PP v Muhamad Akashah Aizad bin Hasni: Sentencing Guidelines & Drug Importation
In Public Prosecutor v Muhamad Akashah Aizad bin Hasni, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore addressed the application of sentencing guidelines in a case where Muhamad Akashah Aizad bin Hasni pleaded guilty to importing 499.99 grammes of cannabis. The court sentenced the accused to 24 years’ imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane, backdated to the date of his arrest, after considering the sentencing guidelines and relevant factors.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Accused sentenced to 24 years’ imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court addresses sentencing for drug importation, applying guidelines to a case involving 499.99g of cannabis.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Prosecution | Government Agency | Judgment for the Prosecution | Won | Wong Woon Kwong SC, Jheevanesh Sivanathan |
| Muhamad Akashah Aizad bin Hasni | Defendant | Individual | Conviction and Sentence | Lost | Hassan Esa Almenoar, Rabi Ahmad s/o Abdul Ravoof, Yong Pui Yu Liane |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Mavis Chionh Sze Chyi | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Wong Woon Kwong SC | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Jheevanesh Sivanathan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Hassan Esa Almenoar | R. Ramason & Almenoar |
| Rabi Ahmad s/o Abdul Ravoof | I.R.B Law LLP |
| Yong Pui Yu Liane | Guardian Law |
4. Facts
- The Accused was employed as a lorry driver transporting goods between Singapore and Malaysia.
- On 20 December 2021, the Accused drove a lorry into Singapore via Tuas Checkpoint.
- Three bundles containing not less than 1,203.6 grammes of cannabis were found in the lorry.
- The Accused agreed to import cannabis into Singapore on behalf of an individual known as “Auction Power”.
- The Accused knew that the three blocks of vegetable matter were in his Lorry when he entered Singapore.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Muhamad Akashah Aizad bin Hasni, Criminal Case No 21 of 2024, [2024] SGHC 223
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Accused imported cannabis into Singapore via Tuas Checkpoint. | |
| High Court issued written grounds of decision in Iskandar bin Jinan. | |
| Prosecution stated CA/CCA 18/2024 had been set down for hearing in the week commencing 7 October 2024. | |
| Accused pleaded guilty to the Charge. | |
| Judgment delivered. | |
| Grounds of Decision issued. | |
| CA/CCA 18/2024 set down for hearing in the week commencing 7 October 2024. |
7. Legal Issues
- Application of Sentencing Guidelines
- Outcome: The court held that the three-step analytical framework under the Sentencing Guidelines should be applied to drug trafficking and importation cases, but the maximum reduction in sentence to be awarded on account of an accused’s guilty plea should be capped at 10%.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Appropriate sentencing discount for guilty pleas in drug trafficking cases
- Consideration of strength of evidence against the accused
- Balancing remorse-based and utilitarian justifications for sentence reduction
- Related Cases:
- [2024] SGHC 134
- [2017] 2 SLR 449
- Sentencing for Drug Importation
- Outcome: The court determined the appropriate sentence based on the quantity of cannabis imported, the offender's culpability, and mitigating factors, resulting in a sentence of 24 years’ imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Determining the indicative starting point based on drug quantity
- Adjusting the sentence based on offender culpability and mitigating factors
- Considering the public interest in securing adequate punishment
- Related Cases:
- [2015] 5 SLR 122
- [2017] 2 SLR 115
8. Remedies Sought
- Imprisonment
- Caning
9. Cause of Actions
- Importation of controlled drugs without authorisation
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing Guidelines
11. Industries
- Transportation
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PP v Iskandar bin Jinan and another | High Court | Yes | [2024] SGHC 134 | Singapore | Addressed the maximum sentencing discount for a plea of guilt in drug trafficking and importation cases. |
| Vasentha d/o Joseph v PP | Unknown | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 122 | Singapore | Established the sentencing framework for drug trafficking and importation offences. |
