Amran Bin Eusuff & Anor v Public Prosecutor

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeChao Hick Tin JA
Judgment Date01 April 2002
Neutral Citation[2002] SGCA 20
Year2002
Published date04 May 2004
Citation[2002] SGCA 20
CourtCourt of Appeal (Singapore)

Between

2. Rabu Bin Rahmat ... Appellants

And

Public Prosecutor ... Respondent

Citation: Criminal Appeal No 23 of 2001
Jurisdiction: Singapore
Date: 2002:03:18
Court: Court of Appeal
Coram: Tan Lee Meng, J
Counsel:

Luke Lee (Luke Lee & Co) and David Tan Tee Boon (Lawrence Chua & Partners) for the first appellant
Ho Meng Hee (Ho Meng Hee & Co) and Johan Ismail (Johan Ismail & Co) for the second appellant

Peter Koy and Paul Chia (Deputy Public Prosecutors) for the respondent

[Delivered by Yong Pung How, CJ]

HEADNOTES

Criminal Law – Entrapment – Whether entrapment is a valid defence to a criminal charge

Criminal Law –

Misuse of Drugs – Trafficking in controlled drugs – Whether accused persons were involved in the sale and delivery of more than 500 grams of cannabis – Section 5(1)(a), 33 of the Misuse of Drugs Act

Criminal Procedure

– Appeal – Power of an appellate court to reverse findings of fact – Whether any reason to interfere with trial judge’s findings of fact

Evidence

– Admissibility of statement given to CNB officers – Test for the admissibility of confessions under section 24 of the Evidence Act – Factors affecting the admissibility of a confession - Whether the statements made by the Second Accused were admissible

Evidence

– Admissibility and weight of a confession by a co-accused – Admissibility of co-accused confession pursuant to section 30 of the Evidence Act - Whether the First Accused’s confession can be used against the Second Accused because it is reliable

Sentencing

– Trafficking more than 500 grams of cannabis – Entrapment - Whether there is a judicial discretion to reduce the sentence from one of death to life imprisonment on account of the entrapment – Section 33 and the Second Schedule of the Misuse of Drugs Act

Facts

Amran bin Eusuff (‘Amran’) and Rabu bin Rahmat (‘Rabu’) were jointly charged with committing an offence under s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, read with s 34 of the Penal Code and punishable under s 33 of the Misuse of Drugs Act for trafficking in more than 500 grams of cannabis, in furtherance of a common intention of them both, by delivering 2174.86 grams of cannabis to an undercover CNB officer, Mohd Nabil bin Shahar on 3 May 2001.

On 1 May 2001, Corporal Fazuri bin Isnin (‘CPL Fazuri’) of the CNB received information that a person named "Daud" was looking for a buyer of cannabis. The next day, he managed to get in contact with Daud and his partner who was called "Abu". CPL Fazuri posed as a buyer named "Boy" and negotiated with both of them to purchase 3 kg of cannabis to be delivered on 3 May 2001. On that date, two CNB officers posed as Boy’s men. These officers met with Amran and Rabu, who introduced themselves as "Daud" and "Abu" respectively. Both Amran and Rabu got into a car that the undercover officers were in. The car was driven to Bukit Merah View where Rabu alighted to collect the drugs. He returned to the car and handed the drugs to one of the undercover officer. The CNB officer then signalled to his colleagues to move in to arrest the two suspects whereupon the undercover car was intercepted. Amran and Rabu tried to flee but were eventually arrested.

Amran made two long statements to the Investigating Officer. He admitted that he and Rabu negotiated the sale of cannabis to CPL Fazuri and that he went with Rabu to deliver the drugs to the undercover CNB officers. He admitted that he did so for the commission he was promised. As for Rabu, he also made two long statements to the Investigating Officer. In the first one, he denied flatly that he was involved in drug trafficking. However, in the second statement, he admitted that he procured the drugs to sell to Boy.

