Syed Yasser Arafat v PP: Trafficking of Diamorphine & Presumption of Possession
Syed Yasser Arafat bin Shaik Mohamed was charged with possession of diamorphine for the purpose of trafficking. The High Court found him guilty. On appeal to the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore, the appellant challenged the proof of possession and the admissibility of incriminating statements. The Court of Appeal, comprising Chao Hick Tin JA, L P Thean JA, and Yong Pung How CJ, dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's findings that the appellant's possession and knowledge of the drug were proven beyond reasonable doubt, triggering the presumption of trafficking under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Syed Yasser Arafat was convicted of possessing diamorphine for trafficking. The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding sufficient evidence of possession and knowledge.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal dismissed | Won | Hay Hung Chun of Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Syed Yasser Arafat bin Shaik Mohamed | 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 |
|---|---|
| Hay Hung Chun | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Amolat Singh | Amolat & Partners |
| M Sivakumar | Azman Soh & Murugaiyan |
4. Facts
- Appellant was found in possession of five packets of diamorphine weighing 32.27g nett.
- Appellant was arrested in a taxi with Daud.
- A haversack containing the diamorphine was found next to the appellant in the taxi.
- A bunch of six keys was found in the appellant's left trouser pocket.
- Drug-related paraphernalia were found in a Yishun apartment, accessed using keys from the appellant.
- The drug-related paraphernalia included items stained with diamorphine.
- The appellant elected to remain silent when called to enter his defence.
5. Formal Citations
- Syed Yasser Arafat bin Shaik Mohamed v Public Prosecutor, CA 4/2000, [2000] SGCA 46
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Insp Soh showed the appellant the photograph of his son and his girlfriend. | |
| First long statement recorded from the appellant. | |
| Second long statement recorded from the appellant. | |
| Third long statement recorded from the appellant. | |
| Judgment delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Possession of Controlled Drug for Trafficking
- Outcome: The court found that the appellant's possession and knowledge of the drug were proven beyond reasonable doubt, triggering the presumption of trafficking under s 17 MDA.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Physical possession of drug
- Knowledge of drug in physical possession
- Admissibility of Statements
- Outcome: The court found that the statements were made voluntarily and were admissible as evidence.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Voluntariness of statements
- Threats, inducement, or promise
- Inference from Accused's Silence
- Outcome: The court drew an adverse inference from the appellant's silence, contributing to the finding of guilt.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction and sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Trafficking of Controlled Drugs
- Possession of Controlled Drugs for the Purpose of Trafficking
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Toh Ah Loh & Anor v R | Unknown | Yes | [1949] MLJ 54 | Malaysia | Cited regarding the presumption under s 17 MDA only arises where possession of the drug has been proven. |
| Chan Pean Leon v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1956] MLJ 237 | Malaysia | Cited regarding the presumption under s 17 MDA only arises where possession of the drug has been proven. |
| Sukor v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1995] 1 SLR 221 | Singapore | Cited regarding the presumption under s 17 MDA only arises where possession of the drug has been proven. |
| Low Kok Wai v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1994] 1 SLR 676 | Singapore | Cited regarding the presumption under s 17 MDA only arises where possession of the drug has been proven. |
| PP v Wan Yue Kong & Ors | Unknown | Yes | [1995] 1 SLR 417 | Singapore | Cited regarding the presumption under s 17 MDA only arises where possession of the drug has been proven. |
| