Public Prosecutor v Abdul Haleem bin Abdul Karim and another

• Judge: Tay Yong Kwang J
• Judgment Date: 20 May 2013
• Neutral Citation: [2013] SGHC 110
• Citation: [2013] SGHC 110
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 27 May 2013
• Docket Number: Criminal Case No 4 of 2013
• Plaintiff Counsel: Shahla Iqbal and Ruth Wong, DPPs (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Defendant Counsel: Ramesh Tiwary (Ramesh Tiwary) and K Prasad (K Prasad & Co),Mohd Muzammil Bin Mohd (Muzammil & Co) and Lam Wai Sing (Lam W S & Co)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Statutory offences,Misuse of Drugs Act
• Hearing Date: 07 March 2013,18 February 2013,10 April 2013,19 February 2013,26 February 2013,05 March 2013,27 February 2013,06 March 2013,25 February 2013,28 February 2013

Tay Yong Kwang J:

The first accused, Abdul Haleem Bin Abdul Karim (“Abdul Haleem”), and the second accused, Muhammad Ridzuan Bin Md Ali (“Ridzuan”), were both tried and convicted on two charges of trafficking in diamorphine under s 5(1)(a) 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) (“Penal Code”). The two charges read as follows:

That you ABDUL HALEEM BIN ABDUL KARIM/MUHAMMAD RIDZUAN BIN MD ALI,

1st charge (“the First Charge”)

on 6 May 2010, at about 6.40 pm, at Block 22 Jalan Tenteram #03-555 Singapore 320022, together with one [Muhammad Ridzuan Bin Md Ali, NRIC No. SXXXXXXX-X for the charge against Abdul Haleem/Abdul Haleem Bin Abdul Karim, NRIC No. SXXXXXXX-X for the charge against Ridzuan], in furtherance of the common intention of both of you, did traffic in a controlled drug specified in Class “A” of the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185, to wit, by having in your possession for the purpose of trafficking, 7 large packets of substances, that were analysed and found to contain not less than 72.50 grams of diamorphine, 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 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act read with section 34 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224, and punishable under section 33 read with the Second Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act, and further upon your conviction under section 5(1)(a) read with section 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act read with section 34 of the Penal Code, you may alternatively be liable to be punished under section 33B of the Misuse of Drugs Act.

2nd charge (the “Second Charge”)

on 6 May 2010, at about 6.40 pm, at Block 22 Jalan Tenteram #03-555 Singapore 320022, together with one [Muhammad Ridzuan Bin Md Ali, NRIC No. SXXXXXXX-X for the charge against Abdul Haleem/Abdul Haleem Bin Abdul Karim, NRIC No. SXXXXXXX-X for the charge against Ridzuan], in furtherance of the common intention of both of you, did traffic in a controlled drug specified in Class “A” of the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185, to wit, by having in your possession for the purpose of trafficking, 21 small packets and 1 large packet of substances, that were analysed and found to contain not more than 14.99 grams of diamorphine, 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 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act read with section 34 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224, and punishable under section 33 read with the Second Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act.

The First Charge involves capital punishment while the Second Charge does not. Six additional charges of various consumption and possession offences under the MDA were also preferred against Abdul Haleem and five additional charges under the MDA were preferred against Ridzuan. These charges were stood down and subsequently withdrawn following the conviction of Abdul Haleem and Ridzuan on the First and Second Charges.

At the commencement of the trial, I allowed the Prosecution’s application under s 170(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) (“CPC”) for the joinder of the First and Second Charges in a single trial as the two charges constituted “one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction”. I also granted the Prosecution’s application for Abdul Haleem and Ridzuan to be jointly tried under s 176 of the CPC on the ground that they both faced charges for the same offences committed in the same transaction. Counsel for Abdul Haleem, Mr Ramesh Tiwary (“Mr Tiwary”), and counsel for Ridzuan, Mr Muzammil Bin Mohd (“Mr Muzammil”), did not object to the Prosecution’s applications.

After the respective charges were read to the accused persons, both Abdul Haleem and Ridzuan pleaded guilty to their respective First and Second Charges. However, as the First Charge involved capital punishment, I rejected the pleas of guilt and proceeded with the trial. As the trial proceeded, Ridzuan contested the Prosecution’s evidence in material aspects.

I was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Abdul Haleem and Ridzuan were both guilty as charged and convicted them at the conclusion of the trial. Due to their different circumstances (which will be elaborated upon subsequently), Abdul Haleem did not receive the death sentence while Ridzuan was given the mandatory death sentence in respect of the First Charge. Ridzuan has appealed against his conviction and sentence and I now set out the grounds of my decision.

