Public Prosecutor v Muhammad bin Abdullah and another

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeKan Ting Chiu SJ
Judgment Date02 September 2015
Neutral Citation[2015] SGHC 231
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Docket NumberCriminal Case No 25 of 2015
Year2015
Published date20 January 2017
Hearing Date22 April 2015,21 April 2015,23 April 2015,14 July 2015,15 April 2015,14 April 2015,16 April 2015,13 April 2015,20 April 2015,24 April 2015
Plaintiff CounselTan Wen Hsien and Raja Mohan s/o Krishnaraju (Attorney General's Chambers)
Defendant CounselJames Masih (James Masih & Company) & Supramaniam Rajan (Hilborne Law LLC),Low Cheong Yeow (Tito Isaac & Co LLP) & Daniel Koh (Eldan Law LLP)
Subject MatterCriminal law,statutory offences,Misuse of Drugs Act
Citation[2015] SGHC 231
Kan Ting Chiu SJ: Introduction

This is a joint trial of two accused persons (“the Accused Persons”), Muhammad bin Abdullah (“the 1st Accused”) and Yu Ching Thai (“the 2nd Accused”), for the offence of drug trafficking under the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”). The charge against the 1st Accused was that he

on the 24th day of May 2012 at or about 7.15 p.m., at the third floor corridor near the lift lobby of Block 707 Woodlands Ave 4, Singapore, did traffic in a Class A controlled drug listed in the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap. 185, 2008 Ed) (“MDA”), to wit, by having in your possession for the purpose of trafficking, four (04) packets containing 915.60 grams of granular/powdery substance which were analysed and found to contain not less than 19.84 grams of diamorphine, without authorisation under the MDA or the Regulations made thereunder, and you have thereby committed an offence under section 5(1)(a) read with section 5(2) of the MDA and punishable under section 33(1) of the MDA, and further, upon your conviction under section 5(1)(a) read with section 5(2) of the MDA, you may alternatively be liable to be punished under section 33B of the MDA.

The 2nd Accused was charged that he

on the 24th day of May 2012 at or about 6.17 pm, at the carpark of Block 315 Woodlands Street 31, Singapore, did traffic in a Class A controlled drug listed in the First Schedule to the MDA, to wit, by giving four (04) packets containing 915.60 grams of granular/powdery substance which were analysed and found to contain not less than 19.84 Grams of diamorphine, to one Muhammed bin Abdullah (NRIC: [xxx]), without authorisation under the MDA or the Regulations made thereunder, and you have thereby committed an offence under section 5(1)(a) of the MDA punishable under section 33(1) of the MDA, and further, upon your conviction under section 5(1)(a) of the MDA, you may alternatively be liable to be punished under section 33B of the MDA.

The Arrests

The Accused Persons were arrested by officers of the Central Narcotics Bureau (“the CNB”) who were conducting an operation with respect to a suspected drug transaction. The officers observed a car bearing registration number SGQ 9129 K (“the car”) in the carpark between Blocks 316 and 317 Woodlands Street 31 (“the carpark”) with the 1st Accused in the driver’s seat. A motorcycle bearing registration number JNP 3997 (“the motorcycle”) subsequently arrived at the carpark and stopped near the car. The 2nd Accused dismounted from the motorcycle and entered the car. The 1st Accused then drove the car out of the carpark. A few minutes later, the 1st Accused drove the car back to the carpark. The 2nd Accused came out of the car and returned to the motorcycle, while the 1st Accused drove the car out of the carpark again. The 2nd Accused was arrested by the CNB officers before he could leave the carpark. A stack of cash amounting to S$9,800 was seized from him.

Other officers in the operation gave chase to the car, but lost sight of it. Subsequently, the car was found abandoned at the junction of Woodlands Avenue 4 and Avenue 7 where it had collided with a taxi. Although he ran off from the car, the 1st Accused did not evade arrest for long. He was spotted by CNB officers at the third floor common corridor of Block 707 Woodlands Avenue 4. The officers saw him throw a white plastic bag over the parapet wall of the corridor when they moved in to arrest him. The 1st Accused was arrested and a white plastic bag was recovered from the ground floor of the block as well as a red and black sling bag which was in a drain.1

The white plastic bag2 held a purple plastic bag.3 The purple bag in turn held four packets each wrapped in newspaper4 (these packets were at times referred to as bundles). After the four packets were unwrapped, each packet was found to contain granular/powdery substance wrapped in clear plastic.5 The four packets were sent to the Health Sciences Authority (“HSA”) where the granular/powdery substance contained in each packet was weighed and underwent qualitative and quantitative analysis. The results of the analysis were as follows:

Packet Weight of granular/powdery substance Diamorphine weight
1 229.7 grams 4.90 grams
2 227.4 grams 5.02 grams
3 229.0 grams 4.19 grams
4 229.5 grams 5.73 grams
In total, the four packets contained 915.60 grams of granular/powdery substance which were found to contain not less than 19.84 grams of diamorphine.

The red and black sling bag6 (which was also referred to as a pouch) was found to contain, inter alia, a red foil packet which in turn held three small packets of granular/powdery substance which were also sent to HSA where they were weighed and analysed. The weight of the granular/powdery substance was 22.91 grams, and the diamorphine content weighed 0.70 grams.7

The drugs in the sling bag were not included in the charges against the Accused Persons. The 1st Accused admitted that the sling bag and its contents belonged to him, and that he had thrown it down the block together with the white plastic bag.

