Court of Appeal clarifies application of guilty plea guidelines in drug trafficking cases

On 28 November 2024, the Court of Appeal released its judgment on the applications in Iskandar bin Jinan v Public Prosecutor and another appeal ([2024] SGCA 55), involving Iskandar bin Jinan and Mohd Farid Merican, both of whom sought a review of their sentences.

Both men had been convicted of drug trafficking under Singapore’s Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA).

The court upheld Iskandar’s 32-year sentence but reduced Farid’s sentence from 31 to 30 years. The ruling clarified the application of the Plea of Guilt (PG) Guidelines to serious drug offences, emphasising proportionality and consistency in sentencing.

Iskandar, 57, faced charges for trafficking 14.99g of diamorphine, possessing methamphetamine for trafficking, and consuming methamphetamine.

He had four prior drug trafficking convictions spanning 1987 to 2008 and received a global sentence of 32 years from the High Court.

Farid, 51, pleaded guilty to conspiring with Iskandar to traffic 14.99g of diamorphine and other offences. With one prior drug trafficking conviction from 2007, he was sentenced to 31 years.

However, the High Court mistakenly calculated his age at release. Farid confirmed at appeal that he did not contest the global sentence itself but sought clarity.

The Plea of Guilt (PG) Guidelines, introduced in 2023, allow sentencing discounts of up to 30% for early guilty pleas.

These aim to incentivise cooperation, save judicial resources, and spare victims the ordeal of trial. However, the Court of Appeal capped reductions at 10% for drug offences at Stage 1, noting that full reductions could result in “disproportionately lenient sentences” that undermine deterrence.

The judges observed, “The PG Guidelines were never intended to be applied in a fixed and rigid manner. They must be calibrated to the nature of the offence and the sentencing precedents for that offence.”

They added that in drug cases, “proportionality must remain central to the sentencing exercise.”

The court also clarified the “public interest exception,” which allows deviations from the PG Guidelines in egregious cases, such as repeat offenders with numerous drug trafficking antecedents.

However, it stressed that this exception should not be applied indiscriminately. “The exception cannot be wielded as a blunt tool to exclude the application of the PG Guidelines in every case involving a repeat offender and a quantity of drugs just below the capital threshold,” the judges wrote.

In Iskandar’s case, the court upheld his 29-year sentence for trafficking 14.99g of diamorphine, citing his “significant number of drug-trafficking antecedents” and invoking the public interest exception to deny any reduction.

His global sentence of 32 years, including the mandatory minimum for methamphetamine consumption, remained unchanged.

The court noted, “The extensive record of four prior convictions for drug trafficking over three decades firmly places this case in the category of egregious cases.”

For Farid, the court reduced his sentence for trafficking from 28 to 27 years.

Unlike Iskandar, Farid had only one drug trafficking antecedent from 2007, which did not meet the threshold for invoking the public interest exception.

Applying the PG Guidelines, the court arrived at a global sentence of 30 years. “While Farid is a repeat offender, his antecedents are neither numerous nor egregious,” the judges observed, cautioning against categorical applications of the public interest exception.

This judgment highlights the need for balance between mitigating guilty pleas and ensuring proportionate punishment for serious crimes.

By capping reductions at 10% for drug offences and refining the public interest exception, the Court of Appeal affirmed that proportionality remains central to Singapore’s sentencing framework.