Abdul Raman bin Yusof and Another v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Goh Joon Seng J
• Judgment Date: 29 July 1996
• Neutral Citation: [1996] SGCA 41
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 13 of 1996
• Date: 29 July 1996
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1996
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ismail Hamid (Edmond Pereira & Co) and Kok Mun Loon (Charles N Mendis & Partners) (both assigned)
• Citation: [1996] SGCA 41
• Defendant Counsel: Ong Hian Sun (Deputy Public Prosecutor),Edward D'Souza (Edward D'Souza) and Mohd Nasser (A Rohim Pereira & Nasser) (both assigned)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Complicity,Trafficking in controlled drugs,Common intention,s 2 & Second Schedule Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185),Misuse of Drugs Act,Inference from surrounding circumstances,Whether charge of trafficking in cannabis correct where constituents of compressed block of vegetable matter included cannabis mixture,Statutory offences,s 34 Penal Code (Cap 224),Cannabis mixture

Cur Adv Vult

The appellants, Abdul Raman bin Yusof (Abdul Raman) and La Abuhari bin La Ode Hamid (Abuhari), were jointly charged that, in furtherance of the common intention of them both, they trafficked in 852.3g of cannabis by delivering the same to Narcotics Officer Rosli bin Mustaffa (NO Rosli) on or about 4 August 1995 at about 3.30pm in motor car SBN 2951U, parked outside 459 Changi Road, Singapore, without authorisation, an offence under s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) (the Act) read with s 34 of the Penal Code and punishable under s 33 of the Act. They were similarly charged with a second offence of trafficking in 119.3g of cannabis mixture. A third person was charged with abetting Abdul Raman and Abuhari in the commission of the two offences with which they were jointly charged.

At the close of the prosecution`s case the learned trial judge adjourned the trial of the charges against the third person until after the trial of the charges against Abdul Raman and Abuhari, pursuant to s 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and proceeded with the trial of the charge against Abdul Raman and Abuhari of trafficking in 852.3g of cannabis. The charge against them of trafficking in 119.3g of cannabis mixture was stood down for the time being at the request of prosecuting counsel.

At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial judge thought that the circumstances necessitated an amendment of the quantity of cannabis trafficked in, from 852.3g to 590.23g, which amendment was duly made and both Abdul Raman and Abuhari were convicted and sentenced with the statutory penalty of death. Against this conviction both Abdul Raman and Abuhari have appealed.

The version of facts accepted by the learned trial judge is that in an undercover operation in which NO Rosli played the part of agent provocateur and in which other CNB officers participated, including in particular NO Rosli`s superior, Sgt Riduan, an activity of trafficking in cannabis in and from a coffeeshop at 459 Changi Road known as the Ameera Coffee Shop (the coffeeshop) was uncovered. The learned trial judge noted that the testimonies of NO Rosli and Sgt Riduan were `mutually consistent` and that the testimonies of the other CNB officers who gave evidence `bespoke a version in harmony` with what was narrated by NO Rosli and Sgt Riduan. Briefly, the facts are these.

On 4 August 1995 at about 1.15pm NO Rosli and a CNB agent arrived at the coffeeshop and sat at a table. Shortly thereafter Abuhari, who speaks with an Indonesian accent, approached them at the table and soon after left with the CNB agent for another table where they appeared to have a private discussion between themselves. They then returned to the table at which NO Rosli was still seated followed by Abdul Raman. Abdul Raman runs the coffeeshop. The CNB agent introduced NO Rosli to Abdul Raman and Abuhari as `Bai`, whilst Abdul Raman introduced himself as `Man` and Abuhari introduced himself as `Abu`. The language spoken then and thereafter was Malay.

This done, NO Rosli asked Abdul Raman whether he had any barang to sell. He explained that the word barang is generally understood by the Malays to mean cannabis. Abdul Raman acknowledged that he had and stated the price of $2,400 for one batu , the Malay for kilogram. A discussion then followed as to whether Abdul Raman could supply more than 1 kg and, if so, whether there would be a reduction in the price. Abdul Raman explained that his supply was limited to 1 kg as his supplier wanted payment before he would supply more. After some bargaining Abdul Raman agreed to the price of $1,900 for 1 kg of cannabis.

Just then the telephone rang and Abdul Raman went to answer it. While Abdul Raman was away at the telephone, Abuhari told NO Rosli that he too knew the supplier and asked for NO Rosli`s pager number suggesting that they could deal directly with the supplier and bypass Abdul Raman. NO Rosli provided his pager number on a piece of paper to Abuhari. At about this time, Abdul Raman beckoned to NO Rosli to join him at the telephone saying that the supplier was at the other end. NO Rosli responded and spoke with the supplier on the telephone when the supplier assured NO Rosli that more would be forthcoming.

NO Rosli then returned to the table at which he was seated previously and joined Abuhari and the CNB agent, who were still seated there. Abdul Raman, having finished his conversation on the telephone with the supplier, also joined them at the table. NO Rosli told them that he would be leaving shortly to get the money and inquired whether the transaction could take place elsewhere. Abdul Raman insisted that the deal must take place there. NO Rosli left the coffeeshop at about 2pm with the CNB agent saying that he would return with the money at about 3pm.

After leaving the coffeeshop NO Rosli met with Sgt Riduan and the other CNB officers to brief them of what had happened in the coffeeshop earlier. Sgt Riduan then instructed NO Rosli that the transaction must take place outside the coffeeshop and preferably inside the motor car in which he would go to the coffeeshop with the money. NO Rosli was also instructed by Sgt Riduan to turn on the hazard lights once the transaction was completed as a signal for the CNB officers to move in and make the arrests.

At about 3.20pm NO Rosli drove up to the coffeeshop in motor car SBN 2951U and sounded the car horn. Abuhari came to the car and when NO Rosli asked him for the cannabis Abuhari told him to park the car and wait. NO Rosli said he could not do that as there were no parking places available and suggested that Abuhari be ready with the cannabis, whilst he circled round and came back. When he returned Abuhari, who was still empty-handed, got into the car and sat beside NO Rosli. He told NO Rosli that Abdul Raman wanted to see the money before he would deliver the cannabis. NO Rosli took out a white envelope from the glove compartment and waved it at Abuhari saying the money was inside it. Abuhari then left the car to go into the coffeeshop and returned moments later still empty-handed to say that Abdul Raman insisted on seeing the money personally. But NO Rosli was adamant in seeing the cannabis first and threatened to abort the transaction if the cannabis was not brought to him forthwith. Abuhari went back to the coffeeshop once again and returned to the car, this time, carrying a black plastic bag. He entered the car and when seated beside NO Rosli handed him the black plastic bag. NO Rosli could see that it contained a bundle bound with brown masking tape and through an opening in the bundle he saw a block of greenish vegetable matter. He immediately gave the signal agreed on and the CNB officers moved in and arrested Abuhari. Other CNB officers went into the coffeeshop and arrested Abdul Raman.

Sgt Riduan now took over. Abdul Raman and Abuhari were taken to the upper floor of the coffeeshop and questioned by him as to the contents of the black plastic bag when they are said to have answered in unison `ganja`. Later that day at CNB headquarters cautioned statements were recorded from each of them. Out of an abundance of caution the learned trial judge held a voir dire before admitting in evidence the answer given to the oral questioning referred to above and the cautioned statements, although neither appellant alleged that there had been threats, inducements or promises at any time whatever. Their contention was that they had not responded with the answer `ganja` to the oral questioning and that they either did not make the cautioned statements or that the cautioned statements did not reflect what had been told to the recording officer. Hence, admissibility in evidence of the oral answer referred to earlier and the cautioned statements was not an issue. Abdul Raman`s cautioned statement was:

I did not sell the drugs to Rosli. It was Abuhari who asked me to get the drugs for a buyer. I didn`t go to the car to sell the drugs. Abuhari was the one who approached the car to keep his appointment with the buyer.

And Abuhari`s cautioned statement was:

I didn`t admit and denied at all the charges. I was asked by Abdul Raman to bring the cannabis to the officer, subsequently the officer arrested me. I was not aware about the price. I denied the charge. The cannabis does not belong to me.

The block of greenish vegetable matter delivered to NO Rosli by Abuhari, as recounted above, was in due course sent to the Department of Scientific Services for analysis. The scientific analysis was carried out by Dr Lee Tong Kooi, who then issued the certificate under s 16 of the Act. In it Dr Lee certified that the block of vegetable matter contained 852.3g of cannabis and 119.3g of cannabis mixture.

In giving evidence at the trial, Dr Lee gave an elaborate description of the procedures he had followed in analysing the block of greenish vegetable matter. Briefly it was this:

(i) He described that the block of greenish vegetable mater was compressed so much so that he had to use a screw driver to `prise open` the compressed matter into `several thin slabs of compressed vegetable matter`. He then used his fingers to separate the compressed vegetable matter into individual branches. Some were `intact` by which he meant that they were whole branches with stems and leaves. He grouped them together and classified them as `intact branches`. Others, since the vegetable matter was `dry and brittle`, had broken into small pieces. He was able to group such broken pieces together which he classified as `fragmented vegetable matter`. A very small quantity he could not classify as either `intact branches` or `fragmented vegetable matter`. These formed the third category which he classified as `extraneous matter`.

(ii) Using an electronic balance he weighed the `intact branches`, the `fragmented vegetable matter` and the `extraneous matter`. These weighed 852.35g, 119.38g and 3.64g...