Mohd Arsad bin Hassan v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chao Hick Tin JA
• Judgment Date: 23 August 2004
• Neutral Citation: [2004] SGCA 36
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Published date: 26 August 2004
• Year: 2004
• Plaintiff Counsel: Rudy Gunaratnam (Tan Rajah and Cheah) and Ratnagopal Hariprasad (Harry Elias Partnership)
• Defendant Counsel: Kan Shuk Weng (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Statutory offences,Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2001 Rev Ed),Trafficking in controlled drugs,Defence of lack of knowledge of quantity of drugs in bag,Whether defence believable
• Citation: [2004] SGCA 36

23 August 2004

Kan Ting Chiu J:

1 The appellant, Mohd Arsad bin Hassan, was convicted by Tay Yong Kwang J for trafficking in 46.9g of diamorphine and was sentenced to suffer death: see PP v Mohd Arsad bin Hassan [2004] SGHC 67.

2 The offence took place on 8 July 2003 at a carpark of a McDonald restaurant along New Upper Changi Road. The appellant was arrested because the two persons to whom he was selling the diamorphine to were undercover officers from the Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”), namely Staff Sergant Ashari bin Hassan (“SSgt Ashari”) and Staff Sergeant Mohd Affendi bin Ideris (“SSgt Affendi”), who assumed the names “Nick” and “Didi” in the operation.

3 The appellant admitted that he agreed to sell heroin to the two officers for $20,100, and that he delivered to them a bag containing heroin. His defence was that he thought that the transaction was for six sachets of about 8g each, and not the 439.8g of heroin delivered. (“Heroin” is used here to refer to the drugs in the state they were recovered, before analysis, in contradistinction to “diamorphine” which refers to the diamorphine content of the drugs after analysis.)

4 A week before 6 July, SSgt Ashari was assigned to go undercover and purchase heroin from a trafficker by the name of Jack, and he established contact with Jack.

5 On 6 July at around midnight, SSgt Ashari received an unexpected call from the appellant who introduced himself as Jack’s friend. The appellant offered to sell to him a “set” or “kereta” of heroin at $3,800 a set, subject to a minimum purchase of three sets. According to SSgt Ashari, “set” and “kereta” are understood in drug circles as ten sachets of about 8g each.

6 SSgt Ashari did not commit himself to the offer as his instructions were to buy from Jack, not the appellant. He reported the call to his superiors who instructed him to carry on negotiations with the appellant.

7 On 7 July, they spoke again over the telephone. SSgt Ashari said that the appellant offered him five sets of heroin for $19,000. He accepted the offer, and it was agreed that the deal was to be a “left-right” transaction with delivery and payment to be made simultaneously. He also requested that they meet the following morning to get acquainted and to finalise the arrangements for the deal.

8 On the morning of 8 July, they met for the first time. He brought SSgt Affendi with him. They picked up the appellant in front of the Sultan Mosque, and went to a coffee shop at Stamford Road. At the coffee shop, the appellant told them that he could offer them a better deal. He could supply one “batu” (or pound) of heroin, which could be repacked into 50 to 60 sachets, for $18,500, and a further half-set of heroin for $1,600. The offer was accepted for the “batu” and the half-set for $20,100, and it was agreed that the transaction would take place that afternoon at a venue to be arranged.

9 SSgt Affendi corroborated SSgt Ashari’s evidence, and referred to his pocket book in which he had recorded that the heroin to be delivered was to be in one-pound form.

10 The officers then parted ways with the appellant. In the afternoon, they were in contact again, and arranged to meet at the car park along New Upper Changi Road. The two officers went to the car park in a car, while other CNB officers were positioned around the area. The appellant arrived in a taxi and went to the officers’ car. After they assured him that they had the money, the appellant made a call from his mobile telephone.

11 Subsequently two persons came into the car park on a motorcycle. The appellant went to the motorcycle and received a plastic bag from the pillion rider. He took the bag to the car and handed it to the officers. SSgt Affendi opened the plastic bag and saw a packet wrapped in newspaper and a white envelope. He tore off a small portion of the newspaper wrapping of the packet, and saw heroin inside. On seeing that he gave a pre-arranged signal by saying “barang baik” (meaning “good stuff”), and the other CNB officers moved in and arrested the appellant after a short chase.

12 The contents of the bag were the subject matter of the charge against the appellant. The packet of heroin was found to weigh 439.8g, and the envelope was found to contain five sachets of heroin with a total weight of 39.31g (or an average of 7.87g a sachet). The contents of the packet and five sachets were analysed and were found to contain not less than 43.59g and 3.31g of diamorphine respectively.

13 The appellant and the plastic bag were first taken to the Bedok Police Station, where Inspector Tan Seow Keong recorded a statement from him, which was admitted in evidence without objection. Before taking the appellant’s statement, Inspector Tan recorded that he pointed to the...