Public Prosecutor v Mohamed Faizi bin Abdul Rahim

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Amarjeet Singh JC
• Judgment Date: 08 October 1998
• Neutral Citation: [1998] SGHC 335
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Year: 1998
• Published date: 27 February 2013
• Plaintiff Counsel: Malcolm Tan assisted by Hee Mee Lin
• Defendant Counsel: N K Rajah assisted by Dara Singh (Both Assigned)
• Citation: [1998] SGHC 335

Judgment :

GROUNDS OF DECISION

1. The Accused was charged that he on or about 9 March 1998 at about 11.30pm at Blk 247 Tampines Street 21 #08-279 Singapore did traffic in a controlled drug specified in Class A of the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act, Cap 185 (‘MDA’) to wit, by having in his possession for the purpose of trafficking 168.42 grams (nett) of diamorphine without any authority under the said MDA or the Regulations made thereunder and he has thereby committed an offence under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the MDA and punishable under s 33 thereof.

2. The uncontroverted facts were that on 9 March 1998 at about 11.30pm a party of officers from Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) raided Blk 247 Tampines Street 21, #08-279 where the Accused lived with his mother. The officers were let into the premises only after long and repeated knocking on the main door to the flat. After the Accused identified himself he was asked by Staff Sgt Ariffin Bin Abdul Kadir (‘S/Sgt Ariffin’) if he had any "stuff" to surrender. He replied in the negative. Subsequently the top left drawer of a cabinet containing a chest of drawers which was locked, was opened by Cpl Mohd Khairy Yusoff (‘Cpl Khairy’) with a key. It was one of five in a leather pouch found on top of the cabinet by Cpl Khairy. Stuffed in the said drawer which was hard to open after it was unlocked were two similar looking bulky white plastic bags and some envelopes as well under one of the plastic bags. The Accused admitted to S/Sgt Ariffin the drawer and the keys belonged to him. On being asked about the contents of the two plastic bags he said "heroin" (diamorphine). The Accused further told S/Sgt Ariffin that the drugs belonged to one Gulam and he only kept the drugs for him. S/Sgt Ariffin then informed Insp Jason Tan Swee Lin (‘Insp Jason Tan’) who was also in the raiding party of the conversation.

2.1 Insp Jason Tan having ascertained from the Accused that his educational level was at the ‘A’ Levels then orally asked the Accused a number of questions which the Accused orally answered and which Insp Jason Tan recorded on paper. The Accused signed the paper writing (Exh. P36). The paper writing recording the questions and answers was as follows:

" Q: Are those keys yours?

A: Yes

Q: The keys open the drawer containing the 2 packets?

A: Yes

Q: What do those 2 packets contain?

A: Heroin

Q: Those 2 packets belong to you?

A: Gulam.

Q: How come those 2 packets of heroin are inside your drawer?

A: I keep for him.

Q: Who is "him"?

A: Gulam

Q: He asked you to keep?

A: Yes

Q: Did he pay you or you kept the heroin for free?

A: He paid me.

Q: How much did he pay you?

A: S$1000.

"

3. The Investigating Officer Insp Tan Choon Hee (‘the Investigating Officer’) who arrived at the scene soon afterwards testified that he took possession of the two similar looking plastic bags from the drawer containing substance believed to be the diamorphine in question and other exhibits. The two plastic bags later disclosed six fingerprints. These were developed and ascertained to belong to:

(a) Two prints - Gulam Bin Notan Mohamed Shariff Jamaluddin, the person named simply as ‘Gulam’ by the Accused upon his arrest.

(b) One print - Norgime Bin Mustaffa

(c) Three prints - Syed Abdul Khalig Alkaff

3.1 The contents of the two plastic bags were also examined by the Investigating Officer. In one of the plastic bags, he found 30 envelopes of which 20 were brown and 10 were white. In each envelope were 10 sachets of granular substance believed to be diamorphine. In the other plastic bag he found another 30 envelopes, but of which 5 were brown and 25 were white. Each envelope also had 10 sachets of diamorphine. The Investigating Officer said he also found 10 other envelopes in the drawer of the cabinet. Each contained 10 sachets of heroin except one which had only 5 sachets of diamorphine. There were altogether a total of 695 sachets of substance containing diamorphine in the said 70 envelopes.

3.2 The 695 sachets were handed over to Dr Saw Chwee Guan (‘Dr Saw’), Scientific Officer, from the Department of Scientific Services (‘DSS’) Institute of Science and Forensic Medicine. Dr Saw’s evidence was that 295 of the sachets contained 2171 grams (nett) a bright yellowish granular substance which on analysis was found to contain not less than 158.3 grams (nett) of diamorphine with purity of 7.2%. The remaining 400 sachets contained 2975 grams (nett) of dull yellowish granular substance which on analysis was found to contain not less than 10.12 grams of diamorphine with a purity of 0.34%. The total diamorphine analysed and found was therefore 168.42 gms (nett) of diamorphine.