During the trial, Amran claimed that he did not own the drugs and that he was entrapped to commit the offence. Rabu argued that he made the statements to the CNB involuntarily and that he was actually not involved in the trafficking at all. The trial judge rejected all the defences raised by both accused, convicted them of drug trafficking and sentenced them to death. Both accused appealed against his decision.

Held

, dismissing both appeals
  1. Entrapment is not a valid defence to a criminal charge. The central thesis of our criminal law is that a person who voluntarily, and with the necessary intent, commits all the elements of a criminal offence is guilty of that offence, regardless of whether he was induced to do so. Amran admitted to the offence and could not be exonerated on the grounds of entrapment. (¶ ¶ 29,30)
  2. Rabu’s appeal against conviction was an appeal against the trial judge’s findings of fact. The usual caution that an appellate court should not overturn a trial judge’s finding of fact unless it is clearly wrong, applied. (¶ 32)
  3. The burden was on the prosecution to prove that the statements made by Rabu were made voluntarily. The test for the admissibility of such statements is partly objective and partly subjective. The prosecution must show objectively that there was no threat inducement or promise. If it failed to prove that, it must show that although there was an objective threat, inducement or promise, it did not actually operate on the mind of the accused in question. (¶ 34)
  4. Reading a previous statement made by an accused person back to him at the start of the recording of another statement to refresh the memory of the accused does not amount to an objective threat. It is a self-induced threat which does not cause a statement to be inadmissible. (¶ 36)
  5. The denial of family visits would not make Rabu more susceptible to making an involuntary and inadmissible statement as compared to other accused persons. Such a measure is necessary during the period of interrogation. (¶ 41)
  6. The trial judge rightly decided that Rabu was not unwell or deprived of food and sleep to the extent that he could not make a voluntary statement (¶ 41)
  7. Amran’s confession was admissible as against Rabu, pursuant to s 30 of the EEvidence Act. It was also reliable because Amran implicated himself fully for a serious offence carrying a mandatory death penalty, he did not seek to shift the blame to Rabu and gave evidence which was credible as a whole. (¶ 47)
  8. The evidence against Rabu was overwhelming. His statements to the CNB, Amran’s evidence against him and the independent evidence available clearly pointed to his guilt (¶ 53)
  9. Under s 33(1), read with the Second Schedule of the Misuse of Drugs Act, the court does not have any judicial discretion to reduce Rabu’s sentence from one of death to life imprisonment. It is irrelevant whether Rabu had been entrapped to commit the offence (¶¶ 54,55)

Case(s) referred to

Chin Seow Noi & Ors. v PP [1994] 1 SLR 135 (folld)
Gulam bin Notan v PP [1999] 1 SLR 26 (folld)
How Poh Sun v PP [1991] 1 SLR 220 (folld)
Ng Ai Tiong v PP [2000] 1 SLR 454 (folld)
SM Summit Holdings v PP [1997] 3 SLR 922 (folld)

Legislation referred to

Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 1998 Ed.), ss 5(1)(a), 33, Second Schedule
Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Ed.)
, s 34

Judgment

GROUNDS OF DECISION

This was an appeal against the decision of Judicial Commissioner Tay Yong Kwang, who convicted the appellants, Amran Bin Eusuff (‘Amran’) and Rabu Bin Rahmat (‘Rabu’) of an offence pursuant to s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185)(‘the Act’) read with s 34 of the Penal Code (Cap 224) and punishable under s 33 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The judge sentenced both appellants to suffer death.


