Public Prosecutor v Abdul Razak Bin Abdul Kadir

CourtDistrict Court (Singapore)
JudgeAdrian Soon Kim Kwee
Judgment Date10 November 2008
Neutral Citation[2008] SGDC 332
Citation[2008] SGDC 332
Published date09 December 2008
Plaintiff CounselDPP Chan Huimin
Defendant CounselAccused in person

10 Nov 2008

District Judge Adrian Soon:

The Accused

1. The Accused, Abdul Razak Bin Kadir, faced 2 charges. The first charge was for jointly trafficking in a controlled drug under s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) (‘MDA’) read with s 34 of the Penal Code (Cap 224) and punishable under s 33 of the MDA. The second charge was for consumption of a specified drug under s 8(b)(ii) and punishable under s 33 of the MDA. The accused claimed trial to the first charge and pleaded guilty to the second charge.

Charges

2. The first charge reads:

DAC 8827/2008 [Exhibit C1A]

ABDUL RAZAK BIN KADIR, M/38 YRS
NRIC : S 7004898-A (DOB: 18.2.1970)

are charged that you, on or about the 18th day of February 2008, at about 2.45 pm, at Block 404 Woodlands Street 41, #o8-78, Singapore, together with one Noraini Binti M Nordin, female / 45 years, NRIC: S17311897-G, in furtherance of the common intention of two of you, did jointly traffic in a controlled drug specified in Class A of the First Schedule of the Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185, to wit, by selling three straws containing 0.97 gram of diamorphine , to one Massuri bte Mohd Abdullah, holder of identity card number S 1680730C, for a sum of $90/-, at the said place, without any authorisation under the said Act or the Regulations made thereunder, and you have thereby committed an offence under Section 5(1)(a) read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224 and punishable under Section 33 to the Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185.

The Co-Accused

3. The co-accused is the accused’s wife, Noraini Binti Nordin (“Noraini”). The latter faced a joint trafficking charge similar to the one against the accused. She also faced a charge for the consumption of drugs of a controlled drug. Like the accused, Noraini claimed trial to the joint trafficking charge and pleaded guilty to the consumption charge.

Trial

4. The Prosecution applied for the trial of the accused and Noraini in respect of the joint trafficking charge be held jointly. The accused and Noraini had no objection to this application and it was granted by the court. At the end of the trial, both the accused and Noraini were convicted of the respective charge of joint trafficking. The accused has now appealed against his conviction only. There is no appeal lodged by Noraini either against her conviction or sentence.

Prosecution’s Case

5. The accused and his wife lived at Block 404 Woodlands St 41 #08-78 (“the apartment”).

6. On 18 February 2008 at about 2.40 pm, W/ASP Lui Su Lin (PW2)(“W/ASP Lui”), an undercover Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) officer, met one Massuri bte Mohd Abdullah (“Massuri”) at the void deck of Block 404 where the apartment for the purpose of purchasing 2 straws of heroin. Massuri did not have the drugs with her. She then requested W/ASP Lui to follow her upstairs to the heroin supplier’s apartment but W/ASP Lui declined to do so. W/ASP Lui then gave one $50 note and four $10 notes totalling $90 in marked notes to Massuri.

7. Massuri went to the apartment where she handed the $90 to Noraini in exchange for 3 straws of heroin. The accused was standing behind Noraini when the drug transaction took place between Massuri and Noraini.

8. Massuri returned to the void deck and handed two of the three straws to W/ASP Lui. CNB officers then arrested Massuri. The two straws sold to W/ASP Lui and the third straw which Massuri dropped during her arrest were recovered and seized by the CNB. The three straws were analysed by the Health Science Authority. The result is found in two reports (Exhibits P1 & P2) which revealed that the three straws contained a total of 0.07 gram of diamorphine, a Class A controlled drug.

9. At about 3 pm on the same day, the party of CNB officers including W/ASP Lui raided the apartment wherein the accused and Noraini were arrested. From the master bedroom, a yellow metal container (Exhibit P6) containing the $90 marked notes (Exhibit P7) was recovered.

Voir Dire : Noraini’s statements ‘A’ & ‘B’

10. As part of the Prosecution’s case, the learned DPP sought to admit the statement and further statement recorded from Noraini under the provisions of S 121 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Noraini challenged the admissibility of the statements on the ground that while they were made by her, it was not made voluntarily on 2 grounds. The first ground was that she was then having withdrawal symptoms. Secondly, she had in the statements pushed all the blame on the accused as instructed by him. Accordingly, a trial-within-a-trial was conducted to determine the admissibility of the 2 statements.