3.3 The Accused’s urine was also tested for substance abuse by other Scientific Officers but the results were found to be negative.

4. The Accused not challenging the admissibility of his s 122(6) Statement through his Counsel, the voluntariness of which was in any case proved by the Prosecution, (the defence not cross-examining the Prosecution witness), the said statement was accordingly admitted on the application of the Prosecution. In the statement, the Accused stated:

"I don’t want to say anything."

5. On the evidence adduced by the Prosecution and the admissions made by the Accused as narrated earlier and the applicable presumptions under s 17(c), 18(1)(b) and (2) and s 5(1) and (2) that arose under the MDA I was prima facie satisfied that the Accused had possession of the said diamorphine knowing it was diamorphine and such possession was, as is presumed by the law, for the purpose of trafficking. Further, under s 5(2) for the purposes of the Act, a person commits the offence of trafficking in a controlled drug if he has in his possession that drug for the purposes of trafficking. The Accused therefore was trafficking in the said diamorphine until the contrary was proved by him on a balance of probabilities.

6. Accordingly, I called upon the Accused’s defence.

7. The Accused elected to give evidence on oath.

8. The Accused’s defence was that he had befriended one Gulam in 1987. They used to play football till 1988. As he became a hardcore drug addict about then, he had been arrested several times and had since 1988 to 1997 been in and out of drug rehabilitation centres. His last release was in September 1997 on a day release scheme which imposed a curfew on him to stay at home and also electronically tagged him whilst allowing him to work as a machinist with Fong Seng Engineering during certain fixed hours. He had also to report to his camp thrice a week on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday on which days his urine was tested for drugs which was always negative and he was also given Naltrexone. (Naltrexone is an opiate antagonist. If an ex-addict takes an opiate antagonist and gives in to his temptation and takes an opiate drug, he will not experience any of its effects and probably will not bother to try again).

8.1 The Accused described the terms of his daily regime under the day release scheme unless special leave was otherwise obtained as follows:

(a) Monday to Friday: House curfew 11.30pm. to 11.30am

Saturday: House curfew 7.30pm to 7.30am.

Sunday: House curfew 7pm to 11.30am the next morning

(b) Monday to Friday: Working hours 1.30pm to 9.30pm

Saturday: Working hours 1.30pm to 5.30pm

8.2 The Accused then described how the diamorphine came to be found in the locked top left hand drawer of his cabinet. He stated that on Sunday 8 March 1998 his younger brother was to be married with a reception to be held from 10am to 5pm in the void deck of the block of flats he was staying in. He was responsible for organising the reception. He made arrangements for the catering, the seating and decoration of the void deck. He engaged Gulam to do the decoration of the void deck as he had found out that he ran a business in that line with one Mohd Noor from Blk 150 Bedok Reservior to which address he went. A friend had given him Gulam’s business card after his release in September 1997. He made the arrangements with Gulam in December 1997 and met him again in February 1998 to formalise the agreement. He thereafter met Gulam on Friday 6 March 1998 on which occasion, Gulam asked him to do him a favour without mentioning what it was but would tell him on Saturday 7 March 1998. Gulam had agreed then to come to the void deck on that Saturday evening to set up the decorations. Gulam arrived on 7 March at 8.45pm i.e. about 45 minutes after his partner Mohd Noor and other workers had started to set up the decorations. That evening he spoke to Gulam and enquired about the favour he wanted but Gulam told him he was busy and would tell him later. He later realised Gulam left the void deck without his knowledge.

8.3 Sometime after 9.00pm Mohd Noor told him that he was leaving behind the card-board boxes which he would require the next day when he came back to dismantle and collect the decorations for re-packing in the boxes. He saw some cloth, flowers and other left over decorations in the boxes. He then brought the boxes to his room with the help of friends and kept them there.

8.4 On Sunday 8 March 1998 the wedding reception started at 10am and ended about 5pm when Mohd Noor came followed by Gulam. They dismantled the decorations. He paid Gulam for the decoration services and was then reminded by Gulam about the favour he wanted from the Accused. Gulam told him that one of the boxes which he had kept in his room had a nylon bag (also referred to as a canvas bag) which belonged to Gulam’s friend. Gulam wanted him to keep the nylon bag in his house for one or two days after which he or his friend would come and collect the said bag. When he asked Gulam as to what was in the bag, Gulam told him not to ask first but just to keep it and so he didn’t ask much further. He left Gulam, went to his room and looked into the boxes and saw a nylon bag in one of them with blue and red stripes and a zip which he kept aside in his room...