1 Anuar Bin Mohd Yusoff (“the Offender”), a 57-year-old repeat drug offender, pleaded guilty to three charges involving drug-related offences which attracted mandatory minimum sentences. He was sentenced to the individual sentences he sought, viz, the mandatory minimum sentence for two of the charges, and a one-year uplift from the mandatory minimum sentence for the remaining charge. Specifically, he was sentenced to five, seven, and three years’ imprisonment for his possession for the purpose of trafficking, drug consumption, and enhanced drug possession charges, respectively. I ordered two sentences to run consecutively, namely those for the drug consumption and enhanced drug possession charges. The Offender had urged the Court to run the sentences for the trafficking and enhanced drug possession charges consecutively instead, which would have resulted in a global sentence that was two years shorter than what I imposed. Additionally, I imposed an aggregate enhanced sentence of 127 days’ imprisonment as submitted by the Prosecution.

2 On 10 February 2026, the Offender pleaded guilty to the following three charges:

3 The Offender also consented to five charges being taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing, viz, one charge punishable under s 380 of the Penal Code 1871 (“PC”), two charges under s 9 punishable under s 33(1) of the MDA, one charge under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) punishable under s 33(1) of the MDA, and one charge punishable under s 8(a) punishable under s 33(3B) of the MDA. All five charges were also punishable under s 50T(1)(a) of the PA.

4 The Prosecution’s and the Offender’s sentencing positions are set out below:

5 I sentenced the Offender to the individual sentences he requested, viz, the mandatory minimum sentences of five and seven years’ imprisonment for the Trafficking Charge and LT2 Charge, respectively, and three years’ imprisonment for the Enhanced Possession Charge. However, I ordered the sentences for the Enhanced Possession Charge and the LT2 Charge to run consecutively (instead of the Trafficking Charge and Enhanced Possession Charge as submitted by the Offender), and an aggregate enhanced sentence of 127 days’ imprisonment, as submitted by the Prosecution. The sentence of imprisonment was backdated to the date of the Offender’s first arrest, viz, 14 February 2025 (excluding the period he was on bail, viz, 16 February to 4 April 2025 (date of second arrest) and 6 April to 21 June 2025).

6 The Offender has filed an appeal against sentence and is currently serving his sentence.

7 The salient portions of the Statement of Facts which the Offender admitted to without qualification were as follows.

8 On 14 February 2025, the Offender was arrested at Blk 463B Sengkang West Way, [unit number redacted], Fernvale Glades (“the Unit”). Seven packets of granular/powdery substance were found on a table in the living area of the Unit. Six of the packets were analysed by Health Sciences Authority (“HSA”) and found to weigh not less than 43.07g and contain not less than 0.89g of Diamorphine. The Offender had possessed the six packets for sale to his customers and intended to sell 8g of the substance for $120. He was not authorised under the MDA or the regulations made thereunder to possess Diamorphine for the purpose of trafficking.

9 The remaining packet of granular/powdery substance was analysed by HSA and found to contain not less than 0.16g of Diamorphine. The said packet was meant for the Offender’s own consumption. He was not authorised under the MDA or the regulations made thereunder to possess Diamorphine.

10 Before the commission of the said offence, the Offender had been convicted of an offence under s 8(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“2008 MDA”) on 24 October 2017 in District Court 20 vide DAC-912883-2017 and sentenced to six years’ Corrective Training, which conviction had not been set aside.

11 On 4 April 2025, the Offender was arrested at 1 Tampines Walk. His urine samples were analysed by the HSA and found to contain Methamphetamine, a Specified Drug listed in the Fourth Schedule to the MDA. The Offender last consumed ‘ice’ (street name for Methamphetamine) on the morning of 30 March 2025. He was not authorised under the MDA or the regulations made thereunder to consume Methamphetamine.

12 Before the commission of the said offence, the Offender had been convicted of an offence under s 8(b)(ii) punishable under s 33A(1) of the 2008 MDA on 20 October 2011 in District Court 20 vide DAC-21382-2011 and was sentenced to five years of Corrective Training with three strokes of the cane, which conviction had not been set aside.

13 From 28 January to 20 June 2025, the Offender was subject to a remission order made by the Commissioner of Prisons under Division 2 or 3 of Part VB of the PA which remission order was subject to the basic condition under s 50S(1) of the PA and while the remission order was in effect, the Offender:

(a) on 14 February 2025 committed the offences in the Trafficking Charge and the Enhanced Possession Charge; and

(b) on 4 April 2025 committed the offence in the LT2 Charge,

and upon conviction and the imposition of sentences reflected under s 50S(1)(b) of the PA, was deemed to have breached the basic condition of his remission order. He was thereby liable to be punished with an enhanced sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding the remaining duration of the remission order of:

(a) 127 days from 14 February to 20 June 2025 for the offences in the Trafficking Charge and the Enhanced Possession Charge; and

(b) 78 days from 4 April to 20 June 2025 for the offence in the LT2 Charge.

14 The prescribed punishment for the charges are as follows:

15 The Offender’s prior drug-related antecedents are set out below:

16 The Prosecution sought the mandatory minimum sentence of five years’ imprisonment in respect of the Trafficking Charge and an uplift from the mandatory minimum sentences for the Enhanced Possession Charge and the LT2 Charge. ³ For the Enhanced Possession Charge, the Prosecution sought an uplift of two years from the mandatory minimum of two years’ imprisonment, arriving at their sentencing position of four years’ imprisonment. ⁴ In so submitting, the Prosecution highlighted the Offender’s drug possession antecedents and the principles of specific deterrence and escalation. ⁵

17 As regards the LT2 Charge, the Prosecution urged the Court to impose a slight uplift of three months’ imprisonment from the mandatory minimum of seven year’s imprisonment on account of the Offender having reoffended whilst on bail. ⁶

18 In respect of the enhanced sentences under s 50T(1)(a) of the PA, the Prosecution referred to Abdul Mutalib bin Aziman v PP [2021] 4 SLR 1220 (“Abdul Mutalib”) which set out the considerations in deciding whether to impose, and if so, the length of the enhanced sentence. ⁷ The Prosecution was of the view that enhanced sentences should be imposed as the Offender had committed serious drug offences and urged the Court to impose 52, 63 and 42 days’ imprisonment for the LT2 Charge, Trafficking Charge and Enhanced Possession Charge, respectively. ⁸

19 In submitting for the said enhanced sentences, the Prosecution highlighted the following:

(a) For the LT2 Charge, the offence carried a mandatory minimum sentence of seven years’ imprisonment. The offender committed the offence just two months after being released on Conditional Remission Order (“CRO”). He also had a string of drug-related antecedents dating back to 1993.

(b) For the Trafficking Charge, the offence carried a mandatory minimum sentence of five years’ imprisonment. There was also an escalation in the Offender's pattern of offending.

(c) For the Enhanced Possession Charge, the offence carried a mandatory minimum sentence of two years’ imprisonment. The Offender was previously convicted for drug possession in 1998, 2001 and 2017.

20 As the total length of the enhanced sentences cannot exceed the remaining duration of the remission order at the time of the Offender’s earliest offence, the Prosecution calibrated the enhanced sentence for the Enhanced Possession Charge downwards to 12 days’ imprisonment. ⁹

21 Finally, the Prosecution submitted that the sentences for the Enhanced Possession Charge and the LT2 Charge should run consecutively given the requirement under s 307(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (“CPC”) and as they arose from two separate incidents. ¹⁰ The Prosecution’s resultant sentencing position was thus 11 years and three months’ imprisonment and an enhanced sentence of 127 days’ imprisonment. ¹¹

22 While the offences in the Trafficking Charge and LT2 Charge carried mandatory caning, the Offender was ineligible to be caned as he was above 50 years of age. The Prosecution did not seek any imprisonment in lieu of caning.

