Abdul Ra`uf bin Abdul Rahman v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lai Kew Chai J
• Judgment Date: 05 October 1999
• Neutral Citation: [1999] SGCA 73
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 15 of 1999
• Date: 05 October 1999
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1999
• Plaintiff Counsel: Peter Keith Fernando and Johan Ismail (Leo Fernando)
• Citation: [1999] SGCA 73
• Defendant Counsel: Amarjit Singh (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Statutory offences,s 7 Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185),Whether accused knows of drugs in car,Whether accused knew or intended to import drugs,Importation of controlled drugs,Whether accused has requisite mens rea,Whether findings of fact by trial judge can be disturbed by appellate court unless clearly against weight of evidence,Misuse of Drugs Act,Criminal Law

(delivering the grounds of judgment of the court): Introduction

The appellant was charged under s 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) (the `Act`) for importing into Singapore without authorisation four packets containing not less than 21.45g of diamorphine, through the Woodlands checkpoint on 3 March 1999. At the conclusion of the trial, the appellant was convicted as charged and was sentenced to death. The appellant appealed against his conviction.

The prosecution`s case

At about 8.10pm on 3 March 1999, the appellant and his wife Rohani bte Alime (`Rohani`) arrived at the Woodlands checkpoint from Johore Bahru in a Malaysian registered motor car WCT 5564. At the material time, the police officers from the Criminal Investigation Department (`CID`) and Special Tactics and Rescue Unit were waiting in ambush for the aforesaid car, having received instructions to apprehend a suspected drug trafficker who would be travelling in it.

When the car arrived at the immigration booth, both the appellant and Rohani were arrested. As ordered, the appellant came out of the car and lay down on the road next to the car. A body search was conducted on the appellant but nothing incriminating was found on him. Inspector Ng Poh Lai (`Insp Ng`) of the CID then asked him whether he had smuggled anything into Singapore to which the appellant said that he had not done anything wrong. Subsequently, Insp Ng instructed Staff Sergeant Lai Chun Hoong (`S/Sgt Lai`) to bring the appellant and Rohani to a lock-up in the Woodlands police post nearby. In the meantime, the car was moved to an emergency bay to prevent obstruction of traffic. To ensure that no one tampered with the car, Insp Ng also told Senior Station Inspector Chan Cheow Meng to stand guard over it. No drugs were found when the officers searched the car with the assistance of dogs from the police dog unit.

Meanwhile, the appellant was questioned by S/Sgt Lai in the lock-up. S/Sgt Lai asked the appellant, `Where is the thing?` The appellant said `the thing` in his car was `behind the car boot`. S/Sgt Lai then asked, `How many are there?` and the appellant replied, `Four packets.` After that, S/Sgt Lai asked the appellant to show him where `the thing` was and the appellant agreed. S/Sgt Lai then informed Insp Ng that the appellant had made a confession that he had drugs in the boot of the car.

S/Sgt Lai brought the appellant to the car and another search was conducted in his presence. Insp Ng asked the appellant where the drugs were. The appellant pointed to the right side of the boot and said, `Behind.` Insp Ng then pulled aside the rear carpeted panel of the boot and found a brown packet. He asked the appellant whether it contained drugs and the accused confirmed that it did. The appellant also told him that there were three other packets, all of which weighed about a pound each. Insp Ng replaced the panel and closed the boot. Following that, the appellant was taken back to the police post and the matter was referred to the officers from the Central Narcotics Bureau (`CNB`) who took over the investigation of the case.

The CNB officers, led by investigating officer ASP KC Wong (`ASP Wong`), arrived at the scene at about 11pm.. On the instructions of ASP Wong, Staff Sergeant Mohd Rusdi (S/Sgt Rusdi) of the CNB asked the appellant a series of questions in Malay. The questions and answers were recorded on a piece of paper (exh P38) and are set out below together with the English translation:

Q: Awak tahu kenapa awak kena tankap? (Do you know why you were arrested?)

A: Pasal itu barang . (Because of the thing.)

Q: Barang apa? (What thing?)

A: Obat (heroin). (Medicine (heroin).)

Q: Berapa banyak? (How much?)

A: Empat packet . (Four packets.)

Q: Satu packet berapa banyak? (How much is one packet?)

A: Satu packet 400 gm . (One packet 400 grams.)

Q: Barang itu dimana? (Where is that thing?)

A: Dibonet belakang . (In the rear bonnet.)

Q: Dimana? (Where?)

A: Dikereta saya. (In my car.)

The appellant also told S/Sgt Rusdi that `the thing` belonged to him and that his wife did not know anything about it.

The CNB officers then proceeded to search for the drugs in the boot of the car. The appellant was standing near the car during the search. Sergeant Dennis Sim Chee Khoon (`Sgt Sim`) pulled down the carpeted panel on the right side of the boot and retrieved three packets from behind the panel. At first, he could not find the fourth packet. ASP Wong then turned to the appellant and asked him whether there was a total of three or four packets, to which the appellant replied that there were four packets. ASP Wong also asked the appellant whether he had personally placed the packets in the boot and the appellant replied that he had. Sgt Sim resumed the search and found the last packet. When all four packets were recovered at about 11.30pm, S/Sgt Rusdi invited the appellant to read the contents of exh P38. After reading it, the appellant signed at the bottom of the page.

At about 4.10am on 4 March 1999, ASP Wong recorded the appellant`s cautioned statement under s 122(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) (`CPC`) and it reads:

My wife has nothing to do with the heroin. I was the only one responsible for the heroin. I appeal for a lighter punishment. Please don`t give me the death penalty.

The contents of the four packets were analysed by Dr Saw Chwee Guan , a scientific officer attached to the Department of Scientific Services, and were found to be diamorphine. The total nett weight of the diamorphine was 21.45g.

The prosecution submitted that ss 21 and 18(2) of the Act raised the twin presumptions that the appellant was in possession of the drugs which were found in the car that he was driving and that he knew the nature of the drugs. Further, the admissions he made to the police and the CNB officers clearly demonstrated that he had imported the packets into Singapore knowing that they contained diamorphine.

The defence

The appellant had been staying with Rohani in Pasir Gudang. On 3 March 1999, the appellant decided to go to Singapore to meet a friend named Kamin in Yishun who was considering renting a coffee stall to him. Razak, a friend of the appellant, was staying at the appellant`s house at that time. When he realised that the appellant was going to Singapore, he wanted to take a lift from him to Singapore and he also told him that he needed his help in bringing four packets into Singapore. When the appellant asked him what the packets contained, he initially refused to tell him. However, when the appellant repeated the question, he opened one packet and told the appellant that it was `obat` which was understood by the appellant to mean heroin.

The appellant was `astounded` by the contents of the packet and was unwilling to let Razak bring the packets with him as he knew that they were illegal and that there was a large quantity of drugs. During cross-examination, the appellant agreed with the deputy public prosecutor that he was frightened and he admitted that his fear arose from the fact that he might face a very heavy penalty if he were caught with the drugs.

Nevertheless, he eventually relented upon Razak`s persistent pleadings and subsequent assurance that he would `take responsibility` for the packets. The appellant told him, `Razak, I do not know anything, this is your matter. If you want to take responsibility, that`s your business.` Razak then placed the drugs in the boot of the car in the presence of the appellant. About five minutes later, Rohani came out of the house and all three of them proceeded to Singapore in the car.

In the vicinity of a departmental store known as `The Store`, about four or five km from the Johore Bahru/Singapore causeway, Razak made a call on his handphone. After the call, he told the appellant...