Public Prosecutor v Rahmat bin Karimon and another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Aedit Abdullah J
• Judgment Date: 02 January 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] SGHC 1
• Plaintiff Counsel: Muhamad Imaduddien and Kenneth Kee (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Date: 02 January 2018
• Docket Number: Criminal Case No 35 of 2017
• Hearing Date: 02 May 2017,11 September 2017,03 May 2017,05 May 2017,14 August 2017,09 May 2017,04 May 2017,11 May 2017
• Subject Matter: Statutory offences,Construction of statute,Misuse of Drugs Act,Statutory interpretation,Criminal law
• Year: 2018
• Defendant Counsel: Aw Wee Chong Nicholas (Clifford Law LLP) and Prasad s/o Karunakarn (K Prasad & Co),Peter Keith Fernando (Leo Fernando) and Jeeva Arul Joethy (Hilborne Law LLC)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Citation: [2018] SGHC 1
• Published date: 06 October 2018

Aedit Abdullah J: Introduction

Following a joint trial, I convicted both accused persons (“the Defendants”) on one charge of trafficking in a Class A controlled drug under s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“the MDA”), which is punishable under s 33(1) of the MDA. No certificate of substantive assistance was provided. I therefore imposed the mandatory minimum sentence of death on both of them.

Background Charges

The first defendant, Rahmat bin Karimon (“Rahmat”), a 28 year-old Malaysian national, was charged as follows:¹

… on 27 May 2015, between 8.20pm and 9.20pm, at Staircase No. 11 located at the second floor of IKEA, 60 Tampines North Drive 2, Singapore, did traffic in a Class A Controlled Drug listed in the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap. 185, 2008 Rev. Ed.), to wit, by delivering three packets containing not less than 1381.7g of granular/powdery substance, which was subsequently analysed and found to contain not less than 53.64g of diamorphine, to one Zainal Bin Hamad …, without authorization under the said Act or the Regulations made thereunder, and you have thereby committed an offence under section 5(1)(a) and punishable under section 33(1) of the said Act.

The second defendant, Zainal Bin Hamad (“Zainal”), a 40 year-old Singaporean, faced a total of three charges. Two of these charges were stood down at trial and the Prosecution proceeded on the following charge:²

… on 27 May 2015, at about 9.25pm, at IKEA, located at 60 Tampines North Drive 2, Singapore, did traffic in a Class A Controlled Drug listed in the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap. 185, 2008 Rev. Ed.), to wit, by having in your possession for the purpose of trafficking three packets containing not less than 1381.7g of granular/powdery substance, which was subsequently analysed and found to contain not less than 53.64g of diamorphine, without authorization under the said Act or the Regulations made thereunder, and you have thereby committed an offence under section 5(l)(a) read with section 5(2) of the said Act, and punishable under section 33(1) of the said Act.

Undisputed facts

An agreed statement of facts (“ASOF”) was tendered under s 267(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) (“the CPC”). The agreed and undisputed facts were as follows.

At the material time, Rahmat was employed as a runner for one “Kanna Gila” (“Kanna”) who was in the “shady business of money-lending”.³ Rahmat had known Kanna for a period of less than two months prior to his arrest.⁴

On 27 May 2015, sometime before 6.51pm, Rahmat entered Singapore from Malaysia via Woodlands Checkpoint in a car bearing Malaysian registration number BEU 8204 (“the Car”). He was with his wife and their three children.⁵ Pursuant to Kanna’s earlier instructions, after entering Singapore, Rahmat drove to Rochor Road where he met up with a male subject known as “Bai” (who is still at large).⁶ Bai instructed Rahmat to meet Zainal at the IKEA store located at 60 Tampines North Drive 2, Singapore (“IKEA”). Rahmat then left his family in the Car at Rochor Road before taking a taxi by himself to IKEA. By this time, Rahmat was in possession of a green bag (“the Bag”).⁷

At the material time, Rahmat was known to Zainal as “Abang”⁸ and Zainal was known to Rahmat as “26”.⁹ When Rahmat arrived at IKEA, Zainal was already there. This was because Zainal was working there as a warehouse assistant.¹⁰

When Rahmat reached the taxi stand outside IKEA at about 8.10pm on the same day, he called Zainal using his mobile phone.¹¹ As there was no response, Rahmat entered IKEA where he found a public telephone on the fourth floor and called Zainal again. Rahmat informed Zainal that he had reached IKEA and that he was near the toilet on the fourth floor. He also informed Zainal that he was wearing a grey t-shirt.¹² About 10 to 15 minutes later, Zainal proceeded to Rahmat’s location on the fourth floor. Rahmat and Zainal then made their way to the staircase on the second level of IKEA.¹³ At this time, Rahmat was still carrying the Bag.¹⁴ Zainal did not ask Rahmat about the Bag or its contents until they were just about to leave the fourth level of IKEA.¹⁵

At about 8.35pm, Zainal passed S$8,000 to Rahmat. After which, Rahmat placed the Bag at the staircase landing on the second floor of IKEA in front of Zainal before heading back down to the taxi stand on the ground floor.¹⁶

After leaving IKEA by a taxi, Rahmat met up with his wife and children along Queen Street. He then drove the Car with his family to Woodlands Checkpoint. At the checkpoint, Rahmat and his wife were arrested by officers with the Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”). Rahmat’s wife was searched, and S$8,000 was found hidden in her bra. Rahmat had given his wife the S$8,000 he received from Zainal and told her to hide it in her bra whilst they were en route to Woodlands Checkpoint.¹⁷

After Rahmat had placed the Bag in front of Zainal, Zainal did not immediately pick it up.¹⁸ Instead, Zainal walked around IKEA and was observed entering and exiting the side door multiple times.¹⁹ During this time, no one else came into contact with the Bag. At around 9.23pm, Zainal went back to the staircase landing and picked up the Bag. Zainal then proceeded into a warehouse located at the second floor of IKEA where he placed the Bag behind a stack of pallets containing goods from IKEA.²⁰ Around this time, Zainal asked his colleague, Mohamed Shahreel bin Mohamed Hassan (“Shahreel”), whether the latter could cover Zainal’s work for the day if he went off early.²¹

At about 9.25pm, CNB officers entered the warehouse and arrested Zainal.²² Thereafter, Zainal led the officers to where he had placed the Bag in the warehouse. The Bag was opened in Zainal’s presence and it was found to contain one brown towel (“the Towel”) and one red coloured plastic bag containing three plastic packets of 1381.7g of granular/powdery substance (“the Drugs”).²³ The Drugs were subsequently found to contain not less than 53.64g of diamorphine (more popularly referred to by its street name, “heroin”).²⁴

Neither Rahmat nor Zainal were authorised under the MDA or the Regulations made thereunder to traffic or be in the possession of a controlled drug.²⁵

Procedural matters

No objection was taken by the Defendants or the Prosecution to the trial being heard jointly. I was in any event satisfied that the requirements for a joint trial were met given that the offences concerning the Defendants were part of “the same transaction” (see s 143 of the CPC) or arose from the “same series of acts” (see s 144 of the CPC). In any event, there was consent expressed through the defence counsel as well as the Prosecution for the trials to proceed jointly: see s 145(1)(b) of the CPC.

The Prosecution’s case

The Prosecution’s primary case was that the respective presumptions of possession and knowledge of the nature of the Drugs under ss 18(1) and 18(2) of the MDA applied and was unrebutted for both Defendants (applying Obeng Comfort v Public Prosecutor [2017] 1 SLR 633 (“Obeng Comfort”) at [39]–[40]).²⁶ Rahmat’s case that he thought he was bringing in food or medicinal products cannot rebut the presumption of knowledge under s 18(2) of the MDA because it was simply unbelievable given the surrounding circumstances.²⁷ Similarly, Zainal failed to rebut the presumption because he had not articulated what he had believed to be the contents of the Bag other than disclaiming any knowledge of its contents.²⁸

The Prosecution also argued in the alternative that the Defendants were either wilfully blind or had actual knowledge of the nature of the Drugs. For Rahmat, given the unusually suspicious circumstances surrounding the transaction, the lack of sufficient basis for trusting Kanna, and the ease with which he could have checked the Bag’s contents, he was wilfully blind to the possibility that the Bag contained the Drugs.²⁹ Alternatively, Rahmat’s actual knowledge can be inferred from his multiple lies in his statements given to the CNB that were corroborative of his guilt, as well as Zainal’s evidence (corroborated by objective phone and immigration records) that Rahmat had delivered a prior shipment of heroin at IKEA sometime in early May 2015.³⁰ For Zainal, his wilful blindness can be discerned from his suspicious behaviour upon meeting Rahmat and from the fact he hid the Bag immediately after picking it up.³¹ Alternatively, Zainal had actual knowledge of the nature of the Drugs because his contention that he was ordering contraband cigarettes instead of heroin was inconsistent with the objective evidence, Rahmat’s evidence, as well as his own evidence.³²

Lastly, the Prosecution argued that Zainal had possessed the Drugs for the purpose of trafficking because given the large quantity of diamorphine involved, there were only two possible explanations, both of which would constitute trafficking.³³ One explanation was Zainal’s admission that he had “intended to give the [Bag] to [Rahmat]” when Rahmat returned with his alleged shipment of contraband cigarettes. The other explanation was that Zainal intended to sell the Drugs to his various customers.

The Defence’s case Rahmat’s case

Rahmat’s primary defence was that he did not know that he was transporting controlled drugs – he thought he was transporting medicinal products.³⁴

It was argued that the presumption under s 18(2) of the MDA was rebutted. Rahmat did not believe he was carrying anything illegal because he was told by Kanna that it was a medicinal product, and he had also checked the items he was carrying.³⁵ Rahmat had trusted Kanna, who had passed him the items. It was also argued that Rahmat was entitled to trust Kanna in the circumstances. He had known Kanna for about two months, in comparison to the three weeks found sufficient in Harven a/l Segar v Public Prosecutor [2017] 1 SLR 771 (“Harven”) to...