Roslan Bin Abdul Rani v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 15 June 2004
• Neutral Citation: [2004] SGHC 121
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 17 June 2004
• Year: 2004
• Plaintiff Counsel: B Ganesh (Ganesha and Partners)
• Defendant Counsel: Glenn Seah Kim Ming (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Subject Matter: Evidence,Witnesses,Conflicting evidence,Assessment of witnesses' credibility,Trial judge preferring prosecution witnesses' version,Whether trial judge right in preferring prosecution evidence,Whether and in what circumstances appellate court will disturb trial judge's findings of fact
• Citation: [2004] SGHC 121

15 June 2004

Yong Pung How CJ:

1 The appellant was charged in the subordinate courts for the offence of drug trafficking in diamorphine (a Class A controlled drug), under s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2001 Rev Ed) (“the Act”) and punishable under s 33 of the same, on the following charge:

You, Roslan Bin Abdul Rani, M/36 Yrs NRIC No S1741070I, are charged that you, on or about the 27^th day of February 2003 at about 8.25pm, at Petir LRT station, Singapore, did traffic in a controlled drug specified in Class “A” of the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act Chapter 185, to wit, by selling one (1) packet of powdery substance which was analysed and found to contain 0.29 gram of diamorphine at $600/- to Razali Bin Yusoff, M/37 yrs, S1704542C, without any authorisation under the said Act or the Regulations made thereunder and you have committed an offence under Section 5(1)(a) and punishable under Section 33 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185.

He was convicted after trial and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment and six strokes of the cane. This was an appeal against his conviction and sentence.

Background

2 The appellant and one Razali bin Yusoff (“Razali”), were arrested after an undercover sting operation by the Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) involving a transaction (“the transaction”) for the sale of one sachet of heroin (“the drugs”) for $650 by Razali to two CNB undercover officers. The sachet of heroin was analysed by the Health Sciences Authority to contain 0.29g of the Class A controlled drug, diamorphine. Razali was subsequently charged and convicted for offences under the Act. It was the Prosecution’s case that the appellant had earlier sold the drugs to Razali.

3 The transaction was to take place between Razali and the two undercover CNB officers, Corporal Karathigayan (“PW5”) and Corporal Iskandar (“PW6”), near the Petir Light Rapid Transit (“LRT”) station at an arranged meeting on 27 February 2003. Unbeknownst to Razali, five other CNB officers were keeping watch on them.

4 Upon meeting PW5 and PW6, Razali told them that he had to collect the drugs and asked for payment, whereupon he was told to deliver the drugs first. Razali then walked towards the Petir LRT station, where he was observed by Sergeant Eugene Eng (“PW7”) and Corporal Michelle Tan (“PW8”) pacing near the entrance of the station for approximately 15 to 20 minutes.

5 Razali then went up onto the platform of the station, where he was seen by PW7 having a conversation with the appellant. Shortly thereafter, PW8 saw the appellant and Razali having another conversation near the exit of the station. Razali and the appellant then parted company. Both the appellant and Razali later confirmed that they had met at the station and had a short conversation, and that they had not met anyone else apart from each other. PW7 and PW8 testified that they had not managed to keep a continuous eye on Razali and/or the appellant, as they were watching them from a distance.

6 As Razali walked back to PW5 and PW6, PW8 observed the appellant pacing up and down near the roadside by the LRT station. Razali reached PW5 and PW6 and handed the drugs to them. At this point, the CNB officers moved in and arrested Razali. The appellant attempted to leave the scene, but the CNB officers gave chase and successfully apprehended him.

7 On the day of the arrests, there were 13 telephone calls between the appellant and Razali; nine were made from Razali’s mobile phone, and four were from the appellant’s. Eleven of these calls were made before the transaction took place. Records of the phone calls made by both the appellant and Razali (from their respective mobile phone service providers) were admitted into evidence as P9 and P2 respectively.

The Prosecution’s case

8 The gist of the Prosecution’s case was that the appellant had given the drugs to Razali for an agreed price of $600 when they met at the Petir LRT station. At the trial, Razali’s evidence formed the backbone of the Prosecution’s case.

9 Razali had been asked by one “Talib” (a police informant) to procure the drugs on the morning of 27 February 2003. Razali called the appellant on his mobile phone at 10.36am to inquire whether the appellant would be able to procure the drugs. At 6.21pm, Razali called the appellant again, and the appellant informed him that he might be able to “get the stuff” for Razali. At 7.11pm, the appellant called Razali to inform him that he was able to procure the drugs for $600. During this phone call, the appellant and Razali had arranged to meet at the Petir LRT station for the sale of the drugs.

10 Razali then called Talib to say that he was able to procure the drugs for $650, and asked to meet Talib at the Petir LRT station. Talib persuaded Razali to transact the deal with Talib’s friends instead. Razali agreed and met PW5 and PW6 at the Petir LRT station between 7.45pm to 8.00pm. As mentioned, Razali then left PW5 and PW6 to collect the drugs. Between 8.07pm and 8.20pm, there were four telephone calls between Razali and the appellant. Razali testified that he had called the appellant during this time to inform him that Talib’s friends had arrived for the drugs. The appellant replied that he was on his way and Razali went up to the LRT platform to wait for the appellant.

11 The appellant arrived and went to the ground level of the LRT station with Razali. There, the appellant passed Razali the drugs and asked for payment. Razali informed the appellant that payment had not yet been received, and walked back to PW5 and PW6 to collect the money while the appellant waited. As mentioned, Razali was arrested after he handed the drugs to PW5 and PW6.

12 There was a commotion upon Razali’s arrest and PW8 saw the appellant cross the road hurriedly in order to get away. PW7 gave chase and shouted “Police, don’t run”, but the appellant continued running. PW7 finally caught the appellant and handcuffed him after some resistance. PW8 and three other officers arrived at the scene to render further assistance and completed the arrest.

13 As such, the Prosecution contended that the appellant had committed an offence under s 5(1)(a) of the Act, which provides that it is an offence to traffic in a controlled drug. To “traffic” is to “sell, give, administer, transport, send, deliver or distribute”: s 2 of the Act.

The Defence

14 The appellant denied the charge. During police investigations, he maintained his innocence in both his long statement and cautioned statement.

15 He explained that he had met Razali by chance at the Petir LRT station. He had run from the CNB officers because he was late for work and was trying to catch a taxi. He denied that he had continued to run when told to stop, claiming that he did stop and did not resist arrest.

16 The appellant’s lawyer suggested that Razali was trying to “save” the true source of the drugs by placing the blame on the appellant, and proceeded to attack the inconsistencies in Razali’s evidence and the evidence of the CNB officers.

The decision below

17 The district judge recognised that the case against the appellant hinged upon the testimonies of the witnesses. After considering the following, he found that the Prosecution had proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt:

(a) The appellant’s evidence: The district judge concluded that there were several inconsistencies and improbabilities in the appellant’s testimony or version of events, which rendered it unsafe for his testimony to be relied upon.

(b) The appellant’s long statement:[1] The district judge accepted that the appellant was the author of all the information contained therein, and that he had been able to communicate effectively in English in the making of the statement. As such, the district judge rejected his attempt at trial to retract portions of the long statement that tended to expose discrepancies in his defence.

(c) Razali’s evidence: The district judge took cognisance of the fact that there were some discrepancies here but held that these were insufficiently material to discredit Razali’s testimony.

The appeal against conviction

18 The question before me was whether the district judge was right in preferring the Prosecution’s version to the appellant’s. In answering this question, I reminded...