Public Prosecutor v Muhammad bin Abdullah and another
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Kan Ting Chiu SJ |
Judgment Date | 02 September 2015 |
Neutral Citation | [2015] SGHC 231 |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Docket Number | Criminal Case No 25 of 2015 |
Year | 2015 |
Published date | 20 January 2017 |
Hearing Date | 22 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 Counsel | Tan Wen Hsien and Raja Mohan s/o Krishnaraju (Attorney General's Chambers) |
Defendant Counsel | James Masih (James Masih & Company) & Supramaniam Rajan (Hilborne Law LLC),Low Cheong Yeow (Tito Isaac & Co LLP) & Daniel Koh (Eldan Law LLP) |
Subject Matter | Criminal law,statutory offences,Misuse of Drugs Act |
Citation | [2015] SGHC 231 |
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 24
th 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 Arrestson the 24
th 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 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:
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
The red and black sling bag6 (which was also referred to as a pouch) was found to contain,
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
Later on in the evening, SSI Ng recorded a signed statement from the 1st Accused:9
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:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Public Prosecutor v Tan Kay Yong and another
...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
...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......
-
The discretionary death penalty for drug couriers in Singapore
...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......