Public Prosecutor v Abdul Kahar bin Othman

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 27 August 2013
• Neutral Citation: [2013] SGHC 164
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Hearing Date: 23 April 2013,25 April 2013,02 May 2013,10 June 2013,24 April 2013,29 April 2013,30 April 2013,06 May 2013,22 April 2013,26 April 2013
• Docket Number: Criminal Case No 8 of 2013
• Plaintiff Counsel: Jean Chan, Lim How Khang and Wong Woon Kwong (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Defendant Counsel: Johan Bin Ismail (Johan Ismail & Company) and Abdul Rahman Bin Mohd Hanipah (J.R.B. Law LLP)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Misuse of Drugs Act
• Published date: 01 March 2016

Choo Han Teck J:

The accused claimed trial before me on two charges of trafficking diamorphine under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (the “MDA”). The evidence showed that the accused was driving a motor car (SFZ 1852T) along the slip road from Boon Lay Way into Jurong Town Hall Road on 6 July 2010 at 3.17pm when he was stopped by officers from the Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”). He was promptly arrested. The CNB officers took him and his car to a nearby car park at Block 225A Jurong East Street 21. There, SSI Sea Hoon Cheng and SSSgt Larry Tay searched the car (SFZ 1852T). A red carrier bag (“G1”) was seized from the car. The CNB officers found a packet wrapped in newspaper in the carrier bag. The packet was found to contain granular substances. Those substances were sent to the Health Sciences Authority (“HSA”) for analysis and were subsequently ascertained by the HSA to contain 26.13g of diamorphine. This became the subject matter of the first charge.

At 4.15pm, the accused was taken to his flat at Block 325 Bukit Batok Street 33 where a search of the flat was conducted by SSSgt Larry Tay and three other CNB officers, namely, SSSgt Jason Tay, SSgt Mohd Hafiz and SSgt Alwin Wong. The accused was residing in the flat with his younger brother and mother. In the accused’s bedroom, a red plastic bag (“A1”) was found beneath the bottom drawer of the accused’s cabinet. A1 contained numerous plastic sachets, a sachet of brown granular substances wrapped in newspaper, as well as a small packet of crystalline substance. A dark blue bag with coloured prints (“A2”) was also found in the same spot beneath the bottom drawer. In it was a light blue plastic bag which in turn contained a purple coloured plastic bag from which two packets of brown granular substances were found. The granular substances from the sachet and packets in A1 and A2 were sent to the HSA for analysis and were found to contain not less than 40.64g of diamorphine. This became the subject matter of the second charge.

The CNB officers also found some drug related utensils and equipment in the bedroom. These included a stained metal spoon, a digital pocket weighing scale, an open packet of rubber bands, and two brown envelopes, one of which had words written on it. A shoe box marked with the brand “Camel Active” was found inside the accused’s wardrobe. There was cash amounting to $59,834 in the shoe box. A separate white plastic bag bearing the brand “This Fashion” was also found in the wardrobe and contained cash amounting to $9,335.

The accused testified that he had an upholstery business and in the course of looking for material for his work, he came to know a person called “Latif” in Malaysia. The accused met Latif on a few occasions and they became good friends. The accused stated that he had no business dealings with Latif. Latif telephoned the accused at 7am on 6 July 2010 and asked to meet at the void deck of the accused person’s flat. No reason for the meeting was given. The accused met Latif about 8am and Latif said to him, “I want to ask for your help. I want to go to Jurong. I have something important to do”. Latif handed the accused a dark blue bag with coloured prints, A2, and told the accused, “Please keep this bag for me”. The accused testified that he asked Latif about the contents of the bag and was told that they were things to do with work and that he had to bring them back to Johor. The accused took A2 from Latif who then instructed the accused to meet him at Joo Koon Circle that same day at 3pm. Meanwhile, the accused kept A2 in a drawer in the cupboard in his bedroom.

Subsequently, the accused drove to Joo Koon Circle at the appointed time. Latif walked to the car and the accused handed him the red carrier bag, G1. Latif took G1 and walked to a motorcyclist who had stopped his motorcycle behind the accused person’s car. Less than a minute later, Latif returned to the accused and handed G1 back to the accused. The accused asked Latif, “What is this?” and Latif told him that it was something to do with his work in Johor. The accused placed G1 on the floor board of the front passenger seat and was driving home when he was stopped and arrested.

From the testimony of the accused, the dark blue bag, A2, that he took from Latif at 8am in the void deck was the bag found in his bedroom, and was the subject of the second charge, while the red carrier bag, G1, found in his car at 3pm was the subject of the first charge. The accused did not deny that G1 which was found in his car was in his possession. His defence was that he did not know that both bags in question contained drugs, thereby implicitly suggesting that the accused believed what Latif had told him, and as narrated in his testimony.

The three statements recorded under s 121 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 186, 1985 Rev Ed) (the “CPC”) did not mention the accused’s defence, and instead contained incriminatory evidence...