| Suventher Shanmugam v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 115 | Singapore | Endorsed the Vasentha framework and provided sentencing guidelines for cannabis trafficking or importation. |
| Ng Kean Meng Terence v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 449 | Singapore | Endorsed both remorse-based and utilitarian-based justifications for reducing a sentence on account of a plea of guilt. |
| Xia Qin Lai v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR(R) 257 | Singapore | Addressed the weight given to a plea of guilt when the evidence against the accused was overwhelming. |
| PP v Vashan a/l K Raman | High Court | Yes | [2019] SGHC 151 | Singapore | Gave substantial mitigatory weight to pleas of guilt even in cases where the accused was caught red-handed. |
| PP v Murugesan a/l Arumugam | High Court | Yes | [2020] SGHC 203 | Singapore | Gave substantial mitigatory weight to pleas of guilt even in cases where the accused was caught red-handed. |
| R v Taueki | New Zealand Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 3 NZLR 372 | New Zealand | Referenced an approach where the sentencing court would first identify a “starting point sentence” reflecting the intrinsic seriousness of the offence, before adjusting this “starting point sentence” either up or down to reflect the circumstances personal to the offender. |
| PP v Randy Rosigit | High Court | Yes | [2024] SGHC 171 | Singapore | Accorded due mitigatory weight to the respondent’s plea of guilt, notwithstanding the fact that he had effectively been caught red-handed in the course of a police raid. |
| Murugesan a/l Arumugam v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] SGCA 32 | Singapore | Upheld a sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane for trafficking in not less than 14.99g of diamorphine. |
| PP v Muhammad Hakam bin Sulaiman | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC 160 | Singapore | Imposed a sentence of 24 years’ imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane for trafficking not less than 499.99g of cannabis. |
| Adri Anton Kalangie v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 557 | Singapore | Upheld a sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane for importation of not less than 249.99g of methamphetamine. |
| Muhammad Amirul Aliff bin Md Zainal v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 2 SLR 299 | Singapore | Upheld a sentence of 27 years’ imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane for importing not less than 499.9g of cannabis. |
| PP v Steven John a/l Gobalkrishnan | High Court | Yes | [2021] SGHC 111 | Singapore | Sentenced the accused to 27 years’ imprisonment with 15 strokes of the cane for trafficking in not less than 14.99g of diamorphine. |
| PP v Poopathi Chinaiyah s/o Paliandi | Unknown | Yes | [2020] 5 SLR 734 | Singapore | Upheld an imprisonment term of 28 years’ imprisonment for trafficking in not less than 499.99g of cannabis. |
| PP v Mohamed Affandi bin Mohamed Yuz Al-Haj | High Court | Yes | [2021] SGHC 151 | Singapore | Sentenced the accused to 28 years’ imprisonment for conspiracy to traffic in not less than 14.99g of diamorphine. |
| Ong Chee Eng v PP | Unknown | Yes | [2012] 3 SLR 776 | Singapore | The court should ensure that the full spectrum of possible sentences is carefully explored in determining the appropriate sentence. |
| Abu Syeed Chowdhury v PP | Unknown | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR(R) 182 | Singapore | Sentencing guidelines and frameworks are not cast in stone, nor do they represent an abdication of the judicial prerogative to tailor criminal sanctions to the individual offender. |
| Mohd Akebal s/o Ghulam Jilani v PP | Unknown | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 266 | Singapore | For trafficking and importation offences under the MDA, the quantity of drugs trafficked or imported bears a direct correlation with the harm caused by the crime. |
| PP v Wong Chee Meng and another appeal | Unknown | Yes | [2020] 5 SLR 807 | Singapore | A good sentencing framework aims (a) to be instructive (without being prescriptive); (b) to be communicative; and (c) to deliver consistent outcomes. |
| Sue Chang v PP | Unknown | Yes | [2023] 3 SLR 440 | Singapore | A good sentencing framework aims (a) to be instructive (without being prescriptive); (b) to be communicative; and (c) to deliver consistent outcomes. |
| PP v Sivasangaran s/o Sivaperumal | District Court | Yes | [2016] SGDC 214 | Singapore | The indicative starting sentences for this prescribed sentencing range are set out in the District Court’s decision in PP v Sivasangaran s/o Sivaperumal [2016] SGDC 214, which was cited with approval by the Court of Appeal in Suventher Shanmugam (at [28]). |
| Angliss Singapore Pte Ltd v PP | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 653 | Singapore | The sentencing court may take into account in assessing whether the plea of guilt is indicative of remorse. |
| Chang Kar Meng v PP | Unknown | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 68 | Singapore | The fact that a guilty plea spares the victim the ordeal of having to testify and to re-live the incident, is usually irrelevant in a crime committed against society at large (as opposed to a specific victim), such as drug trafficking and importation. |
| PP v Raveen Balakrishnan | Unknown | Yes | [2018] 5 SLR 799 | Singapore | If the aggravating factors have fully been taken into account at Step 1 of the sentencing analysis, it should generally not feature again at another stage. |
| Gan Chai Bee Anne v PP | Unknown | Yes | [2019] 4 SLR 838 | Singapore | A similar process is already adopted when the court determines the appropriate aggregate sentence in cases involving multiple offences. |
| Mohammad Faizal bin Sabtu v PP | Unknown | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 947 | Singapore | It is the duty of the courts to inflict the legislatively-prescribed punishments on offenders, exercising such discretion as may have been given to them by the Legislature to select the punishments which they think appropriate. |
| Prabagaran a/l Srivijayan v PP and other matters | Unknown | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 173 | Singapore | It is the duty of the courts to inflict the legislatively-prescribed punishments on offenders, exercising such discretion as may have been given to them by the Legislature to select the punishments which they think appropriate. |
| Lai Oei Mui Jenny v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1993] 2 SLR(R) 406 | Singapore | Except in the most exceptional circumstances, hardship to an offender’s family has very little, if any, mitigating value. |
| PP v Yue Mun Yew Gary | Unknown | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 39 | Singapore | Except in the most exceptional circumstances, hardship to an offender’s family has very little, if any, mitigating value. |
| PP v Pham Duyen Quyen | Unknown | Yes | [2016] 5 SLR 1289 | Singapore | The relative youth of an offender has been taken into account in cases where the offender was aged between 21 and 23 years old at the time of the offences. |
| Pham Duyen Quyen v PP | Unknown | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 571 | Singapore | The relative youth of an offender has been taken into account in cases where the offender was aged between 21 and 23 years old at the time of the offences. |
| Soh Qiu Xia Katty v PP | Unknown | Yes | [2019] 3 SLR 568 | Singapore | The relative youth of an offender has been taken into account in cases where the offender was aged between 21 and 23 years old at the time of the offences. |
| Fu Foo Tong and others v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1995] 1 SLR(R) 1 | Singapore | Any reduction in sentence granted on account of the accused’s guilty plea would always remain subject to the public interest exception. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 186, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 186, 2008 Rev Ed) s 7 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 186, 2008 Rev Ed) s 33(1) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 186, 2008 Rev Ed) s 5(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 186, 2008 Rev Ed) s 5(2) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 186, 2008 Rev Ed) s 12 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 186, 2008 Rev Ed) s 33(4A)(i) | Singapore |
| Prisons Act (Cap 247, 2000 Rev Ed) s 50T | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 34 | Singapore |
| Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A, 2000 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Sentencing Guidelines
- Drug Importation
- Cannabis
- Plea of Guilt
- Mandatory Minimum Sentence
- Vasentha-Suventher framework
- Culpability
- Mitigating Factors
- Public Interest
- Remorse
- Utilitarian Justification
15.2 Keywords
- sentencing guidelines
- drug importation
- cannabis
- plea of guilt
- Singapore
- criminal law
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
- Drug Offences
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Law
- Statutory Offences
- Criminal Procedure
- Sentencing
- Drug Trafficking
- Drug Importation