The 1st Accused’s statements

Following his arrest, and the recovery of the white plastic bag and the sling bag, the 1st Accused was questioned by Senior Station Inspector Tony Ng Tze Chiang (“SSI Ng”) at about 7.30pm while they were still at Block 707 Woodlands Avenue 4. SSI Ng showed him the white plastic bag, questioned him and recorded the questions and answers in his pocketbook:8 Do you understand English? Yes. What was inside the bag? Peh Hoon. Where did you throw this white plastic bag? From this block 707, third floor. Where did you take this plastic bag that you say is “Peh Hoon” from and from where? A Malaysian Chinese at the carpark of somewhere near polyclinic Blk 317 Woodland. How many heroin is inside this plastic bag that you throw and you say you collected from the Malaysian Chinese? 4 pounds are inside this plastic bag.

Later on in the evening, SSI Ng recorded a signed statement from the 1st Accused:9 What language do you choose to speak? English. Where were you arrested at? Block 707 Woodlands. Before your arrest what did you do? I was inside vehicle: SGQ 9129 G and I hit into a taxi at the junction of don’t know what Avenue of Woodlands. What did you do after that? I left the key and ran away with a white plastic bag. What is inside the white plastic bag? Four bundles of Heroin and a little bit of ICE. Recorder’s Note: B110 was shown a deposited polymer bag inside contain a white plastic bag and another deposited polymer bag of red and black colour sling bag and I asked B1: Is this the plastic bag of heroin and the red and black sling bag of ICE? Yes, this were the plastic bag of heroin and ICE I throw at Blk 707, Woodlands. This plastic bag of what you says that contained 4 bundle of heroin and the red and black sling bag of ICE collected from where and who? The plastic bag of 4 bundles of heroin, I collected from a male Malaysian Chinese at Block 317 inside the car park of Woodlands Street 31 just now about 5 something. The ICE from Singapore people but not collected from the male Malaysian Chinese at about last week. Recorder’s Note: B1 was shown a image of male Malaysian Chinese Yu Ching Thai Fin: G7006441W and I asked: Is this the male Malaysian Chinese that you are talking about? Yes, it’s him. How much you pay him for this plastic bag of heroin and did you pay him at the same place? Actually, the money that I pay for this plastic of heroin goes to a male Indian but not him and he only pass this plastic of heroin to me.

On 28 May 2012, four days after his arrest, a cautioned statement was recorded from the 1st Accused in answer to a charge of trafficking in 914.78 grams of diamorphine (the gross weight before analysis). His statement was:

I admit to all the drugs that were found at that Blk 707 and I admit to all charges. I plead for leniency for the mistake.

The cautioned statement was followed up by a series of investigation statements which began on 29 May 2012, the day after the recording of the cautioned statement. I shall set out the parts of the statements which presented the background to the 1st Accused’s involvement in drug trafficking and consumption, and the circumstances in which he was arrested. In his statement recorded on 29 May 2012 at 2.45pm, he revealed that: I started as a middleman, meaning that when my drug customers look for me to buy drugs, I would act as the middleman and go and get the drug supply from my supplier. I would then in turn sell the drugs to my customers. This was because I did not have capital of my own. I only sell Heroin. I would sell in sets. One set is 10 packets of Heroin of about 8 grams each. My cost price for one set of Heroin is about $1100 and I would sell them at $1400. As time goes by, I accumulated my own capital. About one month ago, I then contacted my Malaysian friends to get Heroin directly from them. I started with one pound of Heroin. The drugs would be brought in by a Malaysian. One pound of Heroin would cost me $4900. I would usually break half a pound into smaller portions for sales in sets and sell the other half pound directly to one of my customers. I have been doing this about once every two or three days for the past month. I would only order two pounds of Heroin at most each time. From the two pounds of Heroin, I can earn a profit of about one thousand plus. My wife is aware that I am on the run and she has always been encouraging me to go surrender myself. However, I would always tell her that I would do so when I think the time is ripe. I do not smoke Heroin in front of my wife and my family. I usually smoke Heroin...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Public Prosecutor v Tan Kay Yong and another
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 26 March 2018
    ...bin Mohamed Hussain v PP [1996] 2 SLR(R) 706 at [62]–[63]). The frequency of supply available to the accused (PP v Muhammad bin Abdullah [2015] SGHC 231 (“Muhammad bin Abdullah HC”) at [19]). Whether the accused had the financial means to purchase the drugs for himself (Muhammad bin Abdulla......
  • Muhammad bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor and another appeal
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 12 January 2017
    ...of the case have been set out by the Judge in his Grounds of Decision (“GD”) in Public Prosecutor v Muhammad bin Abdullah and another [2015] SGHC 231, we will state only the facts that are pertinent for these appeals. There was some ambiguity in the submissions on the use of the terms “bund......
1 books & journal articles
  • The discretionary death penalty for drug couriers in Singapore
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage International Journal of Evidence & Proof, The No. 20-1, January 2016
    • 1 January 2016
    ...Shatig bin Abdul Karim [2015] SGHC 189; Public Prosecutor vYogaras Poongavanam [2015]SGHC 193; Public Prosecutor vMuhammad bin Abdullah [2015] SGHC 231.11. Public Prosecutor vChum Tat Suan [2014] 1 SLR 834. The Attorney-General is both principal advisor to the government andcontroller of pr......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT