Is Heroin legal in Singapore?

What sentences have courts imposed for Heroin in Singapore?

Prosecutions recorded in Singapore, each checked against the official document cited below it. Individuals are never named, and these are examples of what has happened, not a prediction of what will. How we verify a court case.

Across 10 verified cases, sentences ranged from 2 years and 9 months to 18 years. 6 cases carried the death penalty; 1 case carried life imprisonment.

• The General Division of the High Court of Singapore convicted the accused on four proceeded charges under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The court sentenced the accused to death on the first charge and to 14 years' imprisonment in the aggregate for the remaining three. A further charge concerning not less than 1.01g of methamphetamine was stood down by the Prosecution.

  2021an accused person

  Charge having in his possession for the purpose of trafficking (s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) and punishable under s 33(1))

  Quantity not less than 38.78 g heroin; not less than 7.22 g heroin; not less than 17.62 g methamphetamine

  convicted on four charges, sentenced to death on the first and 14 years' imprisonment in the aggregate on the rest

  Substances recorded synthetic-cannabinoids, heroin, methamphetamine

  Source eLitigation (Singapore Courts) [2025] SGHC 37

• The General Division of the High Court of Singapore convicted the accused on two proceeded charges under the Misuse of Drugs Act, one concerning diamorphine and one concerning not less than 624.5g of cannabis. The alternative sentencing regime under s 33B was unavailable to him, so the mandatory death penalty applied and the court pronounced the death sentence on each of the two charges. Further charges stood down at the start of the trial were withdrawn by the Prosecution.

  2020an accused person

  convicted on two charges, sentenced to death on each

  Substances recorded cannabis, heroin

  Source eLitigation (Singapore Courts) [2026] SGHC 38

• The General Division of the High Court of Singapore convicted the accused on charges under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The court found that he was not a courier, so the alternative sentencing regime was not available to him, and sentenced him to the mandatory death penalty.

  2020an accused person

  Charge trafficking in a controlled drug (s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act)

  Quantity not less than 24.64 g heroin

  convicted, sentenced to the mandatory death penalty

  Substances recorded heroin

  Source eLitigation (Singapore Courts) [2023] SGHC 182

• The General Division of the High Court of Singapore convicted the accused on two charges under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Both statutory conditions for the alternative sentencing regime were satisfied, so the court imposed life imprisonment and caning instead of the death penalty, sentencing the accused to life imprisonment and the minimum of 15 strokes of the cane on each of the two charges. Because the global number of strokes could not exceed the statutory maximum, the total caning imposed was 24 strokes.

  2020a 29-year-old accused person

  Charge importing controlled drugs without authorisation (s 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act)

  Quantity not less than 42.18 g heroin; not less than 330.8 g methamphetamine

  convicted on two charges, life imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane

  Substances recorded heroin, methamphetamine

  Source eLitigation (Singapore Courts) [2026] SGHC 137

• A 29-year-old Malaysian man collected a paper bag left for him on the ground between two dustbins on a Singapore street, on his supplier's instructions, and was arrested shortly afterwards. The packet inside was certified as containing not less than 16.19 grams of diamorphine, above the fifteen grams at which the death penalty is prescribed. He was charged with possessing not less than 9.99 grams for the purpose of trafficking, the top of the highest non-capital band. He pleaded guilty, was found to have acted as a courier, and was sentenced to 13 years' imprisonment and 10 strokes of the cane.

  2019a man, 29, found to have acted as a courier

  Charge for the purpose of trafficking (s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2), Misuse of Drugs Act)

  Quantity not less than 9.99 g heroin

  convicted on a guilty plea of possessing diamorphine for the purpose of trafficking, 13 years' imprisonment and 10 strokes of the cane

  Substances recorded heroin

  Source eLitigation (Singapore Courts) [2022] SGHC 37

• The High Court of Singapore convicted the accused of trafficking in diamorphine. The court found that he was not a courier but bought diamorphine in order to sell it on to his own customers for profit, so the alternative sentencing regime was unavailable and the death sentence followed as mandated by s 33(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act read with the Second Schedule.

  2017a 37-year-old accused person

  convicted, sentenced to death

  Substances recorded heroin

  Source eLitigation (Singapore Courts) [2023] SGHC 142

• Police stopped the respondent at a shopping centre on 12 July 2016, after which he tried to flee. Drugs and utensils were recovered from his bag and residence. On the enhanced diamorphine-possession count, the High Court concluded that the mandatory minimum did not adequately reflect his antecedents and TIC charges and increased the term to two years and nine months.

  2016repeat adult drug offender arrested after a police spot check

  convicted of enhanced possession of diamorphine, two years nine months imprisonment

  Substances recorded heroin

  Source eLitigation (Singapore Courts) [2018] SGHC 151

• In August 2016 a 38-year-old Singaporean man collected three wrapped bundles from a courier in his car and drove to await delivery instructions, where officers arrested him. The bundles held not less than 54.04 grams of diamorphine, and his only defence was that he believed he was carrying smuggled cigarettes because the man who engaged him had said so. The courts rejected that account and he could not rebut the presumption that he knew what he was carrying. He was found to be a courier, but no certificate of substantive assistance was issued, so the death sentence was mandatory and the Court of Appeal upheld it in 2022.

  2016a Singaporean man, 38 at the time of the offence, a freelance delivery man

  Charge possession of a controlled drug for the purpose of trafficking (s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2), Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed))

  Quantity not less than 54.04 g heroin

  convicted of possession of diamorphine for the purpose of trafficking, mandatory death penalty

  Substances recorded heroin

  Source eLitigation (Singapore Courts) [2022] SGCA 23

• Officers of the Central Narcotics Bureau arrested the accused at a rented room in 2015 and seized packets later analysed as diamorphine. The High Court convicted the accused of possession of not less than 25.01g of diamorphine for the purpose of trafficking. The court imposed the mandatory death penalty.

  2015an accused person in a rented room

  convicted of possession of diamorphine for the purpose of trafficking, mandatory death penalty

  Substances recorded heroin

  Source eLitigation (Singapore Courts) [2021] SGHC 211

• In August 2008 a 36-year-old man rode a motorcycle into Singapore at a land border checkpoint, where officers found four wrapped bundles in his carrier basket. One held not less than 27.86 grams of diamorphine, nearly twice the quantity that attracts the death penalty. He was a courier repaying a debt who had asked his supplier whether heroin would ever be involved and had been told it would not be. The Court of Appeal held that failing to check the package was at most negligence, set aside the capital conviction, and sentenced him to 18 years' imprisonment and 8 strokes.

  2008a man, 36 at the time of the offence, a courier repaying a debt

  Charge attempting to import “Class A” controlled drugs (other than diamorphine) (s 7 read with s 12 of the Misuse of Drugs Act)

  convicted of attempting to import Class A controlled drugs, 18 years' imprisonment and 8 strokes of the cane

  Substances recorded heroin

  Source eLitigation (Singapore Courts) [2011] SGCA 17