Public Prosecutor v Syed Nasrullah Aljunied Bin Syed Sulaiman
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judge | Eddy Tham Tong Kong |
| Judgment Date | 27 August 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] SGDC 170 |
| Court | District Court (Singapore) |
| Docket Number | District Arrest Case No 900889 of 2019 and Others, Magistrate’s Appeals No MA—9163—2021—01 |
| Published date | 07 September 2021 |
| Year | 2021 |
| Hearing Date | 13 November 2020,04 August 2020,05 January 2021,05 August 2020,28 June 2021,16 July 2021,06 January 2021,04 January 2021,24 August 2020,30 June 2021,12 August 2020,12 January 2021,12 November 2020,11 February 2020,29 June 2021,10 February 2020 |
| Plaintiff Counsel | Deputy Public Prosecutor Ms Tan Pei Wei (Attorney-General's Chambers) |
| Defendant Counsel | Accused in person. |
| Subject Matter | Criminal Law,Offences,Possession for the purpose of trafficking,Section 5(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Trials,End of Prosecution's Case,Electing to remain silent,Sentencing,Principles |
| Citation | [2021] SGDC 170 |
The Accused claimed trial before me to one charge of trafficking in a Class A controlled drug, by having in possession for the purpose of trafficking, three packets containing not less than 75.77 grams of crystalline substance, which was analysed and found to contain not less 50.85 grams of methamphetamine, without any authorisation, an offence under section 5(1)(a) read with section 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed. (“the MDA”).
At the end of the trial, I convicted him of this charge. For the purpose of sentencing, the Accused accepted the offer of Prosecution on the remaining charges he was facing. He proceeded to plead guilty to one charge of possession of a controlled drug and one charge of consumption of a specified drug, with one charge of possession of drug utensils taken into consideration.
I sentenced the Accused as follows:
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
I ordered the sentences for the drug trafficking offence to run consecutively with the sentence for the drug consumption offence, giving a global sentence of 6 years and 16 months’ imprisonment and 6 strokes of the cane.
The Accused being dissatisfied with the orders of the Court has filed an appeal against both conviction and sentence. I now set out the grounds of my decision.
The charge The charge to which Accused had claimed trial to is as follows:
THE PROSECUTION’S CASE… on 8 January 2019, at 121A Edgedale Plains #XXX Punggol Edge, 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 (3) packets containing not less than 75.77 grams of crystalline substance which was analysed and found to contain not less than 50.85 grams of methamphetamine, without any authorisation under the said Act or the Regulations made thereunder and you have thereby committed an offence under section 5(1)(a) read with section 5(2) and punishable under section 33(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed).
It is not disputed that methamphetamine is a Class A controlled drug listed in the First Schedule to the MDA and that the Accused was not authorised under the said Act or Regulations made thereunder to traffic in this controlled drug.
Background facts leading to arrestOn 8 January 2019, a raid was conducted by Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) officers on the unit of 121A Edgedale Plains #XXX Punggol Edge (“the Flat”), Singapore, after the arrests of one Muhammad Daniel bin Md-Diwanan (PW18) (“Daniel”) and one Muhammad Hairi bin Hamzah (“Hairi”) for suspected drug offences.
When CNB officers entered the Flat, they found one Muhammad Salman bin Kamal (PW21)(“Salman”), the owner of the Flat, and one Aslina binte Ahmad, Daniel's girlfriend in the Flat and proceeded to arrest them as well.
Salman had allowed the sole bedroom (''the bedroom'') to be occupied by Daniel and Aslina, as requested by Hairi. Hairi was his then brother-in-law.
The Accused had been friends with Salman since 2009 when they were fellow inmates in the Reformative Training Centre. After their release, they continued to keep in touch with each other with the Accused staying with Salman and his mother at one period of time.
About a week before the arrest, Salman had a discussion with the Accused over where to store his belongings due to the Accused separating from his then wife. The Accused’s then wife wanted the Accused to move his belongings out from their matrimonial home. Salman offered his place for the Accused to store his belongings.
The Accused eventually took up the offer and brought over his belongings a few days later. Salman, Hairi and Daniel had helped to move the items from the void deck to the lift and from the lift up to his unit.