23 The Offender filed a written Mitigation Letter and urged the Court to impose the “minimum sentence possible within the spectrum of sentencing guidelines as prescribed by the law”. ¹² He elaborated that he was seeking the mandatory minimum sentences of five and seven years’ imprisonment for the Trafficking Charge and LT2 Charge, respectively, and three years’ imprisonment for the Enhanced Possession Charge. ¹³

24 In his Mitigation Letter, the Offender raised the following:

(a) He had admitted to his offences promptly upon his arrest and cooperated fully with investigations. ¹⁴

(b) He was genuinely remorseful. ¹⁵

(c) His frank admission to having possessed a smaller amount of drugs found in the Unit for his own consumption led to tendering of the Enhanced Possession Charge against him. ¹⁶

(d) He was unemployed and had been undergoing treatment in the Institute of Mental Health since 2004, and had been most recently diagnosed in April 2024 and early 2025 with Major Depressive Disorder with Acute Psychosis and Substance Use Disorder amongst other ailments. ¹⁷

(e) In respect of the LT2 Charge, he was the one who called the emergency Police hotline to seek assistance while he was having a drug-induced psychotic episode. ¹⁸

(f) He had committed the offences due to a failure to exercise judgment. ¹⁹

(g) He had sought immediate intervention to address his substance use issue by admitting himself to the National Addictions Management Service (“NAMS”) clinic in May 2025 after he was arrested for his LT2 Charge. ²⁰

25 The Offender further submitted that the Prosecution’s sentencing position for the Enhanced Possession Charge was excessive as it was a two-fold increase from the mandatory minimum of two years’ imprisonment despite the miniscule amount of drug involved. ²¹ He urged the Court to impose a three-year imprisonment term instead. ²²

26 For the global sentence, the Offender implored the Court to order the sentences for the Trafficking Charge and the Enhanced Possession Charge to run consecutively, resulting in an overall sentence of eight years’ imprisonment. ²³ He contended that he could have been sent to DRC for the LT2 Charge in lieu of being charged in court. ²⁴

27 The Offender did not address the Court on the enhanced sentence under s 50T of the PA in his written Mitigation Letter or verbally during the plead guilty mention.

28 Parties were agreed on the sentence for the Trafficking Charge, viz, the mandatory minimum of five years’ imprisonment. I saw no reason to depart from this and accordingly imposed five years’ imprisonment in respect of the Trafficking Charge.

29 As regards the Enhanced Possession Charge, I was of the view that a one-year uplift from the mandatory minimum of two years’ imprisonment was appropriate given the Offender’s drug possession antecedents. I did not impose a two-year uplift as requested by the Prosecution as the Offender’s drug possession antecedents were dated. His most recent drug possession conviction was almost a decade ago in 2017, and his two earlier drug possession convictions were in 2001 and 1998.

30 For the LT2 Charge, given that the mandatory minimum sentence was already seven years’ imprisonment and it was the Offender’s first LT2 conviction, I did not think an uplift was warranted. Additionally, the Offender’s LT1 conviction was more than a decade ago in 2011.

31 I agreed with the Prosecution that enhanced sentences under s 50T(1)(a) of the PA ought to be imposed as the three offences were “more than de minimis” (Abdul Mutalib bin Aziman v PP and other appeals [2021] 4 SLR 1220 (“Abdul Mutalib”) at [51]). The offences were serious drug offences attracting lengthy mandatory minimum sentences.

32 In respect of the duration of the enhanced sentence to impose, the factors to be considered can be grouped into three categories: (i) factors going towards the gravity of the fresh offences; (ii) factors going towards the offender’s rehabilitative prospects; and (iii) all other relevant circumstances (Abdul Mutalib at [53]). For the first category, the drug offences committed by the Offender were without doubt serious ones, justifying lengthier enhanced sentences (Abdul Mutalib at [54]). The enhanced sentences proposed by the Prosecution were also nowhere near the underlying sentences imposed for the three charges as seen from the table below (Abdul Mutalib at [55]):

33 I went on to consider the Offender’s rehabilitative prospects. For this, the duration between the Offender’s release from prison and his commission of the fresh offences was relevant (Abdul Mutalib at [58]). I noted that the Offender was released pursuant to a CRO on 28 January 2025 and had committed the offences in the Trafficking Charge and the Enhanced Possession Charge on 14 February 2025 and the LT2 Charge on 4 April 2025. The offences were thus committed fairly close in time to the Offender’s release from prison and longer enhanced sentences were thus apposite (Abdul Mutalib at [58]).

34 While the fresh offences were not similar in nature to the offences for which the Offender was placed on CRO, this does not necessarily militate against lengthier enhanced sentences and the focus of the inquiry would be on the gravity of the fresh offences (Abdul Mutalib at [59]). As mentioned at [32] and [33] above, the fresh offences were serious ones.

