GEEVANATHAN S/O THIRUNAVAKARUSU v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

[2023] SGHC 168 High Court (General Division) 16 June 2023 HC/MA 9060/2022/01

6 cases cited

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

“…the appeal was dismissed.”

Source: [2023] SGHC 168, High Court (General Division), decided 16 June 2023. Read directly from the judgment.

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	16 June 2023
Judge	See Kee Oon
Charges / claim	Criminal Procedure and Sentencing
Outcome	Appeal dismissed
Counsel	Attorney-General's Chambers, Eugene Thuraisingam LLP, Ong Xin Jie, Suang Wijaya, Thiagesh Sukumaran

Source: [2023] SGHC 168, High Court (General Division), decided 16 June 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing — Mandatory treatment order

Practice Areas

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing

Judges (1)

See Kee Oon Delivered

Counsel (5)

Attorney-General's Chambers Firm Eugene Thuraisingam LLP Firm Ong Xin Jie Counsel for the respondent Suang Wijaya Counsel for the appellant

Thiagesh Sukumaran Counsel for the respondent

Parties (2)

Public Prosecutor Respondent

Geevanathan s/o Thirunavakarusu Appellant

Case Significance

Geevanathan s/o Thirunavakarusu v Public Prosecutor [2023] SGHC 168 is a grounds of decision of See Kee Oon J in the General Division of the High Court, delivered on 16 June 2023 in Magistrate's Appeal No 9060 of 2022. The appeal raised the proper interpretation of s 337(2)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010, which affects the availability of a Mandatory Treatment Order as a sentencing option for offenders convicted of LT-2 drug offences. The appellant had pleaded guilty to consuming methamphetamine without authorisation under s 8(b)(ii) of the Misuse of Drugs Act and was liable under the LT-2 regime in s 33A(2); the District Judge had sentenced him to the mandatory minimum of seven years' imprisonment and six strokes of the cane.

Summary

Geevanathan s/o Thirunavakarusu, who pleaded guilty to consuming methamphetamine under the Misuse of Drugs Act as an LT-2 offender, appealed against his sentence of seven years' imprisonment and six strokes of the cane. The issue was the interpretation of s 337(2)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code and whether a Mandatory Treatment Order was available for an offence carrying a mandatory minimum sentence. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding he was not eligible for a Mandatory Treatment Order and that no suitability report should be called for.

What was Geevanathan s/o Thirunavakarusu v Public Prosecutor [2023] SGHC 168 about?

It was a sentencing appeal before See Kee Oon J, decided on 16 June 2023, on the interpretation of s 337(2)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code and whether a Mandatory Treatment Order is available for offenders convicted of LT-2 drug offences.

What sentence was imposed in [2023] SGHC 168?

The appellant pleaded guilty to consuming methamphetamine under s 8(b)(ii) of the Misuse of Drugs Act and, liable under the LT-2 regime in s 33A(2), was sentenced by the District Judge to the mandatory minimum of seven years' imprisonment and six strokes of the cane.