1 The Accused, a 40-year-old male Singaporean and holder of NRIC SXXXX591J, pleaded guilty to the following five charges:

(a) one charge of theft in dwelling by dishonestly taking various items with a total value of $2,830 committed on 23 September 2023, punishable under section 380 of the Penal Code 1871 (“PC’) (DAC-925233-2025):

(b)  one charge of dishonestly misappropriating movable property of cash amounting to $800 committed on 6 February 2025, punishable under section 403 of the PC (MAC-911529-2025);

(c)  one charge of consumption of a specified drug listed in the Fourth Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1973 (“MDA”), to wit, methamphetamine, committed on or before 26 May 2025, under section 8(b)(ii) and punishable under section 33(3A) of the MDA (DAC-919610-2025);

(d) one charge of possession of a Class A Controlled Drug listed in The First Schedule to the MDA, to wit, two (2) packets of crystalline substance which was analysed and found to contain not less than 4.38 grams of methamphetamine, committed on 26 May 2025, under section 8(a) of the of the said Act and punishable under section 33(1) of the MDA (DAC-919612-2025); and

(e) one charge of consumption of a specified drug listed in the Fourth Schedule to the MDA, to wit, methamphetamine, committed on or before 2 October 2025, under section 8(b)(ii) and punishable under section 33(3A) of the MDA 1973 (DAC-9011817-2026).

2 He consented to having the following nine remaining charges to be taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing:

(a) one charge of consumption of monoacetylmorphine, committed on or before 2 October 2025, under section 8(b)(ii) and punishable under section 33(3A) of the MDA (DAC-901188-2026);

(b) one charge of possession of methamphetamine, committed on 2 October 2025, under section 8(a) of the of the said Act and punishable under section 33(1) of the MDA (DAC-901189-2026);

(c) one charge of possession of diamorphine, committed on 2 October 2025, under section 8(a) and punishable under section 33(1) of the MDA (DAC-901190-2026);

(d) one charge of possession of drug utensil, committed on 2 October 2025, under section 9 of the MDA (DAC-901191-2026);

(e) one charge of consumption of morphine, committed on or before 26 May 2025, under section 8(b)(ii) and punishable under section 33(3A) of the MDA (DAC-919610-2025);

(f) one charge of possession of diamorphine, committed on 26 May 2025, under section 8(a) and punishable under section 33(1) of the MDA (DAC-919613-2025);

(g) one charge of possession of drug utensil, committed on 26 May 2025, under section 9 of the MDA (DAC-919614-2025);

(h) one charge of committing rash act of endangering life by throwing items from height on 22 May 2023, punishable under section 336(a) PC (MAC-911530-2025); and

(i) one amalgamated charge of cheating of $727.30 committed between 6 August 2025 to 2 September 2025, punishable under section 420 PC r/w section 124(4) Criminal Procedure Code.

3 He was sentenced to the mandatory minimum of 1 year’s imprisonment for each of his consumption charges, 8 months’ and 2 weeks’ imprisonment for his possession charge, 5 months’ imprisonment for his theft in dwelling charge and 1 month’s imprisonment for his criminal misappropriation charge. The sentences for the one of the consumption charges, the possession charge and the theft in dwelling charge were ordered to run consecutively with the sentences for the two remaining proceeded charges ordered to run concurrently, leading to a global sentence of 1 year and 13 months’ and 2 weeks’ imprisonment.

4 In addition, he was ordered to pay compensation to two of the victims, which he has since paid the compensation. The Accused has appealed against his sentence, and he is currently serving his sentence.

5 The salient parts of the Statement of Facts in the order of chronology relating to the five proceeded charges are outlined below.

6 The complainant is Nur Hisham Bin Nasir. At the material time, the complainant was the Loss Prevention Team Leader of W Singapore Sentosa Cove, a hotel located at 21 Ocean Way, Singapore 098374, Singapore (“W Singapore”), a building used as a human dwelling.

7 The victim is Baker Matthew Francis, a 42-year-old male. At the material time, the victim was a guest at W Singapore.

8 On 23 September 2023, the complainant made a Police report with the following message “A part-timer actually stole the guest luggage. He already left the hotel but the guest is still here. The guest said don’t want to be disturbed. Can Police come tomorrow instead.” The incident location provided was W Singapore.

