Geevanathan s/o Thirunavakarusu v Public Prosecutor

Geevanathan s/o Thirunavakarusu was arrested on 18 May 2020 in connection with a fire in a flat in Jurong the day before. His urine tested positive for methamphetamine, and he admitted smoking it daily for about ten months. He had an earlier conviction in 2013 for consuming monoacetylmorphine, punished as an LT-1 offence, so he was liable to enhanced punishment as an LT-2 offender under s 33A(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. He pleaded guilty to drug consumption, with a charge of mischief by fire taken into consideration.

The District Judge imposed the mandatory minimum sentence of seven years' imprisonment and six strokes of the cane and declined to call for a suitability report for a mandatory treatment order. Both sides had argued below that such an order was legally available through s 337(2)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code, because he had previously been admitted to a drug rehabilitation centre; the District Judge disagreed. The appellant appealed against sentence in Magistrate's Appeal No 9060 of 2022, relying on two Institute of Mental Health reports diagnosing drug induced psychosis on a background of stimulant use disorder. On appeal the Prosecution changed its position and argued that an order was barred in law.

1. Whether an LT-2 drug offender facing a mandatory minimum sentence is eligible in law for a mandatory treatment order.
2. Whether s 337(2)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code creates an exception to the bar on offences carrying mandatory minimum sentences.
3. Whether the District Judge should in any event have called for a suitability report.

Section 337(1) bars community orders in listed cases, including offences carrying a mandatory minimum sentence under s 337(1)(b)(ii). Applying Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General [2017] 2 SLR 850, the court held that each category in s 337(1) is distinct, following Mohamad Fairuuz bin Saleh v Public Prosecutor [2015] 1 SLR 1145, so s 337(1)(ga), covering drug offences by those previously admitted to an approved institution, applies only to drug offences without a mandatory minimum. The exceptions in s 337(2) correspond to particular exclusions: s 337(2)(b) mirrors the wording of s 337(1)(ga), and no exception corresponds to s 337(1)(b)(ii). Parliamentary statements in 2010, 2017 and 2018 confirmed that community sentencing targets offenders at the rehabilitation end of the spectrum and that a line was drawn at mandatory minimum sentences. The appellant's reading would make anyone with a prior rehabilitation centre admission eligible however serious the offence. Since the court could not impose the order, it could not call for a report. The court also corrected the District Judge's view that the appellant would have been eligible at his LT-1 conviction, since that too carries a mandatory minimum.

For completeness, the court found no error in declining a report. The psychiatric reports addressed the fire offence, not the drug consumption, and recorded the stimulant use disorder only as background. Roszaidi bin Osman v Public Prosecutor [2023] 1 SLR 222 concerned abnormality of mind and mens rea, not suitability for treatment. A disorder arising from deliberate drug use did not reduce culpability. His employment and abstinence since arrest did not outweigh more than 20 years of drug involvement.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the appellant was not eligible in law for a mandatory treatment order and that no suitability report should be called, leaving the mandatory minimum sentence undisturbed.