Public Prosecutor v Mohammad Ariff Bin Jamaludin

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Eddy Tham
• Judgment Date: 16 September 2024
• Neutral Citation: [2024] SGDC 236
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: District Arrest Case no.903360-2020 and others, Magistrate’s Appeal No. 9158-2024-01
• Hearing Date: 08 July 2024,05 August 2024
• Citation: [2024] SGDC 236
• Year: 2024
• Plaintiff Counsel: Deputy Public Prosecutor Ms Quek Lu Yi
• Defendant Counsel: Defence Counsel Teo Choo Kee (M/s C K Teo & Co)
• Published date: 21 September 2024

District Judge Eddy Tham: Background

This is the accused’s appeal against sentence in respect of three charges, namely one charge DAC 903360-2020 for an offence of consumption of a specified drug under section 8(b)(ii) and punishable under section 33A(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, Rev Ed 2008) (“the Act”) and two charge, DAC 915381-2022 and DAC 917181-2022, for offences of possession of controlled drugs under section 8(a) and punishable under section 33(1) of the Act.

The Accused was initially charged on 2 counts for trafficking in controlled drugs. For one charge, the amount of cannabis alleged to have been trafficked was not less than 499.99 grams and he would have been liable to be punished with not less than 20 years’ imprisonment, if convicted. For the other charge, the amount of diamorphine trafficked was alleged to be not less than 17.95g, for which the Accused was facing a death penalty. However, both charges were subsequently reduced to one for possession of controlled drug and the Accused had thereafter pleaded guilty to these charges.

The Accused also admitted to and consented for nine possession charges, one consumption charge, one possession of drug utensil charge and three failure to report for urine test charges to be taken into consideration.

I sentenced the Accused to 8 years’ imprisonment and 6 strokes of the cane for the consumption charge and 8 years’ imprisonment for each of the possession charges. I further ordered the sentence for the consumption charge to run consecutively with one of the sentences for the possession charge, giving a total sentence of 16 years’ imprisonment and 6 strokes of the cane.

The Accused being dissatisfied with the sentence has filed an appeal against it. He is presently serving his sentence.

The Charges

The three charges which Accused pleaded guilty to are set out here in full:

DAC 903360-2020

… you, on or about 24 August 2018, in Singapore, did consume a Specified Drug listed in the Fourth Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act, (Chapter 185, 2008 Rev Edition) (“MDA”), to wit, Morphine, without any authorisation under the MDA or the Regulations made thereunder, and you have thereby committed an offence under s 8(b)(ii) of the MDA, and further, that you, before the commission of the said offence, had been convicted, on 12 May 2004, in the District Court, No. 4 (vide DAC18510/2004), for an offence of Consumption of a Specified Drug, to wit, Morphine, under s 8(b)(ii) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Chapter 185, 2001 Rev Edition) (“MDA 2001”) and punishable under s 33A(1) of the MDA 2001, and sentenced to 5 years and 3 months’ imprisonment with 3 strokes of cane, for which conviction and punishment has not been set aside, and that you are thereby liable for enhanced punishment under s 33A(2) of the MDA;

DAC 915381-2022

… you, on 24 August 2018 at or about 8.25am, at Block 782D Woodlands Crescent “xxx”, Singapore, did possess a Class ‘A’ controlled drug listed in the First Schedule of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”), to wit, four blocks containing not less than 499.99g of vegetable matter, which was analysed and found to be cannabis, without authorisation under the MDA or the Regulations made thereunder, and you have thereby committed an offence under s 8(a) of the MDA, and further, that you, before the commission of the above offence, had been convicted on 12 May 2004, in the District Court No. 4 (vide DAC09923/2004) for an offence of possession of a controlled drug, to wit, diamorphine, under s 8(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2001 Rev Ed), and were sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment, which conviction and sentence have not been set aside, and you are thereby liable for enhanced punishment under s 33(1) of the MDA;

and

DAC 917181-2022

… you, on 24 August 2018 at or about 8.25am, at Block 782D Woodlands Crescent “xxx”, Singapore, did possess a Class ‘A’ controlled drug listed in the First Schedule of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”), to wit, one packet and two bundles containing not less than 2254.7g of granular/ powdery substance which was analysed and found to contain not less than 14.99g of diamorphine, without authorisation under the MDA or the Regulations made thereunder, and you have thereby committed an offence under s 8(a) of the MDA, and further, that you, before the commission of the above offence, had been convicted on 12 May 2004, in the District Court No. 4 (vide DAC09923/2004) for an offence of possession of a controlled drug, to wit, diamorphine, under s 8(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2001 Rev Ed), and were sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment, which conviction and sentence have not been set aside, and you are thereby liable for enhanced punishment under s 33(1) of the MDA..

