Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Akbar Khan bin Abdullah

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeKow Keng Siong
Judgment Date30 May 2022
Neutral Citation[2022] SGDC 113
CourtDistrict Court (Singapore)
Docket NumberDistrict Arrest Case No 908860 of 2021, Magistrate’s Appeal No. 9088 of 2022-01
Published date08 June 2022
Year2022
Hearing Date04 May 2022,05 May 2022,06 May 2022
Plaintiff CounselGoh Yong Ngee (Attorney-General's Chambers)
Defendant CounselThe accused in person.
Citation[2022] SGDC 113
District Judge Kow Keng Siong: Introduction

This is an appeal by Mr Muhammad Akbar Khan bin Abdullah (“the Accused”) against my decision to convict him – after a trial – on a charge under s 33A(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (“MDA”). The charge alleged that on or before 21 February 2021 the Accused had consumed, without authorisation, Monoacetylmorphine (“MAM”), a specified drug listed in the MDA (“LT2 Charge”). The Accused denied having consumed MAM at all material times.

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 (“Regulations”). The Accused was arrested at his flat unit on 21 February 2021 because he had failed to report to Bedok Police Division HQ for urine tests (as required under the Regulations) and was suspected to have consumed controlled drugs.1

Grounds for conviction – Overview

In summary, I found that the Prosecution had proven the LT2 Charge beyond reasonable doubt based on the following: First, the Accused had admitted to having consumed heroin before his arrest. This admission is contained in an investigation statement recorded from him on 12 April 2021 (P12) (“12 April Statement”). I found the 12 April Statement to have been voluntarily given by him, despite his claims to the contrary. Second, the Accused’s urine samples (procured one day after his arrest) were found to contain MAM. Pursuant to s 22 of the MDA, the Accused is presumed to have consumed that drug. During the trial, the Accused had failed to rebut this presumption.

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 (“the Minister”) stated that drug abusers would be rehabilitated rather than be prosecuted.

The 12 April Statement

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 (“DRC”) – instead of being prosecuted – if he were to admit to having consumed controlled drugs: Insp Qurratu Ain Binte Aminurrashid (PW13) (“Insp Qurratu”) – the recorder of the 12 April Statement, and SI Rick Koh (PW2) (“SI Koh”) – the Accused’s supervision officer.

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 (“CGH”) (P5). The Accused informed her that he did not have any corrections to make to that statement. Thereafter, Insp Qurratu showed the Accused two certificates issued by the Health Sciences Authority (“HSA”) and told him that his urine samples were found to contain MAM. Insp Qurratu then asked the Accused why this was so. She recorded the Accused’s response in the 12 April Statement. After she had completed recording the Accused’s statement, Insp Qurratu read it back to him. The Accused declined to make any amendment to the 12 April Statement. Thereafter, Insp Qurratu and the Accused appended their signatures to the statement. According to Insp Qurratu, the Accused was normal and calm during the statement recording.3

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 either be referred to a DRC or be prosecuted in court. Insp Qurratu stressed that she did not have the power to refer the Accused to a DRC, and that such a decision could only be made by her senior management.4

SI Koh’s evidence

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 evidence

The 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 given

As 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. For instance, when the Accused put to SI Koh that the latter had promised to refer him to a DRC on 12 April 2021, SI Koh candidly testified that he could not recall if he had spoken to the Accused on that day. If SI Koh had wanted to lie, he could have simply denied meeting the Accused altogether, since it was a case of the latter’s words against his. An example of Insp Qurratu being an honest witness is where she admitted to having told the Accused – before the statement recording commenced – that he could be referred to DRC (this being one of the possible outcomes to the investigations against him). This is despite the fact that the Accused could have used this admission to advance his case that she had promised him DRC to induce him into making the 12 April Statement. To fend off the Accused’s challenge to the statement, Insp Qurratu could simply have denied mentioning about DRC to him altogether. She did not do so. In my view, Insp Qurratu’s explanation that she had mentioned to the Accused about the two possible outcomes of DRC and prosecution – so that he would be aware of what might happen to his case before recording the 12 April Statement – further demonstrates that she had acted fairly at all times. By being told of the possibility of prosecution – which must have been a real possibility given that (a) his urine samples were found to contain MAM and (b) he was a repeat s 33A offender – the Accused was made aware of the implications of the 12 April Statement.

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. At the start of the trial, the Accused stated that the 12 April Statement was involuntary because he had been promised a referral to DRC. When I asked the Accused specifically who had made that promise, he identified only Insp Qurratu. The Accused did not identify SI Koh.7 When the Accused cross-examined Insp Qurratu, his case again appeared to be that she was the only person who had made the promise to refer him to DRC. The Accused did not allege that SI Koh had also made him the same promise in her presence. The Accused began to change his position after he had completed cross-examining Insp Qurratu. After Insp Qurratu was released, I asked the Accused to confirm whether there was any other person whose actions had caused him to give the 12 April Statement involuntarily. The Accused initially stated that no other person was involved. On further questioning however, he shifted his position. The Accused alleged that SI Koh had also promised...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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