Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Nabill bin Mohd Fuad
Judge | Audrey Lim JC |
Judgment Date | 03 December 2018 |
Neutral Citation | [2018] SGHC 268 |
Citation | [2018] SGHC 268 |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Published date | 15 April 2020 |
Docket Number | Criminal Case No 61 of 2018 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Lau Wing Yum and Chan Yi Cheng (Attorney-General's Chambers) |
Defendant Counsel | Hassan Esa Almenoar (R Ramason & Almenoar) and Sheik Umar bin Mohamed Bagushair (Wong & Leow LLC) |
Subject Matter | Criminal Law,Statutory Offences,Misuse of Drugs Act,Criminal procedure and sentencing,Sentencing,Conviction |
Hearing Date | 14 August 2018,13 August 2018,15 August 2018,05 November 2018,16 August 2018 |
The accused (“Nabill”) claimed trial to two charges under the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“the MDA”), which read as follows:
(1st Charge)
That you, Muhammad Nabill bin Mohd Fuad,
on 27 January 2016, at about 8.02 p.m., at Blk 440B Fernvale Link, [unit xxx], Singapore, did traffic in a Class ‘A’ controlled drug listed in the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act (Chapter 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”),
to wit , by having in your possession for the purpose of trafficking, sixty-four (64) packets containing 1,827.21 grams of granular/powdery substance, which was analysed and found to contain not less than 63.41 grams of diamorphine, without authorisation under the said Act or the Regulations made thereunder, and you have thereby committed an offence under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) punishable under s 33(1) of the MDA, and further upon your conviction under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the MDA, you may alternatively be liable to be punished under s 33B of the MDA.(2nd Charge)
That you, Muhammad Nabill bin Mohd Fuad,
on 27 January 2016, at about 8.02 p.m., at Blk 440B Fernvale Link, [unit xxx], Singapore, did traffic in a Class ‘A’ controlled drug listed in the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act (Chapter 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”),
to wit , by having in your possession for the purpose of trafficking, nine (9) blocks containing not less than 2,251.90 grams of vegetable matter, which was analysed and found to be cannabis, without authorisation under the said Act or the Regulations made thereunder, and you have thereby committed an offence under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) punishable under s 33(1) of the MDA, and further upon your conviction under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the MDA, you may alternatively be liable to be punished under s 33B of the MDA.
At the conclusion of the trial, I found that the Prosecution had proved beyond a reasonable doubt the two charges against Nabill, and I convicted him on the charges. Under s 33(1) of the MDA, read with the Second Schedule to the MDA, the prescribed punishment is death. Pursuant to s 33B(1)(
Nabill has filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence.
The Prosecution’s case Events leading up to and the arrest of NabillOn 27 January 2016, Senior Staff Sergeant Ika Zahary bin Kasmari (“SSgt Ika”) from the Central Narcotics Bureau (“the CNB”) briefed a party of CNB officers about an operation relating to Nabill, who was suspected of being involved in drug activities.
Around 7pm that day, CNB officers arrived at a multi-storey carpark beside Block 440B Fernvale Link and began observing Nabill’s apartment (“the Flat”). At about 8pm, Nabill and one Mohamed Khairul Bin Jabar (“Khairul”) were arrested when they were both leaving the Flat. The CNB officers then entered the Flat and arrested one Mashitta Binte Dawood (“Mashitta”), Nabill’s wife. Khairul was arrested because he was found with two packets of methamphetamine in his bag and Mashitta was arrested because she was a suspected drug addict.
The CNB officers proceeded to search the Flat in Nabill’s presence. The following exhibits were seized from “Bedroom 1” (with the serial numbers of the items forming the subject of the charges in bold and underline):1
Items on the bed
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Items at the side of the bed
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Items inside a foldable wardrobe
|
|
|
|
|
|
Items beside the foldable wardrobe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Items on the floor, beside the bed18
|
|
|
|
|
|
SSgt Richard Chua Yong Choon (“SSgt Richard”) explained that after the search in Bedroom 1 had concluded, SSgt Ika asked Nabill if there were any more drugs in the Flat, to which Nabill replied, “storeroom”.19 SSgt Richard did not hear the conversation between SSgt Ika and Nabill, but was informed of it by SSgt Ika.20 SSgt Ika stated that after the search of Bedroom 1 had ended, he asked Nabill “ada lagi” (meaning “still some more”), essentially to ask Nabill if there were any more drugs in the Flat.21 SSgt Ika stated that Nabill answered “storeroom” and he then escorted Nabill to the storeroom at about 9.45pm.
The storeroom was searched in Nabill’s presence and SSgt Richard seized the following items from the storeroom (with serial numbers of items forming the subject matter of the charges in bold and underline):22
| |
| |
| |
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Muhammad Nabill bin Mohd Fuad v Public Prosecutor
...Accordingly, she imposed the mandatory death sentence on the Appellant: see Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Nabill bin Mohd Fuad [2018] SGHC 268 (“GD”) at [2]. The Appellant has appealed against his conviction as well as his sentence. On appeal, the Appellant does not dispute that he had posse......