11. Both the statements were recorded by DSP Sebastian Tan (PW6) on 18 February 2008 at 6.15 pm and 9.30 pm respectively. With regard to the 1st statement (‘A’), DSP Tan was assisted by W/SGT Nurul’ Aidiah (PW7) who acted as the Malay interpreter. DSP Tan would put questions in English to Noraini and she would answer in Malay as she chose to speak in Malay. DSP Tan would then type the answers in the narrative form. After the statement was recorded, it was interpreted to Noraini. She was then offered the opportunity to make any amendment, correction or addition but she declined the offer. Noraini was then asked to sign the statements which she did. No threat, promise or inducement was made to her before or during the recording. Before the 2nd statement (‘B’) was recorded, DSP Tan asked SSI Abdul Rahman Abu Bakar (PW8) who acted as interpreter to read ‘A’ to Noraini. The latter was again granted the opportunity to make any amendment or addition to ‘A’ but she declined. DSP Tan testified that Noraini was normal and did not display any withdrawal symptoms. She was able to reply to his questions promptly with clarity in speech. This was corroborated by W/SGT Nurul’ and SSI Abdul Rahman.

12. In her evidence in the trial-within-the-trial, Noraini alleged that she was sick as she was having drug withdrawal symptoms at the time the two statements were recorded. She was feeling cold and was shivering. She was given a jacket to wear before ‘B’ was recorded. Noraini stated that ‘A’ was not voluntarily given by her. Only some parts of it were true. When she was questioned by the recorder, she just said what was in her mind without thinking of the answers as she could not concentrate by reason of her illness. Under cross-examination, Noraini admitted that at the time of the recording of the statements, she was able to understand the questions posed by DSP Tan and was able to answer them properly. She admitted that ‘A’ was made voluntarily by her and that no one had threatened, induced or made promise to her before or during the recording. Similarly, she admitted that ‘B’ was made by her and that no threat, promise or inducement was offered to her by anyone before or during the recording. She also stated that the withdrawal symptoms were not very serious and that she was not in a state of near delirium at that time.

13. Noraini also testified that she had fabricated the parts of her statements which implicated the accused. She did so pursuant to the hand signals made by the accused upon their arrest that she was to push the blame for the trafficking to him. In fact, she stated that the accused had told her that he would help him by taking the blame. Consequently, she proceeded to implicate the accused in the statements ‘A’ and ‘B’ as planned because she was afraid of the sentence for trafficking in the drugs. After doing so, Noraini felt guilty but she did not tell anyone that she was lying. It was only when Massuri was sentenced that she could not continue to implicate the accused who was a good and innocent man and decided to tell the truth. This change of heart was brought about by the thought that if she and her husband were to be sentenced, who would happen to their three children. She also stated that she had lied in her statements and only parts of the statements were true. However, she stated later in re-examination that whatever she said in the statements were not true.

14. In the trial-within-the trial, Noraini called the accused to testify. He stated that on 18 February 2008, before he was sent to the Changi Medical Centre, the police brought Noraini to see him. He noticed that she was wearing a jacket and had withdrawal symptoms. He asked Noraini why she was not seeing a doctor. As for himself, he could not stand the withdrawal symptoms he was having and was going to see a doctor. Under cross-examination, he stated that he did not see her when she gave the statements and was unable to say if she was sick during the recording of the statements. He also testified that he did use hand signal to ask his wife to push all the blame to him. The accused said that he decided to change his mind about bearing all the blame when Noraini realised her mistake in implicating him. She apologised to him and said she would take responsibility.

15. Massuri also testified in the trial-within-the-trial. She said that Noraini was unwell and had vomited. She also stated that Noraini was weak and could not walk. However, she was unable to say if Noraini was in a state of near delirium when her statements were taken.

16. The Prosecution called SSgt Yip Lai Peng (PW9) to rebut the defence case in the trial-within-the-trial. She stated that she was the one who escorted Noraini and that there was nothing unusual about her. Specifically, Noraini was not limping. If she was limping, she would have known as she was holding her. W/Sgt Nurul’ Aidiah (PW7) also testified that she was the one escorting Massuri. She did not notice anything unusual about Noraini. She added that if Noraini had been limping, she would have noticed it. SI Mukhtiar Khan (PW10) also testified in rebuttal that he had recorded the third statement (C) from Noraini. After doing so, Noraini asked for a stick of cigarette. He took her to the basement carpark. After smoking for a while, she felt dizzy and was retching but did not vomit. When SI Mukhtiar Khan...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT