Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Mustafa Bin Mohd Haniffa
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Shawn Ho |
Judgment Date | 25 April 2022 |
Neutral Citation | [2022] SGDC 69 |
Court | District Court (Singapore) |
Docket Number | District Arrest Case No. DAC 907780 of 2020 & Ors, 9081/2022/01 |
Year | 2022 |
Published date | 06 May 2022 |
Hearing Date | 07 March 2022,29 March 2022,13 October 2021,23 March 2022,12 October 2021,09 March 2022,22 March 2022,25 April 2022,08 March 2022 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Kenneth Kee (Attorney-General's Chambers) |
Defendant Counsel | Accused in Person. |
Subject Matter | Criminal Law,Offences,Misuse of Drugs Act,Failure to Provide Urine Specimen without Reasonable Excuse,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Statements,Admissibility,Sentencing,Corrective Training |
Citation | [2022] SGDC 69 |
The Accused claimed trial to one charge of failing to provide a urine specimen without reasonable excuse to a Central Narcotics Bureau officer. Sixteen other charges were stood down for the trial.
The Accused argued that his mental and physical state was affected by his intoxication (alcohol, sleeping pills and other substances) to the extent that he had a reasonable excuse not to provide a urine specimen.
All things considered, the Prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the Accused was convicted on the proceeded charge.
The Prosecution asked for 9 years’ Corrective Training (“CT”), an enhanced sentence of 247 days and 6 strokes of the cane. The formative arc of CT was traced in
I sentenced the Accused to 8 years’ CT, an enhanced sentence of 247 days and 6 strokes of the cane. He has appealed against conviction and sentence. I set out my reasons.
Charges and legal contextThe Accused claimed trial to one charge under s 31(2) punishable under s 33A(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“the MDA”) and s 50T(1)(a) of the Prisons Act (Cap 247, 2000 Rev Ed) (DAC 907780-2020).
You, Muhammad Mustafa Bin Mohd Haniffa, are charged that you, on 5 February 2020 at about 10.50 pm, at Changi General Hospital (Ward 18 Bed 6), Singapore, failed to provide a urine specimen without reasonable excuse to an officer from the Central Narcotics Bureau – Sgt Abdul Azmin bin Abdul Rahman, and you have thereby committed an offence under s 31(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed),
and further, that you, before the commission of the said offence, were on 15 February 2016, convicted of an offence for the consumption of cannabis, a specified drug,
vide DAC 942606/2015 in State Court No. 18, in Singapore under s 8(b )(ii) of the MDA, and sentenced under s 33A(1) of the said Act with 5 years’ imprisonment and 3 strokes of the cane, which conviction has not been set aside to date, and you shall now be punished under s 33A(2) of the MDA,and further, that you, from 18 May 2019 to 27 January 2021, were subject to a remission order made by the Commissioner of Prisons under Division 2 of Part VB of the Prisons Act (Cap 247, 2014 Rev Ed), which is subject to the basic condition under section 50S(1) of the Prisons Act, and upon your conviction of the said offence, would be deemed to have committed an offence in breach of the basic condition of the remission order, and you are thereby liable under s 50T(1)(
a ) of the Prisons Act to an enhanced sentence not exceeding 358 days representing the remaining duration of the remission order in effect when the said offence was committed.
The burden of proof in showing that an accused person had a reasonable excuse lies on the defence:
As to what amounts to a “reasonable excuse”, some guidance is provided from an analogous scenario in
The Accused failed to provide a urine specimen without reasonable excuse. He was fit for urine collection.
Defence’s caseThe Accused’s mental and physical state was affected by his intoxication (alcohol, sleeping pills and other substances) to the extent that he had a reasonable excuse not to provide a urine specimen. At the material time, his “bladder (was) in pain”,2 he “really could not give (his) urine as (he has a) problem with (his) bladder” 3 and he had constipation4.
Ancillary hearing
Where voluntariness is challenged, the burden is on the Prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the statements were made voluntarily and not on the Defence to prove on a balance of probabilities that the statements were not made voluntarily:
It is only necessary for the Prosecution to remove a reasonable doubt of the existence of the threat, inducement or promise, and not every lurking shadow of influence or remnants of fear:
The voluntariness test is applied in a manner which is partly objective and partly subjective:
The Court of Appeal in
The litmus test for oppression is whether the investigation was, by its nature, duration or other attendant circumstances, such as to affect the accused person’s mind and will such that he speaks when he otherwise would have remained silent:
The Court of Appeal in
In this regard, Explanation 1 to s 258 of the CPC states that:
If a statement is obtained from an accused by a person in authority who had acted in such a manner that
his acts tend to sap and have in fact sapped the free will of the maker of the statement , and the court is of the opinion that such acts gave the accused grounds which would appear to the accused reasonable for supposing that by making the statement, he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him, such acts will amount to a threat, an inducement or a promise, as the case may be, which will render the statement inadmissible. [emphasis added]
Explanation 2(b) to s 258 of the CPC states that “If a statement is otherwise admissible, it will not be rendered inadmissible merely because it was made in any of the following circumstances: … (b) when the accused was intoxicated”.
Even if an accused person’s statement is voluntary, the court can exclude it if its prejudicial value outweighs its probative value, for example, where there is lack of language interpretation or procedural flaws in the recording which cast serious doubts on the accuracy of the statement recorded:
The Defence alleged that Sgt Abdul Azmin bin Abdul Rahman5 had recorded a long statement even though the Accused was not in a proper mental and physical state to provide a statement.6 This was because he had been intoxicated by Ethanol, Nitrazepam, Nordiazepam, Tramadol,7 Mirtazapine, Quetiapine, and Benzhexol.8 This was essentially a claim of oppression, which arose individually or cumulatively from the following factors:9
After the ancillary hearing, I found that the Prosecution had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the long statement recorded on 5 February 2020 at 10.55p.m. had been voluntarily given.10 I accepted the evidence of the Prosecution witnesses.
HSA analyst’s evidence
Ms Fu Baohui,11 an analyst from the Health Sciences Authority (“HSA”), stated that all the...
To continue reading
Request your trial