Public Prosecutor v Syed Abdul Rahim bin Hamed Alsagoff

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Joseph Yeo
• Judgment Date: 20 September 2011
• Neutral Citation: [2011] SGDC 411
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Hearing Date: 19 May 2010,12 January 2010,19 September 2011,22 March 2010,19 March 2010,20 September 2011,13 January 2010,23 March 2010,29 November 2009,18 May 2010,04 November 2009,11 January 2010,28 November 2009,01 June 2010,17 May 2010,16 November 2009
• Docket Number: DAC 13818/2009
• Plaintiff Counsel: DPP Peggy Pao
• Defendant Counsel: Mr S H Almenoar of M/S R Ramason & Almenoar
• Published date: 07 December 2011

District Judge Joseph Yeo:

The accused, Syed Abdul Rahim bin Hamed Alsagoff, was charged for consuming morphine under Sec 8(b)(ii) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 155). As he had been convicted on 13 August 2002 for consumption of morphine under Sec 8(b)(ii) punishable under Sec 33A(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 155), he was now liable for enhanced punishment under Sec 33A(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 155).

After hearing the evidence and considering the submissions from the parties, I convicted the accused and sentenced him to 7 years and 6 months imprisonment. I did not impose any sentence for caning because the accused was 59 years of age at the time of conviction.

The accused has appealed against both conviction and sentence.

Background Facts

On 17 February 2009, at about 2300 hrs, the accused was driving to his home in Woodlands when he apparently made a wrong turn and ended up in the Woodlands Checkpoint. Due to the fact that the accused had failed to report for his urine tests as required, a gazette for his arrest had been issued by the Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”). As a result, he was stopped and asked to wait while CNB was contacted.

Sgt Fathli bin Mohd Yusof, PW1, and SSgt Chia Eu Foong, 1T-PW2, duly arrived at Woodlands at about 0130 hrs. After the accused’s vehicle was checked by the K9 unit and the accused’s relative had been contacted to collect the vehicle, they brought the accused to Ang Mo Kio Division HQ, arriving at about 0300 or 0400 hrs.

At Ang Mo Kio Division HQ, the accused was asked to drink water so that he could provide the requisite three urine samples. 1T-PW2 then escorted the accused to the toilet to obtain the said samples and then to the urine test machine. One sample was tested by PW1 who was operating the machine. The test result was positive for opiates and benzodiazepines.

The accused was then questioned regarding his failure to report for urine testing and the officers were informed that he had medical certificates (“MCs”) for all his absences. The accused’s wife was then contacted and asked to bring the MCs to the station. She, however, only arrived sometime after 0600. After verifying that the MCs did cover all the accused’s absences, the accused’s statement was then recorded at about 0706 hrs on 18 February 2009.

The remaining 2 samples of the accused’s urine were then sent to the Health Sciences Authority and tested separately. Both tests revealed that the accused’s urine contained morphine.

On 4 March 2009, SSgt Abdul Rahman Kadir, PW4, recorded a cautioned statement from the accused who was then charged on 5 March 2009.

Case for Prosecution

The prosecution’s case rests on 2 distinct sets of evidence, namely, the accused’s statements of 18 February 2009 and 4 March 2009, and the results of the tests of the accused’s urine samples.

Accused’s Statements

The admission of both statements into evidence was objected to by the defence.

Statement of 18 February 2009

PW1’s evidence was that after the accused’s wife had handed over the accused’s MCs, he took the accused to his workstation to record the accused’s statement. According to PW1, he started by asking the accused whether was suffering from any injury or illness to which the accused replied that he was ok. PW1 also asked the accused if he was comfortable speaking n Malay and the accused informed PW1 that he was comfortable with English and Malay and chose to have his statement recorded in English.

PW1 then proceeded to ask the accused questions and recorded the accused’s answers in a narrative form. Upon completing the recording, PW1 read the statement back to the accused in Malay and asked the accused if he wanted to make any additions, deletions or amendments. The accused declined. Both PW1 and the accused then signed every page of the statement.

PW1’s evidence was that while he was recording the accused’s statement, 1T-PW2 was a couple of workstations away and was not involved in the recording.

This was confirmed by 1T-PW2.

The accused’s version was that PW1 had difficulties in taking the accused’s statement and had requested 1T-PW2 to take over the recording which 1T-PW2 did. Further, after recording paragraph 3 of the statement, which documented the fact that the accused’s urine had tested positive for opiates and benzodiazepines, the accused said that he had asked 1T-PW2 not to charge him and to allow him to continue with his urine regime. According to the accused, 1T-PW2 had responded by saying that the accused had to give them something so that they could consider his request.

The accused understood this to mean that he had to furnish CNB with a confession and information regarding his drug supplier in order to be allowed to continue with his urine regime and so he falsely admitted to smoking heroin and fabricated a story about purchasing it from a supplier called “Joe”.

It was also the accused’s evidence that he was not in a proper frame of mind to give his statement as he had not slept at all, having been kept up since his detention at Woodlands at about 2300 hrs. In addition, he had not eaten dinner before his arrest and was not in good health. He therefore only wanted to have the matter settled as quickly as possible.

The defence’s objection is limited to paragraph 4 of the accused’s statement.

At the start of the proceedings, the defence had suggested that since the accused had given his responses in a question and answer format and the statement had been recorded in a narrative form, the statement was not the accused’s statement but that of the recording officer. The point was, however, not raised in the submissions that were made at the conclusion of the voir dire. In any event, the accused had himself confirmed that what was recorded in the statement was what he told the recording officer.

I do not accept the accused’s claim that he fabricated paragraph 4 of his statement in response to 1T-PW2’s offer to consider letting him...