Public Prosecutor v Abdul Rahman Bin Kadir and another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Victor Yeo Khee Eng
• Judgment Date: 28 September 2023
• Neutral Citation: [2023] SGDC 227
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: B1) District Arrest Case No 928732 of 2019, Magistrate’s Appeals No 9237-2022-01, B2) District Arrest Case No 929352 of 2019, Magistrate’s Appeals No 9239-2022-01
• Hearing Date: 08 November 2021,09 November 2021,18 November 2021,05 October 2021,28 September 2021,29 September 2021,30 September 2021,05 July 2021,06 July 2021,07 July 2021,26 July 2021,04 April 2022,05 April 2022,18 April 2022,21 March 2022,22 March 2022,23 March 2022,16 November 2022,24 November 2022,15 September 2022
• Citation: [2023] SGDC 227
• Year: 2023
• Plaintiff Counsel: DPP Alan Loh and DPP Thiagesh Sukumaran (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Peter Fernando and Mr Kevin Ho (Leo Fernando LLC),Mr Anil Narain Balchandani (Red Lion Circle Advocates & Solicitors)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Conspiracy,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Voluntariness of Statements,Impeachment,Sentencing
• Published date: 06 October 2023

Principal District Judge Victor Yeo Khee Eng: Introduction

The two Accused Persons, Abdul Rahman Bin Kadir (“Rahman”), and Muhammad Zuhairi Bin Zainuri (“Zuhairi”), were jointly tried for a charge of engaging in a conspiracy with Mohamed Hafiz Bin Lan (“Hafiz”) to intentionally obstruct the course of justice by tampering with a urine sample belonging to a drug suspect, Maung Moe Min (“Maung”) which was produced for the purpose of an Instant Urine Test (“IUT”), an offence punishable under s 204 read with s 109 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224 (“Penal Code”).

The alleged incident took place on 16 August 2018 at the Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) office located at Woodlands Checkpoint Block B, Level 3 (“CNB Office”).

At the material time, the Accused Persons and Hafiz were law enforcement officers with the CNB deployed at the CNB Office. It was alleged that pursuant to the conspiracy, Hafiz had tampered with the urine sample procured from Maung by replacing Maung’s urine sample with his urine sample thereby enabling Maung to pass the IUT (“conspiracy”).

At the time of the trial, Hafiz had already pleaded guilty to an offence under s 204A read with s 109 Penal Code on 3 August 2020 for his role in the conspiracy and served his sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment.

At the end of the trial, I was satisfied that the Prosecution has proven its case beyond reasonable doubt against both Accused Persons, and accordingly, I found them guilty of the proceeded charge. Rahman was sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment and Zuhairi was sentenced to 22 months’ imprisonment.

The Accused Persons being dissatisfied with the conviction and sentence filed an appeal against both conviction and sentence. Both Accused Persons are currently on bail pending the hearing of the appeal.

These are the grounds for my decision and the sentences imposed.

The Charge

The proceeded charge read as follows: -

DAC-928732-2019 (Rahman) and DAC-929352-2019 (Zuhairi)

are charged that you, on or about 16 August 2018, at Woodlands Checkpoint Block B Level 3, did abet by engaging in a conspiracy with Mohamed Hafiz Bin Lan (“Hafiz”) and Abdul Rahman Bin Kadir/ Muhammad Zuhairi Bin Zainuri to do a certain thing, namely, to intentionally obstruct the course of justice, and in pursuance of such conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing, an act took place, to wit, on 16 August 2018, in a toilet located at Woodlands Checkpoint Block B Level 3, Hafiz tampered with a urine sample belonging to Maung Moe Min (“Maung”), which Maung produced for the purposes of an Instant Urine Test (“IUT”), by replacing Maung’s urine sample with his urine sample, thereby enabling Maung to pass the IUT, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 204A read with Section 109 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.

The Undisputed Facts

The following facts were undisputed by parties.

On 15 August 2018 at around 10.53 pm, Maung and one Wattansong were referred by Immigration & Checkpoints Authority (“ICA”) to CNB at Woodlands Checkpoint when attempting to enter Singapore from Malaysia¹ after an ion swab test conducted by ICA on him returned a positive result which was an indication that he may have consumed controlled drugs.² Upon referral of such travellers to CNB, an IUT would be conducted by CNB officers on duty at the CNB Office.³

Rahman and Duty Team 3 comprising Hafiz, Zuhairi, Lim Ang Rong (“Ang Rong”) (PW8) and Muhammad Saifuddin Rowther Bin Mohidin Titchai (“Saifuddin”) (DW3) were on duty at the CNB Office during the night shift from 9.00 pm on 15 August 2018 to 9.00 am on 16 August 2018.⁴ Rahman was the team leader⁵ and Hafiz was the assistant team leader⁶ at the material time.

At around 11.48 pm on 15 August 2018, Maung requested to speak to Rahman in private.⁷ Rahman acceded to his request and they proceeded to the interview room in the CNB Office where Zuhairi was already present.⁸

In the interview room, Maung informed Rahman that he was reluctant to provide a urine sample as he may have inadvertently inhaled second-hand smoke from an individual that was smoking Methamphetamine in his presence.⁹ Maung admitted during the trial that he had concocted this story¹⁰ and that he had in fact consumed Methamphetamine not more than a week before the referral.¹¹

In the premises, Maung admitted that he knew that his urine would test positive for drugs which was why he was reluctant to provide a urine sample.¹² Maung also testified that he wanted to avoid a positive urine test which would result in him being incarcerated in a Drug Rehabilitation Centre (“DRC”) without being offered bail, and he communicated to Rahman his preference to be charged for an offence of failing to provide a urine specimen instead as he would be offered bail.¹³

In the course of his discussion with Rahman, Maung also asked whether Rahman could stand further away from him during the urine procurement process¹⁴ so that he could try to tamper with his urine sample by diluting it.¹⁵ Rahman informed Maung that this was not in accordance with standard procedure.¹⁶

At around 12.17 am on 16 August 2018, Zuhairi left the interview room and was seen conversing with Hafiz in the waiting area of the CNB Office near the photocopy machine.¹⁷ During their conversation, Hafiz told Zuhairi to place a master bottle, which is a bottle used by CNB in the procurement of urine from suspects, in the toilet located in the CNB Office (“toilet”).¹⁸

Following their conversation, Zuhairi proceeded towards the toilet and took a master bottle from a cabinet containing new master bottles and brought it into the toilet with Hafiz trailing behind him.¹⁹ Shortly after, Zuhairi exited from the toilet and was seen throwing a master bottle away into a bin outside the toilet.²⁰

The evidence adduced at trial revealed that Hafiz had urinated into the master bottle which Zuhairi had brought into the toilet²¹ and placed the bottle with his urine sample in the right-side cubicle nearest to the entrance of the toilet.²² He then exited from the toilet.

Meanwhile at around 12.31 am on 16 August 2018, Maung was seen clasping his hands together as a gesture to thank Rahman during their discussion in the interview room.²³

At around 12.48 am on 16 August 2018, Rahman called Hafiz into the IUT Room where they had a short discussion.²⁴ Thereafter, Hafiz escorted Maung to procure his urine sample in the toilet along with Rahman at around 12.49 am.²⁵ Maung entered the cubicle and urinated into another master bottle which he had selected before entering the toilet with Rahman and Hafiz.²⁶

The urine sample procured from Maung was eventually discarded and Maung used Hafiz’s urine sample which he obtained from the cubicle to pass off as his own urine sample for the IUT to be conducted by CNB.²⁷

Given that Maung’s IUT, which was conducted using Hafiz’s urine sample, yielded a negative result,²⁸ no further action was taken against him by CNB and he was referred back to ICA²⁹ for a determination on his entry into Singapore on the same day.³⁰ While Maung was allowed entry into Singapore by ICA, he chose to return to Malaysia with Wattansong.³¹

On 17 August 2018, Maung was again referred to CNB by ICA when he re-entered Singapore from Malaysia. On this occasion, Maung revealed that Rahman had helped him pass his IUT on 16 August 2018.³² The matter was then referred by CNB to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (“CPIB”) for investigations.

Hafiz had pleaded guilty to a charge under s 204A read with s 109 of the Penal Code and he was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment on 3 August 2020.

The Case for the Prosecution

The Prosecution’s key witnesses for the trial were Hafiz (PW10) and Maung (PW11). Additionally, the Prosecution also relied on the statements recorded from Zuhairi.

Statement of Zuhairi recorded under s 23 CPC by Chief Special Investigator Johnston Kan (PW8)

The cautioned statement recorded under s 23 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Chapter 68 (“CPC”) from Zuhairi (Exhibit P10), consisting of six pages, was recorded by Chief Special Investigator Johnston Kan (“CSI Kan”) on 1 July 2019 at about 8.50 am at Room 4-28 of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (“CPIB”).

When served with the conspiracy charge to tamper Maung’s urine sample and administered the warning, Zuhairi stated in his statement that he believed what he had done was not wrong as it is happening in the Bureau for the longest time. Zuhairi claimed that it has been a culture that one was natured [sic] with, and Junior and Senior officers are equally involved. He further claimed that he has evidential support to support to his claim and would provide witnesses to testify on his behalf if their names or identify remain anonymous.

Zuhairi did not object to the admission of his cautioned statement.³³ In the course of his cross-examination of CSI Kan, upon being asked by the Court whether he wished to ask any questions on or clarify the contents of P10, Zuhairi informed that he would not be doing so.³⁴

When asked again by the Court at the end of his cross-examination of CSI Kan whether he had any questions on the contents of P10, Zuhairi again stated that he had no further questions in connection with P10.³⁵

Ancillary Hearing for admissibility of Statements recorded by Senior Special Investigator Chan Jian Yun (PW9)

However, Zuhairi challenged the admissibility of two statements recorded from him by Senior Special Investigator Chan Jian Yun (“SSI Chan”). These two statements were recorded from Zuhairi in the course of investigations on 13 September 2018 at about 3.30 pm at CPIB Room 4-29 (Exhibit P11) and on 13 November 2018 at about 10.30 am at CPIB Room 4-28 (Exhibit P12) respectively.

As Zuhairi had challenged the admissibility of these two statements recorded by SSI Chan, an ancillary hearing was held to determine the admissibility of both...