The Accused's belongings were placed in the living room. Specifically, Salman had identified a Food Panda bag and a red helmet which was placed in a helmet bag as belonging to the Accused. The CNB officers found packets containing crystalline substances believed to be controlled drugs in these two items (subject matter of the trafficking charge). The drugs found in the Food Panda bag were in the form of crystalline substance contained in a packet and subsequently labelled
The drug in the helmet was found during the search in the living room by Deputy Superintendent of Police Prashant Sukumaran (“DSP Prashant”). He testified that he found what he thought was just one packet of crystalline substance within a box in a helmet inside a helmet bag hanging by a stand near the window. As it turned out later, there were actually two packets of crystalline substance within another packet. The two packets were subsequently labelled
The Accused was arrested subsequently when he came to the Flat after CNB officers had made use of Salman's phone to communicate with him in order to lure him to the Flat. When he came to the door of the Flat and pressed the doorbell or knocked on the door, he was pulled into the Flat by CNB officers.
Prior to the Accused’s arrival, CNB officers had escorted Hairi, Daniel and Aslina to Bedok Police Division for further investigations, leaving Salman as the only suspect at the Flat.
The recording of the Accused’s statementsAfter his arrest inside the Flat, the Accused was searched. CNB officer Brandon Lin Yuanzhun, PW1 (“Sgt Brandon) found a packet of crystalline substance labelled SNA-B1A contained in a “L.A.” cigarette box and other drug-related items (subject matter of the possession charge and possession of drug utensils charge) on him, in his backpack. He also seized possession of three handphones from the Accused.
The Accused was brought into the bedroom and his statement P14, was recorded by PW2 Staff Sergeant Muhammad Fauzan bin Abdul Jalel (“SSgt Fauzan”). The admissibility of this statement was challenged by the Accused on the ground of involuntariness. He claimed that before the statement was recorded, PAC3 CNB Officer Sergeant Mohammad Hambali bin Amir (“Sgt Hambali”) had promised to “help” him. After an ancillary recording was conducted, P14 was found to have been voluntarily made by the Accused and admitted.
In P14, the Accused had admitted that the drugs found in the Panda Box, the helmet as well as in a white “L.A.” cigarette box were “Ice” (the street name for methamphetamine) and that all these drugs belong to him. They were for his consumption and to be sold to his friends. He had purchased the drugs from one ‘Alit’.
After the Accused had given his statement, he was brought to his motorcycle for a search and subsequently to his registered address (which he has not been residing). Nothing incriminating was found.
The Accused was subsequently brought to Police Cantonment Complex. The Accused gave further statements to Investigating Officer Inspector Jody Lim (“IO Jody”). Although he initially challenged the admissibility of these statements when he filed his Case for the Defence, he subsequently confirmed, on 5 and 12 April 2002 and once again on 24 August 2020,1 that he was not challenging the admissibility of these statements on the ground of involuntariness. Hence, no ancillary hearings were conducted in respect of these statements. They were accordingly admitted as P37, P38, P39 and P40 (all recorded on 9 January 2019). In all the statements, the Accused had admitted positively to being the owner of the said drugs and also related how he came to be in possession of them and his intention with respect to the drugs.
The handphones and the messages thereinThe Accused’s handphones were seized and the messages contained in them were extracted by the Technology and Crime Forensic Branch. Relevant messages were extracted and the transcripts with translations were admitted as evidence in court (P41 and P44). They also form an important plank in the Prosecution’s case as they contain messages in relation to drug transactions.
The Accused had also referred to his handphone messages in P37 and P40 to explain what those messages meant.
The drug exhibits and their analysis by HSAFinally, the Prosecution also adduced evidence to track the movement of the drug exhibits from their seizure all the way until they were handed over to the Health Sciences Authority (“HSA”) for analysis.
PW9 Dr Zhang Shuhua (“Dr Zhang”) of HSA issued certificates to confirm that the three drug exhibits, forming the subject of the trafficking charge, have been analysed and found to contain the following:
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| |
To continue reading
Request your trial