 4 SLR 1255
- Applicability of Section 238A of the Criminal Procedure Code
- Outcome: The court held that it had the discretion to dispense with an oral hearing, as the appeal was heard after 1 April 2022, and this did not interfere with any of the appellant’s substantive rights.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Discretion of the court to decide matters without oral hearing
- Transitional provisions of the Courts (Civil and Criminal Justice) Reform Act 2021
- Accused’s right to be heard
- Related Cases:
- [2013] 2 SLR 844
- Parity Principle in Sentencing
- Outcome: The court found that the parity principle was not engaged in this case, as the sentencing disparity arose from the exercise of prosecutorial discretion and there was no suggestion that the discretion was improperly exercised or that the co-offenders were similarly situated.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Sentencing disparities caused by prosecutorial discretion
- Whether co-offenders are similarly situated
- Justification for differential treatment
- Related Cases:
- [2015] 5 SLR 167
- [2015] 4 SLR 1120
- [2022] SGCA 59
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Drug Trafficking
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Suventher Shanmugam v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 115 | Singapore | Cited for the sentencing guidelines for the offence of trafficking or importation of drugs. |
| Adri Anton Kalangie v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 557 | Singapore | Cited for the indicative sentencing framework for the importation of methamphetamine. |
| Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Nur Azam bin Mohamad Indra and another | N/A | Yes | [2020] 4 SLR 1255 | Singapore | Cited as a precedent for sentencing in drug importation cases. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ng Sae Kiat and other appeals | N/A | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 167 | Singapore | Cited for the application of the parity principle in sentencing co-offenders. |
| Lim Bee Ngan Karen v Public Prosecutor | N/A | No | [2015] 4 SLR 1120 | Singapore | Cited regarding the parity principle and prosecutorial discretion in charging co-offenders. |
| Xu Yuan Chen (alias Terry Xu) v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] SGCA 59 | Singapore | Cited regarding prosecutorial discretion to proceed on different charges for each offender in the same criminal enterprise. |
| Manjit Singh s/o Kirpal Singh and another v Attorney-General | N/A | Yes | [2013] 2 SLR 844 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the right to be heard need not necessarily be oral. |
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 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 33(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 | Singapore |
| s 238A of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Methamphetamine
- Drug trafficking
- Courier
- Sentencing
- Parity principle
- Prosecutorial discretion
- Indicative starting sentence
- Mitigating factors
- Aggravating factors
15.2 Keywords
- Drug trafficking
- Methamphetamine
- Sentencing
- Criminal appeal
- Singapore
- Misuse of Drugs Act
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 75 |
| Sentencing | 75 |
| Criminal Procedure | 75 |
| Appeal | 75 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Sentencing
- Criminal Procedure