Mohamed Faizi bin Abdul Rahim v Public Prosecutor

• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 28 February 1999
• Neutral Citation: [1999] SGCA 14
• Citation: [1999] SGCA 14
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)

Judgment:

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

delivered by L P Thean JA...

Introduction

The charge against the appellant, Mohamed Faizi bin Abdul Rahim, was that on or about 9 March 1998 at about 11.30 pm at Block 247, Tampines Street 21, #08-279, Singapore he trafficked in a quantity of diamorphine of not less than 168.42 grams by having those drugs in his possession for the purpose of trafficking, an offence under s 5 (1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 1997 ed) (‘the Act’) and punishable under s 33 of the Act. He was tried and was convicted of the charge, and was sentenced to suffer death. He appealed against his conviction. We dismissed the appeal and now give our reasons.

The facts

The undisputed facts were these. On 9 March 1998 at about 11.30 pm, a party of officers from the Central Narcotics Bureau (‘CNB’) raided the appellant’s flat, Blk 247, Tampines Street 21, #08-279, Singapore. After knocking at the door loudly for sometime, they were finally let into the premises by the appellant. Upon entering, Staff Sgt Ariffin bin Abdul Kadir (‘S/Sgt Ariffin’) asked the appellant whether he had any ‘stuff’ to surrender. The appellant replied that he did not have. A search of the flat was conducted and the officers discovered two bulky white plastic bags containing certain substance and some envelopes in the top locked drawer of a cabinet in the appellant’s bedroom. The appellant admitted to S/Sgt Ariffin that the drawers and the keys to the drawers belonged to him. When he was asked about the contents of the two plastic bags, the appellant said ‘heroin’. The appellant further told S/Sgt Ariffin that the drugs belonged to one Gulam and he was merely keeping the drugs for Gulam S/Sgt Ariffin informed Insp Jason Tan Swee Lin of the conversation, and the inspector then asked the appellant a number of questions which the latter answered. These questions and answers were recorded by the inspector on a piece of paper which was signed by the appellant. They were as follows:

" Q: Are those keys yours?

A: Yes.

Q: The keys open the drawer containing the 2 packets?

A: Yes.

Q: What do those 2 packets contain?

A: Heroin.

Q: Those 2 packets belong to you?

A: Gulam.

Q: How come those 2 packets of heroin are inside your drawer?

A: I keep for him.

Q: Who is him?

A: Gulam.

Q: He asked you to keep?

A: Yes.

Q: Did he pay you or you kept the heroin for free?

A: He paid me.

Q: How much did he pay you?

A: S$1000

The investigating officer, Insp Tan Choon Hee (‘the Investigating Officer’) soon arrived at the scene and took over the investigation. He took possession of the two plastic bags and other exhibits. The contents of the two plastic bags were examined by the Investigating Officer. In one of the plastic bags, he found 30 envelopes of which 20 were brown and 10 were white. In each envelope were 10 sachets of granular substance believed to be diamorphine. In the other plastic bag he found another 30 envelopes, of which 5 were brown and 25 were white. Each envelope also had 10 sachets of similar substance. The Investigating Officer further found 10 other envelopes in the drawer of the cabinet. Each contained 10 sachets also of similar substance except one which had only 5 sachets. There were altogether 695 sachets of granular substance contained in 70 envelopes

The 695 sachets were handed over to Dr Saw Chwee Guan (‘Dr Saw’) of the Department of Scientific Services of the Institute of Science and Forensic Medicine. Dr Saw’s evidence was that 295 of the sachets contained 2171 grams (nett) of bright yellowish granular substance, which on analysis were found to contain not less than 158.3 grams (nett) of diamorphine with purity of 7.2%. The remaining 400 sachets contained 2975 grams (nett) of dull yellowish granular substance, which on analysis were found to contain not less than 10.12 grams of diamorphine with a purity of 0.34%. The total amount of diamorphine was therefore 168.42 grams (nett).

Samples of the appellant’s urine were taken and were also sent to the Department Scientific Services for testing and the result ascertained was negative At the CNB the appellant made a statement to the Investigation Officer under s 122 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 ed) and the voluntariness of that statement was not disputed In it he said:

I don’t want to say anything

The defence

The respondent gave evidence in his defence, and his defence was essentially that he was an innocent custodian for one Gulam. He said that he first became acquainted with Gulam in 1987; they used to play football together until 1988. Reverting to the events on 8 and 9 March 1998, he said that he had engaged Gulam and one Mohd Noor to decorate the void deck of the block of flats, where he was living, for his brother’s wedding reception which was to be held on 8 March 1998. A friend of his gave him Gulam’s business card and he got in touch with Gulam. They met in December 1997 and February 1998 to discuss the details of the decoration. The third time he met Gulam was on 6 March 1998. At that meeting, Gulam told him that he would require a favour from him, but would only let him know what it was on 7 March 1998 when he (Gulam) came to set up the decorations. On 7 March 1998, Gulam and Mohd Noor turned up at the void deck to set up the decorations. The appellant reminded Gulam of the favour, but Gulam said that he would let him know later. Subsequently, Gulam left without informing the appellant. Mohd Noor continued decorating the void deck in the absence of Gulam. Sometime after 9 pm when Mohd Noor left, he told...