Muhammad Amirul Aliff bin Md Zainal v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Andrew Phang Boon Leong JCA
• Judgment Date: 05 May 2021
• Neutral Citation: [2021] SGCA 47
• Published date: 08 May 2021
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 35 of 2020
• Year: 2021
• Hearing Date: 05 May 2021
• Plaintiff Counsel: The appellant in person
• Citation: [2021] SGCA 47
• Defendant Counsel: Anandan Bala, Claire Poh, Lim Woon Yee and Wee Yang Xi (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Sentencing,Appeals,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing

Andrew Phang Boon Leong JCA (delivering the judgment of the court ex tempore): Introduction

This is the appellant’s appeal against his sentence of 27 years’ imprisonment and 15 strokes imposed in respect of a charge of importing not less than 499.9g of cannabis in furtherance of the common intention of himself and his two co-accused. This is an offence under s 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”) read with s 34 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) and punishable under s 33(1) of the MDA. The central point of contention on appeal is whether the High Court Judge (“the Judge”) erred in finding that the appellant was more culpable than his co-accused, who were only sentenced to 24 years and six months’ imprisonment and 15 strokes.

Facts

The appellant had pleaded guilty and admitted to the joint statement of facts (“JSOF”) prepared by the Prosecution. The material facts in the JSOF were as follows. The appellant was a member of a Malaysian-based drug syndicate which organises illegal drug deliveries from Malaysia to Singapore. The syndicate’s modus operandi is to conceal illicit drugs in rented cars and to have human couriers drive the drug-laden cars from Malaysia to Singapore in order to facilitate the onward delivery of the drugs to the syndicate’s clients in Singapore. Sometime before 30 December 2017, the appellant received about 4kg of cannabis (gross weight) from a member of the syndicate known as “Wan”. The 4kg of cannabis was then packed into five bundles (“the Bundles”). The appellant instructed one Mohd Azraa Azwan Bin Yahya (“Azraa”) to deliver the Bundles to one Ungku Mohamed Hakim Bin Mohamed Faisal (“Ungku”) in Singapore for purposes of onward delivery and sale. The appellant offered to pay Azraa upon the successful delivery of the Bundles. Azraa accepted, and Azraa, Ungku and the appellant thus formed the common intention to import the Bundles into Singapore on 30 December 2017.

Thereafter, Azraa obtained a rented red car (“the Red Car”) and handed it over to the appellant who brought it to the syndicate’s workshop in Malaysia for the concealment of the Bundles. Ungku also rented a silver car in Singapore (“the Silver Car”), as coordinated by the appellant, and thereafter Ungku sent someone to collect the car in Singapore on his behalf as he was still in Malaysia at the time.

On 30 December 2017, the three accused persons met to discuss their plans. Ungku was to enter Singapore through the Woodlands Checkpoint first, to monitor the security conditions, and once the coast was clear, Azraa would drive the Red Car with the Bundles concealed in it into Singapore through the Woodlands Checkpoint. Before 6am on the same day, Ungku headed from Malaysia to Singapore on his motorcycle and sent WhatsApp text messages to the appellant to report on the traffic conditions in Singapore and the conditions at the Woodlands Checkpoint. The appellant and Ungku decided to proceed as planned whereupon the appellant called Azraa and directed him to drive into Singapore.

During this time, Ungku informed the appellant about some drug orders which he had secured and consulted the appellant about the selling price of the cannabis.

At around 2pm, Azraa entered Singapore via Woodlands Checkpoint in the Red Car. The car was stopped for a random check and when its steering wheel was swabbed for an IONSCAN analysis, it revealed positive results for the presence of methamphetamine. The Bundles were found buried deep in the respective car doors and were so well concealed that they remained undetected even when the ICA officers conducted a dog search. It was only after a back-scatter vehicle was used to scan the Red Car that anomalies were detected in the car doors and the Bundles subsequently discovered.

Acting on information received, the Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) arrested Ungku the same day. Before Ungku’s arrest, Ungku informed the appellant that he was being followed whereupon the appellant instructed him to delete the messages between them but Ungku did not manage to do so in time. Around six months later in June 2018, the appellant was repatriated from Malaysia to Singapore.

The vegetable matter in the Bundles was analysed by the Health Sciences Authority and found to contain not less than 499.9g of cannabis.

As stated earlier, the Judge sentenced the appellant to 27 years’ imprisonment and 15 strokes, and the two co-accused to 24 years and six months’ imprisonment and 15 strokes.

Appellant’s arguments on appeal

The appellant’s key contention on appeal is that the Judge wrongly evaluated his level of culpability as the Judge failed to properly appreciate the facts. In this regard, he argues that the JSOF was erroneous on two counts. First, it wrongly stated that he was a member of a Malaysian-based syndicate. Second, it wrongly stated that he was the coordinator of the drug venture when he was only a conduit and/or messenger used by Wan to pass on messages and instructions to the co-accused. The appellant also argues that Ungku was the true leader among the three accused persons, and that Ungku was in charge of the drug sales in Singapore.

Our decision

We are of the view that an appellate court should ordinarily refuse to entertain an accused’s challenge to the veracity of a fact which he had previously admitted to, unless the accused is able to provide good reason to explain why he had earlier admitted to it. As pointed out by this court in Public...