Public Prosecutor v Abdul Kahar bin Othman
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Choo Han Teck J |
Judgment Date | 24 October 2013 |
Neutral Citation | [2013] SGHC 222 |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Docket Number | Criminal Case No 8 of 2013 |
Year | 2013 |
Published date | 01 March 2016 |
Hearing Date | 24 April 2013,30 September 2013,10 June 2013,06 May 2013,29 April 2013,02 May 2013,22 April 2013,23 April 2013,27 August 2013,30 April 2013,26 April 2013,25 April 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,Statutory offences,Misuse of Drugs Act,Discretion of court not to impose sentence of death |
Citation | [2013] SGHC 222 |
The accused faced two charges, one of trafficking not less than 26.13g of diamorphine and one of trafficking not less than 40.64g of diamorphine, offences under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) and punishable under s 33 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“the Act”). On 27 August 2013, I convicted the accused and handed down a written judgment explaining my reasons for doing so (
I have in
The evidence in this case showed that the accused might not have just transported, delivered, or sent the drugs. I would go further and say that, on the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the accused’s involvement in trafficking went beyond transporting, sending or delivering them. The CNB found in the accused’s bedroom a stained metal spoon, pocket digital scale and a packet of red rubber bands, and the accused admitted that the items belonged to him and that he used them to repack drugs into smaller packets. I have no doubt that this was the true state of affairs. It would also explain an otherwise inexplicable fact, that of the sum of $69,169 which he had and the sum of about $100,000 which was in the bank account of his 76-year-old unemployed mother. It is difficult to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Public Prosecutor v Chum Tat Suan and another
...by the Judge are Public Prosecutor v Chum Tat Suan [2013] SGHC 221 (“Chum Tat Suan”) and Public Prosecutor v Abdul Kahar bin Othman [2013] SGHC 222 (“Abdul Kahar”). The issue before the Judge in both cases was extremely narrow, namely, whether the person convicted in each case (collectively......
-
Abdul Kahar bin Othman v Public Prosecutor
...Judge decided that the applicant was a courier for the purpose of s 33B(2)(a) of the MDA: see Public Prosecutor v Abdul Kahar bin Othman [2013] SGHC 222 (“Abdul Kahar (Sentencing)”) at [5]. The Prosecution then brought two criminal references on issues of law to this court, one of which aro......
-
Abdul Kahar bin Othman v Public Prosecutor
...charges on 27 August 2013, and thereafter delivered his judgment on sentence (reported as Public Prosecutor v Abdul Kahar bin Othman [2013] SGHC 222 (“Abdul Kahar (Sentencing)”)) on 24 October 2013. In that judgment, the Judge drew attention to the then “newly-enacted s 33B of the [MDA]” (s......
-
Indexes
...Prosecutor v Abdul Haleem bin AbdulKarim [2013]3 SLR 734. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .262Public Prosecutor v Abdul Kahar bin Othman[2013]SGHC 222 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261Public Prosecutor v Chum Tat Suan [2013] SGHC150 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......
-
Criminal Procedure, Evidence and Sentencing
...Court expressed in Public Prosecutor v Chum Tat Suan[2014] 1 SLR 336 (Chum Tat Suan (HC))and Public Prosecutor v Abdul Kahar bin Othman[2013] SGHC 222 (Abdul Kahar) (both cases were extensively reviewed in last year'sinstalment of this chapter). It would be reminded that these cases hadinvo......
-
Criminal Law
...Tat Suan). The questions arose from Public Prosecutor v Chum Tat Suan[2013] 1 SLR 336 (HC) and Public Prosecutor v Abdul Kahar bin Othman[2013] SGHC 222. Pursuant to s 33B of the MDA a person convicted for an offence under s 5(1) or 7 of the MDA can avoid the mandatory death penalty under c......
-
The discretionary death penalty for drug couriers in Singapore
...Md Ali vPublic Prosecutor [2014] 3 SLR 721); Public Prosecutor vChum Tat Suan [2014] 1 SLR 336; PublicProsecutor vAbdul Kahar bin Othman [2013] SGHC 222; Cheong Chun Yin vAttorney-General [2014] 3 SLR 1141 (ajudicial review against the certification decision); Muhammad Ridzuan bin Mohd Ali ......