9 At the material time, the Accused was working as a Steward at W Singapore. The victim had checked into W Singapore in the morning of 23 September 2023. Upon check in, the victim left a brown Ted Baker overnight bag (the “overnight bag”) with the hotel concierge and proceeded with his own activities. The overnight bag was placed in a staff-only restricted area for safekeeping.

10 Prior to the end of his shift, the Accused walked along the corridor where the overnight bag was placed. The Accused then took the overnight bag valued at $300 with him, out of the possession of the complainant, which contained the following articles with a total value of $2,830 (inclusive of the value of the overnight bag):

11 The Accused then left W Singapore. The overnight bag and its contents were not recovered. No restitution has been made by the Accused.

12 The Accused took the overnight bag dishonestly, without the complainant’s consent, in W Singapore, a building used as human dwelling. The Accused has thereby committed an offence under section 380 of the Penal Code 1871.

(a) On 7 November 2000, he was convicted of three counts under section 392 of the PC. He was placed on 30 months’ probation and to reside at Juvenile Home for 12 months.

(b) On 5 November 2002, he was convicted of one count of gang robbery under section 395 of PC, for which he was sentenced to RTC.

(c) On 31 August 2009, he was convicted of one count under section 379 of the PC, for which he was sentenced to 6 weeks’ imprisonment.

(d) On 11 June 2015, he was convicted of one count under section 324 of the PC, for which he was sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment.

(e) On 23 October 2018, he was convicted of one count of section 323, for which he was sentenced to 4 weeks’ imprisonment:

(f) On 22 July 2019, he was convicted of one count under section 325, one count under section 380, two counts under section 468 and one count under section 336(a) of the PC, for which he was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment, 8 weeks’ imprisonment, 3 months’ imprisonment, 3 months’ imprisonment and two weeks’ imprisonment respectively. He had six other charges taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing and he was sentenced to a total of 21 months’ and two weeks’ imprisonment.

33 In the present case, the Prosecution submitted for an aggregate term of from one year, 14 months’ and two weeks’ imprisonment to one year, 15 months’ and four weeks’ imprisonment with the sentence imposed to be backdated to the Accused’s date of arrest (i.e., on 2 October 2025).

34 With respect to the charges in DAC-919610-2025 and DAC-901187-2026, under s 8(b)(ii) punishable under s 33(3A) of the MDA for the consumption of methamphetamine on 26 May 2025 and 2 October 2025 respectively, the Prosecution submitted for the mandatory minimum sentence of 1 year’s imprisonment each to be imposed.

35 With respect to the charge in DAC-919612-2025, under s 8(a) punishable under s 33(1) of the MDA 1973 for the possession of not less than 4.38 grams of methamphetamine, the prosecution asked for an appropriate sentence of between nine months’ and nine months’ and three weeks’ imprisonment after taking into account various factors including the quantity of the drugs involved, the age of the offender, the purpose for his possession which was for his consumption, whether he was a first-time drug consumer, a casual consumer or an addict, the two distinct periods of time for which he was found to be in possession of the drugs, and his early plea of guilt within the Stage1 which accord him 30% discount from a likely sentence of 13 to 14 months’ imprisonment had he claimed trial.

36 Regarding the charge in DAC-925233-2025, under s 380 of the PC for the theft of items worth a total of $2,830, the Prosecution submitted for an appropriate sentence of between five months’ and two weeks’ and six months’ and one weeks’ imprisonment after taking into consideration his relevant property related antecedents, the quantum of the amount stolen, the lack of restitution, his abuse of trust, the available reported precedents and his early plea of guilt.

37 Regarding the charge in MAC-911529-2025, under s 403 of the PC for the dishonest misappropriation of cash amounting to $800, the Prosecution submitted for an appropriate sentence of between one- and two-months’ imprisonment, after considering the quantum involved, the lack of restitution, his property related antecedents, the available reported precedents and his early plea of guilt.

38 In accordance with s 307(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010, the sentences for at least two of the offences must be ordered to run consecutively. In the present case, the Prosecution urged this Court to have the sentences for the one of the consumption charges (DAC-901187-2026 relating to the consumption of methamphetamine in October 2025), the possession charge (DAC-919612-2025 relating to possession of methamphetamine in May 2025) and the theft-in-dwelling charge (DAC-925233-2025 relating to the theft from an hotel guest of items amounting to a total of $2830 in September 2023) to run consecutively as they are distinct offences committed in different periods of time. In particular, the consumption charge in DAC-901187-2026 was committed after the Accused was arrested for the same in May 2025 (vide DAC-919610-2025).

39 The Prosecution further submitted that ordering these three sentences to run consecutively would adequately reflect the Accused’s full criminality in committing these various offences over a span of about two years and that there is no need to adjust the aggregate sentence on account of the totality principle as the total sentence cannot be considered crushing and is in fact in keeping with his past criminal records. Hence, this will yield an aggregate sentence of between one year, 14 months’ and two weeks’ imprisonment to one year, 15 months’ and four weeks’ imprisonment.

40 The Prosecution further asked for a compensation order of a total amount of $1527.30 to be paid to two of the victims.

41 The Accused urged this Court to have his drug sentences to run concurrently on the basis that this is his first-time drug offences and pleaded for the lightest sentence possible to be imposed.

42 In the present case where the prosecution has proceeded against the Accused on multiple charges involving both property related and drug related charges, the first step is for this Court to determine what should be the appropriate sentences to be imposed for each of the proceeded charges before deciding on the aggregate sentence to be imposed in terms of the ordering of the number of the respective sentences to run consecutively and concurrently.

43 For the individual sentences with reference to the property related charges, this Court is of the view that the sentences sought by the Prosecution are in accordance with the criminality of the Accused and proportional to the quantum involved in the respective charges after taking into consideration his past relevant property related antecedents and the available reported precedents cited by the Prosecution.

44 Specific deterrence is necessary to ensure that the Accused will not resort to committing property related offences in the future.

45 As for the individual sentences with reference to the drug related charges, this Court is of the view that the sentences sought by the Prosecution are appropriate and proportional to his criminality. The Prosecution sought for the mandatory minimum sentence of 1 year imprisonment for each of the drug consumption charges and for the drug possession charge, the sentence sought by the Prosecution was within the sentencing range of between six and 18 months’ imprisonment for a first-time offender who pleads guilty to the possession of a Class A controlled drug: Dinesh Singh Bhatia s/o Amarjeet Singh v PP [2005] 3 SLR(R) 1 at [38]; which was affirmed in PP v Lim Cheng Ji Alvin [2017] 5 SLR 671 at [28].

46 The Accused has urged this Court to show leniency to him as he is a first-time drug offender. Notwithstanding that he does not have any drug related antecedents, I am unable to treat him as a first-time drug offender as he has multiple drug related charges committed on two separate occasions on 16 May 2025 and 2 October 2025. The second set of drug related charges were committed by him while he was on police bail. Taking into the account the quantity of the drugs involved and the possession of two different types of drugs on the two separate occasions the sentence sought by the Prosecution for his drug possession charge of between nine months’ and nine months and three weeks’ imprisonment cannot be considered manifestly excessive.

47 In accordance with s 307(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010, the sentences for at least two of the offences must be ordered to run consecutively, I agreed with the Prosecution that three of the sentences should run consecutively to be commensurate with the culpability of the Accused without violating the totality principle and to serve as a specific deterrence for him from committing any property related and/or any drug related offences in the future.

48 Having considered his plea of guilt and the totality principle, I have decided to calibrate the sentence slightly downwards for his drug possession charge to eight months’ and two weeks’ imprisonment from the nine months’ imprisonment sought by the Prosecution. As for the other charges, I have imposed the sentences at the lower range sought by the Prosecution and ordered three of the sentences to run consecutively as indicated at [3] and [4] above yielding a global sentence of 1 year and 13 months’ and 2 weeks’ imprisonment.

49 The Accused is now serving sentence pending his appeal.