The Statement of Facts Background facts

The Accused is a 41-year-old male Singaporean.

The co-accused persons are: Abdul Rahim bin Ahamed (“Ahamed”), a 53-year-old male Singaporean; and Abdul Rahim bin Ramli (“Ramli”), a 49-year-old male Singaporean.

On 24 August 2018, at about 8.25am, a group of officers from the Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) arrested Ramli and the Accused at their residence at Block 782D Woodlands Crescent “xxx”, Singapore (“the Woodlands Unit”).

Separately, at about 9.14am on the same day, a group of officers from the CNB arrested Ahamed at his residence at Block 264 Jurong East Street 24 “xxx”, Singapore.

A search of the Woodlands Unit was conducted, and the following items, amongst others, were seized:

S/N	Exhibit Description	Exhibit Marking
1	One packet containing granular/powdery substance	A1A1
2	One bundle containing granular/powdery substance	A1B
3	One bundle containing granular/powdery substance	A1C
4	One block containing vegetable matter	H1A1-1
5	One block containing vegetable matter	H1A1A
6	One block containing vegetable matter	H1B-1
7	One block containing vegetable matter	H1B1A

The Accused, Ramli, and Ahamed were subsequently escorted to CNB Headquarters at Central Police Divisional Headquarters.

Facts relating to the 2nd Charge (DAC-917181-2022): Enhanced possession

The exhibits marked “A1A1”, “A1B” and “A1C” were individually sealed in tamper-proof bags and submitted to the Health Sciences Authority (“HSA”) for analysis on 27 August 2018.

On 19 December 2018, an analyst from HSA issued certificates stating that the exhibits “A1A1”, “A1B” and “A1C” were found to be as follows: A1A1 - One packet containing not less than 450.6g of granular/powdery substance which was analysed and found to contain not less than 4.13g of diamorphine; A1B - One black bundle containing not less than 901.7g of granular/powdery substance which was analysed and found to contain not less than 7.70g of diamorphine; and A1C - One black bundle containing not less than 902.4g of granular/powdery substance which was analysed and found to contain not less than 6.12g of diamorphine.

Therefore, the three exhibits were found to be one packet and two bundles containing a total of not less than 2254.7g of granular/ powdery substance were analysed and found to contain not less than 14.99g of diamorphine (“the Drugs”).

During investigations, it was established that Ramli was acting under the instructions of the Accused. The Accused, Ramli and Ahamed communicated with one another via phone call and text messages.

Both the Accused and Ramli resided in the Woodlands Unit. The Accused would occasionally provide “panas” and “sejuk” (the street name for diamorphine and methamphetamine respectively) to Ramli.

Sometime in May 2018, Ahamed lost his job. As he was in financial difficulties, Ahamed agreed to work as a driver for the Accused. The Accused told Ahamed that his job scope was to drive to various places to collect items and to pass these items to him. The Accused informed Ahamed to rent a car under his name and told Ahamed that he would pay for the rental and petrol.

Ramli had previously confided in the Accused that he was in financial difficulties and was in debt. Sometime in August 2018, the Accused approached Ramli and offered him a job. The Accused told Ramli that his job scope was to collect items for him in exchange for $200. Ramli agreed.

On 24 August 2018, at about 6.00am, Ramli arrived at Ahamed’s residence. Ramli passed Ahamed a bundle wrapped with tape, which Ramli had received from the Accused. They then left Ahamed’s residence for Third Lok Yang Road at about 6.45am, after receiving instructions from the Accused to do so.

Ramli and Ahamed proceeded to Third Lok Yang Road in separate vehicles. Ahamed drove a red Toyota Vios bearing registration number SKW3761R, while Ramli followed behind in a white van bearing registration number GBH2032D.

At about 7.15am, Ramli and Ahamed arrived at a carpark at Third Lok Yang Road. An unknown Indian man, riding a motorbike bearing a Malaysian registration number, then passed a plastic bag (which contained the Drugs) to Ahamed, while Ahamed handed over the bundle he had earlier received from Ramli.

Ahamed placed the said plastic bag on the front passenger seat of his vehicle. Ahamed then called the Accused and informed him that he had collected the Drugs. He was informed by the Accused to hand over the Drugs to Ramli. Ramli and Ahamed then spoke on the phone and agreed to meet at a separate location.

Ramli and Ahamed then proceeded to the open carpark at Block 935 Jurong West, Singapore. When they arrived at the carpark, Ahamed passed the plastic bag containing the Drugs to Ramli.

Ramli proceeded to the Woodlands Unit with the Drugs in his van. At about 7.30am, Ramli reached the carpark next to Block 782D Woodlands Crescent. Ramli was in possession of the Drugs at this time.

After he had parked his van and as he was leaving...