Background facts

Abdul Haleem is a 29-year old Singaporean. Ridzuan is a 27-year old Singaporean who was residing at Block 22 Jalan Tenteram #03-555, Singapore 320022 (“the Flat”) at the time of arrest. They were previously employed as bouncers in the same night club and had known each other for about a year prior to the date of arrest.

The events that preceded the arrest of Abdul Haleem and Ridzuan were not in dispute. Indeed, much of the Prosecution’s evidence was not challenged by the accused persons, particularly Abdul Haleem.

On 6 May 2010, officers from the Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) conducted an operation at Block 22 Jalan Tenteram (“Block 22”). The CNB officers were instructed to look out for a male Malay subject wearing a green top who was believed to be receiving a consignment of drugs. At about 5.50pm, a black car with a Malaysian licence plate turned into the public car park in the vicinity of Block 22. Abdul Haleem got into the front passenger seat of the car and a number of CNB officers tailed the car to Balestier Road before losing sight of the car. The CNB officers drove back to Block 22 after receiving information that Abdul Haleem would return to the scene. An additional team of CNB officers was also dispatched to the scene.

At about 6.30pm, Ridzuan’s relative, one Nuraihan Binte Kasman (“Nuraihan”), was seen approaching a taxi that had stopped along Jalan Bahagia, the main road adjacent to Block 22. Abdul Haleem, who was carrying a black sling bag, then alighted from the taxi. Abdul Haleem walked towards the staircase located at the right side of Block 22. He started running after spotting a number of CNB officers walking in his direction. The CNB officers gave chase and he ran into the bedroom of the Flat and locked the door.

The CNB officers went into the Flat and forced open the bedroom door. They found Abdul Haleem and Ridzuan in the bedroom with three other men, Mohamad Fairus Bin Abdul Hamid, Shaffik Bin Nassar Bin Issa Bin Abdat and Faizal Bin Abdul Hamid. These three men were not implicated in the offences in question. Staff Sergeant Muhammad Faizal Bin Baharin (“SSgt Faizal”) asked Abdul Haleem, “Where is the thing?” in Malay. Abdul Haleem replied that the black sling bag was on top of the cupboard in the bedroom. The sling bag was retrieved and found to contain eight bundles covered in black tape. When Ridzuan was asked whether he had any other drugs to surrender, he directed the CNB officers to the television bench in the bedroom. There they recovered a plastic bag containing 20 plastic sachets filled with a brown crystalline substance, a single semi-filled plastic sachet with a brown granular substance, two tablets believed to be Erimin-5, one tablet believed to be Ecstasy and one sachet of white crystalline substance which Abdul Haleem and Ridzuan later claimed to be ‘Ice’, together with various drug paraphernalia.

Assistant Superintendent Qamarul Zaman Bin Hussin (“ASP Qamarul”) recorded two contemporaneous statements from Abdul Haleem and Ridzuan in Malay. The material portions of Abdul Haleem’s translated contemporaneous statements are as follows: ¹ Q1 There are 8 black bundles in front of you, what are all these? A1 ‘Panas’ heroin. Q2 Who does these 8 bundles belong to? A2 Mario. I only collected from ‘Chinese budak’ and send back to Mario.

...

There was no dispute that Mario referred to Ridzuan (also known as “Black”). In Ridzuan’s contemporaneous statement given shortly thereafter, he denied any knowledge of the presence or contents of the eight bundles and claimed that Abdul Haleem had simply run into his bedroom with the sling bag which contained the eight bundles.

The eight bundles and 21 plastic sachets were analysed by the Health Sciences Authority. The results indicated that the eight bundles contained not less than 10.13 grams of diamorphine, not less than 11.75 grams of diamorphine, not less than 10.09 grams of diamorphine, not less than 10.59 grams of diamorphine, not less than 9.30 grams of diamorphine, not less than 9.50 grams of diamorphine, not less than 10.50 grams of diamorphine and not less than 9.94 grams of diamorphine. The brown crystalline substance found in the 21 plastic sachets were found to contain not less than 6.16 grams of diamorphine.

The diamorphine found in seven of the eight bundles formed the subject of the First Charge and the diamorphine found in the remaining bundle and the 21 plastic sachets formed the subject of the Second Charge. The Prosecution preferred two separate charges against Abdul Haleem and Ridzuan, each relating to discrete portions of the seized heroin, because they both admitted that they had purchased one of the eight bundles for their own purposes and had intended to sell that bundle of heroin. The 21 plastic sachets also formed part of the heroin that they had repackaged for sale. Abdul Haleem and Ridzuan contended that they had only agreed to receive the other seven bundles which would subsequently be collected by or delivered to other customers of their drug supplier. CNB officer Assistant Superintendent Stanley Seah Choon Keng (“ASP Seah”) testified that investigations by the CNB had confirmed this account.² Although the bundles were...