Sharom bin Ahmad v PP: Drug Trafficking, Possession, and Presumptions under the Misuse of Drugs Act
Sharom bin Ahmad and Boksenang bin Bochek were convicted of drug trafficking in the High Court of Singapore. Sharom was convicted for possessing diamorphine for trafficking, while Boksenang was convicted for selling diamorphine to Sharom. The Court of Appeal dismissed their appeals, finding Sharom's possession proven beyond reasonable doubt and Boksenang's confession admissible. The court addressed issues of substituted charges, presumptions under the Misuse of Drugs Act, and the admissibility of accomplice evidence.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Appeals dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Sharom bin Ahmad and Boksenang bin Bochek appeal drug trafficking convictions. The court addresses presumptions of possession and admissibility of evidence.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Judgment Upheld | Won | Mathavan Devadas of Deputy Public Prosecutor Karen Loh of Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Sharom bin Ahmad | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Boksenang bin Bochek | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of Appeal | Yes |
| L P Thean | Justice of Appeal | No |
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Mathavan Devadas | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Karen Loh | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Sarbrinder Singh | Yong Koh & Partners |
| Surinder Singh Dhillon | Dhillon Dendroff & Partners |
| Peter Keith Fernando | Leo Fernando |
| Yeo Chee Teck | Jeffrey & Partners |
4. Facts
- Sharom and Boksenang were initially jointly charged with criminal conspiracy to traffic 60.17g of diamorphine.
- The trial judge substituted the joint charge with separate charges for each appellant.
- Sharom was arrested with a sachet of diamorphine and keys to Boksenang's flat.
- A search of Boksenang's flat revealed more diamorphine and drug trafficking paraphernalia.
- Boksenang made a statement admitting to selling heroin to Sharom.
- Sharom claimed the drugs in the flat belonged to Boksenang and that he had borrowed Sharom's bag.
- Boksenang claimed Sharom was staying at his flat and that Sharom had placed the drugs there.
5. Formal Citations
- Sharom bin Ahmad and Another v Public Prosecutor, CA 2/2000, [2000] SGCA 36
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Criminal conspiracy to traffic diamorphine | |
| Sharom arrested with diamorphine | |
| Boksenang arrested | |
| Appellants convicted and sentenced to death | |
| Appeals dismissed |
7. Legal Issues
- Presumption of Possession
- Outcome: The court held that the presumption of possession under s 18(1)(c) of the MDA can be raised if the accused is found in possession of the keys to the premises where the drugs were found.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Possession of keys to premises
- Ownership of premises
- Presumption of Trafficking
- Outcome: The court held that the presumption under s 17 of the MDA can be invoked if the quantity of drugs exceeds a certain threshold, raising an inference of possession for the purpose of trafficking.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Quantity of drugs
- Possession for purpose of trafficking
- Admissibility of Confession
- Outcome: The court held that Boksenang's long statement was made voluntarily and was admissible as evidence.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Voluntariness of statement
- Inducement, threat, or promise
- Substitution of Charges
- Outcome: The court held that the trial judge was empowered to substitute the original joint charge with new separate charges and that the joint trial of the two substituted charges did not cause any prejudice to Sharom.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Joint charge
- Separate charges
- Same transaction
- Evidence of Accomplice
- Outcome: The court held that it may convict an accused person based on accomplice evidence that is uncorroborated, at the same time bearing in mind that the evidence should still be treated with caution as the accomplice may be presumed to be unworthy of credit.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Uncorroborated evidence
- Witness with interest to serve
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against Conviction
- Appeal against Sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Drug Trafficking
- Criminal Conspiracy
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Drug Offences
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tse Po Chung Nathan v PP | Court of Criminal Appeal | Yes | [1993] 1 SLR 961 | Singapore | Interpreted the term 'same transaction' in the context of jointly trying accused persons for different offences. |
| Lee Teck Wah & Anor v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR 827 | Singapore | Applied the interpretation of 'same transaction' from Tse Po Chung Nathan v PP. |
| Low Kok Wai v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1994] 1 SLR 676 | Singapore | Established that the presumptions in section 17 and section 18(1)(c) of the Misuse of Drugs Act cannot be used together. |
