Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Akbar Khan bin Abdullah
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Kow Keng Siong |
Judgment Date | 30 May 2022 |
Neutral Citation | [2022] SGDC 113 |
Court | District Court (Singapore) |
Docket Number | District Arrest Case No 908860 of 2021, Magistrate’s Appeal No. 9088 of 2022-01 |
Published date | 08 June 2022 |
Year | 2022 |
Hearing Date | 04 May 2022,05 May 2022,06 May 2022 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Goh Yong Ngee (Attorney-General's Chambers) |
Defendant Counsel | The accused in person. |
Citation | [2022] SGDC 113 |
This is an appeal by Mr Muhammad Akbar Khan bin Abdullah (“
At the material time, the Accused was subject to an order issued under reg 15(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Approved Institutions, Medical Observation and Treatment and Rehabilitation) Regulations (“
In summary, I found that the Prosecution had proven the LT2 Charge beyond reasonable doubt based on the following:
In convicting the Accused, I had also considered – and rejected – his claim that it was not appropriate to prosecute him on the LT2 Charge. This claim is based on (apparently) a second reading speech on the Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Bill on 15 January 2019 where the Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam (“
I will now elaborate on each of the above, beginning with my decision on the 12 April Statement.
The 12 April Statement was made voluntarily Ancillary hearing To prove its case on the LT2 Charge, the Prosecution had sought to admit the 12 April Statement. The Accused challenged the admission of this statement by alleging that it was not voluntarily given by him. Specifically, the Accused alleged that the following persons had separately promised that he would be referred to a drug rehabilitation centre (“
Given the Accused’s allegations, an ancillary hearing was accordingly convened to determine whether the 12 April Statement was voluntarily given.
Insp Qurratu’s evidence The first witness for the ancillary hearing was Insp Qurratu. During examination-in-chief, Insp Qurratu testified that the 12 April Statement was recorded from 10.45 am to 11.29 am.2 Before she commenced recording the 12 April Statement, Insp Qurratu asked the Accused whether he was comfortable to provide a statement. After the Accused confirmed that he was, Insp Qurratu read to him his previous statement recorded on 22 February 2021 at Changi General Hospital (“
During cross-examination, the Accused put to Insp Qurratu that she had promised to refer him to a DRC if he gave a “good statement” during the recording of the 12 April Statement. She denied. Insp Qurratu testified that she had spoken to the Accused about DRC before the statement recording started. This was however in the context of informing him about the possible outcomes to the investigations – namely, that he could
The second witness for the ancillary hearing was SI Koh. During examination-in-chief, SI Koh testified that he was not present at Bedok Police Division HQ when the 12 April Statement was recorded. SI Koh explained that he was out of office performing duties and had gone to Bedok Police Division HQ only sometime after 5.00 pm that day. He could not recall whether he had spoken to the Accused on 12 April 2021.
During cross-examination, the Accused put to SI Koh that he had promised to refer him (i.e., the Accused) to the DRC if he were to admit to having consumed drugs. It was also put to SI Koh that Insp Qurratu was present when this promise was made, and that she would have heard it. SI Koh denied these claims. According to SI Koh, he would never tell any of his drug supervisee or accused person such matters.5
The Accused’s evidenceThe next witness for the ancillary hearing was the Accused. He testified that when he reported to Bedok Police Division HQ on 12 April 2021, SI Koh brought him to an office. At the office, he saw Insp Qurratu. SI Koh showed the Accused two certificates which stated that his urine samples contained drugs and asked him (i.e., the Accused) to give a statement so that he could be referred to a DRC.
The Accused complied with SI Koh’s request, on the understanding that under the “law” announced by the Minister in 2019, he would be referred to a DRC and would not be prosecuted if he were to admit to drug consumption.6
12 April Statement was voluntarily givenAs stated earlier, I have found that the Accused had given the 12 April Statement voluntarily. My reasons for this decision are as follows.
Insp Qurratu and SI Koh were credible witnesses First, I found Insp Qurratu and SI Koh to be truthful witnesses. During the ancillary hearing, they had given their evidence in a forthright and fair manner. At times, Insp Qurratu and SI Koh had given evidence that might assist the Accused’s case – even though it would have been very easy for them to falsely testify otherwise since there was no objective evidence to contradict them.
Second, I found that Insp Qurratu and SI Koh had no reason to promise the Accused a referral to a DRC. They had nothing to gain by inducing the Accused to involuntarily admit to drug consumption. Based on the HSA certificates, they already had sufficient basis to prefer the LT2 Charge. (For further discussion, see [32] and [33] below.)
The Accused’s allegations lack coherence and credibility Third, the Accused had failed to provide a consistent account regarding what caused him to give the 12 April Statement involuntarily.
To continue reading
Request your trial