35 As regards the Offender’s commitment to rehabilitation and reintegration, I noted that he had admitted himself to the NAMS clinic in May 2025 after his arrest for the LT2 Charge. ²⁵ However, this was counterbalanced by the other factors raised above, and the fact that the Trafficking Charge represented an escalation in the Offender’s pattern of offending as he had progressed from merely possessing drugs to trafficking them. ²⁶

36 Having considered all the above factors, I proceeded to determine the enhanced sentence for the most serious offence, viz, the LT2 Charge, to the least serious offence, viz, the Enhanced Possession Charge, with reference to the sentencing bands in the Abdul Mutalib framework (Abdul Mutalib at [47]):

37 I agreed with the Prosecution’s position that:

(a) The LT2 Charge fell within the higher end of Band 2 and imposed an enhanced sentence of 52 days’ imprisonment which is 2/3 of the maximum duration that can be imposed for this offence, ie, 78 days. ²⁷

(b) The Trafficking Charge fell within the Band 2 and imposed an enhanced sentence of 63 days’ imprisonment which is approximately 1/2 of the maximum duration that can be imposed for this offence, ie, 127 days. ²⁸

(c) The Enhanced Possession Charge fell within the higher end of Band 1 and would have warranted an enhanced sentence of 42 days’ imprisonment which is approximately 1/3 of the maximum duration that can be imposed for this offence, ie, 127 days. ²⁹ However, as the combined duration of the enhanced sentences could not exceed the remaining duration of the remission order at the time of the earliest offence (Abdul Mutalib at [75]), I calibrated the enhanced sentence downwards to 12 days’ imprisonment.

38 The resultant total enhanced sentence was thus 127 days’ imprisonment which was the maximum permitted. Having taken one “last look” at all the facts and circumstances of the case, I did not think that this sentence was crushing or not in keeping with the Offender’s past record and future prospects (Abdul Mutalib at [87(d)]). As such, no adjustments were required.

39 Pursuant to s 307 of the CPC, at least two of the sentences had to run consecutively as the Offender was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for at least three distinct offences. The Prosecution submitted that the sentences for the Enhanced Possession Charge and LT2 Charge should run consecutively while the Offender urged the Court to order the sentences for the Enhanced Possession Charge and Trafficking Charge to run consecutively instead.

40 I preferred the Prosecution’s position over the Offender’s as the offences in the Enhanced Possession Charge and LT2 Charge arose from two separate incidents while the offences in the Trafficking Charge and Enhanced Possession Charge arose from the same incident. As the Offender himself raised in his Mitigation Letter and in court, the drugs involved in the Trafficking Charge and Enhanced Possession Charge were from the same stash of drugs seized from the Unit. ³⁰ Consequently, running the sentences for the Trafficking Charge and Enhanced Possession Charge consecutively might fall foul of the one-transaction rule as explained in Mohamed Shouffee bin Adam v PP [2014] 2 SLR 998 (“Mohamed Shouffee”) at [27]).

41 I also considered that the overall sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment and an enhanced sentence of 127 days’ imprisonment did not contravene the totality principle as it was not substantially above the normal level of sentences for the most serious offence, ie, the LT2 Charge which carried a mandatory minimum sentence of seven years’ imprisonment with six strokes of the cane (Mohamed Shouffee at [54]). It was also not crushing or not in keeping with the Offender’s past record and future prospects (Mohamed Shouffee at [57]).

42 Finally, while the Trafficking Charge and the LT2 Charge attracted mandatory caning, viz, a minimum of five and six strokes, respectively, the Offender was ineligible to be caned due to his age, pursuant to s 325(1)(b) of the CPC. The Prosecution did not seek an imprisonment term in lieu of caning and I did not impose any.

43 The individual sentences for the three proceeded charges were in line with the Offender’s submissions. Two of the sentences were the mandatory minimum while the third was amply justified based on the Offender’s similar antecedents. I was compelled by law to run at least two sentences consecutively and chose the sentences for the two charges involving offences committed on separate occasions. As for the enhanced sentence, I had imposed the maximum permissible as it was justified in the circumstances. The eventual sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment and an enhanced sentence of 127 days’ imprisonment is, in my view, a fair sentence commensurate with the Offender’s overall criminality.