| Abdul Aziz bin Ahtam v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR 96 | Singapore | Reiterated that the presumptions in section 17 and section 18(1)(c) of the Misuse of Drugs Act cannot be used together. |
| Aziz bin Abdul Kadir v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR 175 | Singapore | Reiterated that the presumptions in section 17 and section 18(1)(c) of the Misuse of Drugs Act cannot be used together. |
| Chia Song Heng v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1999] 4 SLR 705 | Singapore | Reiterated that the presumptions in section 17 and section 18(1)(c) of the Misuse of Drugs Act cannot be used together. |
| PP v Yeo Choon Poh | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR 867 | Singapore | Established the circumstances in which lies by an accused could have corroborative value because it indicated a consciousness of guilt. |
| R v Lucas (Ruth) | Unknown | Yes | [1981] QB 720 | England | Outlined the criteria that must be satisfied before a lie can amount to corroboration. |
| Chan Hock Wai v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1995] 1 SLR 728 | Singapore | Held that the possession of drug trafficking paraphernalia is relevant as circumstantial evidence of drug trafficking activities by an accused. |
| Su Chee Kiong v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR 782 | Singapore | Applied the principle from Chan Hock Wai v PP regarding drug trafficking paraphernalia. |
| Kwang Boon Keong Peter v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR 592 | Singapore | Case regarding the treatment of evidence given by an accomplice. |
| Chua Poh Kiat Anthony v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR 713 | Singapore | Case regarding the treatment of evidence given by an accomplice. |
| Tan Hung Yeoh v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR 93 | Singapore | Case regarding the treatment of evidence given by an accomplice. |
| Chua Keem Long v PP | High Court | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR 510 | Singapore | Recognized that a person with an interest to serve is akin to an accomplice and the court drew guidance from the law on accomplice evidence as to how it should treat the evidence of such persons. |
| Gulam bin Notan Mohd Shariff Jamalddin & Anor v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR 181 | Singapore | Case regarding the test to determine whether a statement is admissible under s 24 of the Evidence Act. |
| Chai Chien Wei Kelvin v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR 25 | Singapore | Case regarding the test to determine whether a statement is admissible under s 24 of the Evidence Act. |
| Seow Choon Meng v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR 853 | Singapore | Case regarding the test to determine whether a statement is admissible under s 24 of the Evidence Act. |
| Tan Boon Tat v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR 1 | Singapore | Case regarding the test to determine whether a statement is admissible under s 24 of the Evidence Act. |
| Dato Mokhtar bin Hashim v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1983] 2 MLJ 232 | Malaysia | Case regarding the test to determine whether a statement is voluntary. |
| Mohd Desa bin Hashim v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1995] 3 MLJ 350 | Malaysia | Case regarding the test to determine whether a statement is voluntary. |
| Poh Kay Keong v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR 209 | Singapore | Held that a remark on arresting the accused's wife could amount to a threat sufficient to vitiate the confession. |
| Yeo See How v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR 390 | Singapore | Case regarding whether an inducement to see the wife would render the statement involuntary. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) | Singapore |
| s 5(1)(a) Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) | Singapore |
| s 5(2) Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) | Singapore |
| s 33 Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) | Singapore |
| s 17 Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 1998 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 18(1)(c) Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 1998 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 120B(1) Penal Code | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) | Singapore |
| s 163(1) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) | Singapore |
| s 176 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97) | Singapore |
| s 24 Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 116 Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 135 Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Drug Trafficking
- Presumption of Possession
- Presumption of Trafficking
- Accomplice Evidence
- Voluntariness of Statement
- Criminal Conspiracy
- Substitution of Charges
15.2 Keywords
- Drug Trafficking
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Presumption of Possession
- Evidence
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 80 |
| Evidence | 75 |
| Sentencing | 70 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Evidence
- Criminal Procedure