The charge

2 The charge against Amran and Rabu read as follows:

That you, 1) Amran Bin Eusuff and 2) Rabu Bin Rahmat, on or about the 3rd day of May 2001 at about 8.10 p.m. at along Bukit Merah View in motor car SZA 5202 M, Singapore, in furtherance of the common intention of you both, did traffic in a controlled drug specified in Class ‘A’ of the First Schedule of the Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185, to wit, by giving to one Mohd Nabil Bin Shahar 6 blocks of vegetable matter containing 2174.86 grams of cannabis at the said place, without any authorisation under the said Act or the regulations made thereafter, and you have thereby committed an offence under section 5 (1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, read with section 34 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224, and punishable under section 33 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185


The prosecution’s case

3 The prosecution presented the following facts. On 1 May 2001, at about 8:30 p.m., an agent contacted Corporal Fazuri Bin Isnin (‘CPL Fazuri’) of the CNB and informed him that a man named "Daud" was looking for a buyer of cannabis. CPL Fazuri told the agent to contact Daud to recommend him as a buyer called "Man Boy". When contacted, Daud asked the agent to relay the message to CPL Fazuri to call him at telephone number "4688965" the next night to discuss the deal. This number belonged to a public telephone at a coffeeshop along Sixth Avenue.

4 On 2 May 2001, at about 8 p.m., CPL Fazuri called Daud at the pre-arranged number and told him that he wanted to buy 1 kg of cannabis. Daud said he had to check the stuff and the price first. He called back about ten minutes later and informed CPL Fazuri that the price would be cheaper if he were to buy 3 kg of cannabis instead. CPL Fazuri said that he would check with his partner and call Daud back. About 15 minutes later, CPL Fazuri called and told Daud that he would take 3 kg if the price was right. Daud said that he wanted $6,000 for the drugs and CPL Fazuri bargained with him to reduce the price. Daud then handed the phone over to a person called "Abu". Abu continued the negotiations with CPL Fazuri and finally agreed to accept $5,000 for the drugs. He told CPL Fazuri that either he or Daud would contact him the next day to confirm the time and place of delivery of the drugs.

5 The next day, Daud called CPL Fazuri to arrange a meeting with him later that evening at the 7-eleven store along Sixth Avenue to collect...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Wong Keng Leong Rayney v Law Society of Singapore
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 5 October 2006
    ...[2004] 3 SLR (R) 253; [2004] 3 SLR 253 (folld) Ajmer Singh v PP [1985-1986] SLR (R) 1030; [1986] SLR 454 (refd) Amran bin Eusuff v PP [2002] SGCA 20 (refd) Carolyn Tan Beng Hui v Law Society of Singapore [1999] SGHC 23 (folld) Chan Hiang Leng Colin v Minister for Information and the Arts [1......
  • Law Society of Singapore v Tan Guat Neo Phyllis
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 4 December 2007
    ...an invalid search warrant, and not the admissibility of such evidence at trial; and (ii) the Court of Appeal, in Amran bin Eusuff v PP [2002] SGCA 20 (“Amran bin Eusuff”), has affirmed the position taken in How Poh Sun and has further clarified that Summit did not change the law as stated i......
  • Wong Keng Leong Rayney v Law Society of Singapore
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 6 September 2007
    ...the three subsequent decisions, viz, Goh Lai Wak v PP [1994] 1 SLR 748, PP v Rozman bin Jusoh [1995] 3 SLR 317 and Amran bin Eusuff v PP [2002] SGCA 20, the Court of Appeal in each case merely referred to its decision in How Poh Sun, without making clear whether it was dealing with a case o......
  • Public Prosecutor v Ong Chin Keat Jeffrey
    • Singapore
    • District Court (Singapore)
    • 31 May 2004
    ...Court of Appeal has emphatically laid down the proposition that entrapment is not a substantive defence. In Amran bin Eusuff & Anor v PP [2002] SGCA 20, which was not cited by counsel, the Court of Appeal stated, at para 29 … the defence of entrapment was obviously unavailable to exonerate ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • THE CONCEPT OF VOLUNTARINESS IN THE LAW OF CONFESSIONS
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2005, December 2005
    • 1 December 2005
    ...supra n 45, was applicable and that the defence of entrapment therefore did not apply. This position was affirmed in Amran Bin Eusuff v PP[2002] SGCA 20 and recently in Ong Chin Keat Jeffrey v PP[2004] 4 SLR 483. Although the court in How Poh Sun did not discuss Cheng Swee Tiang, it stands ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT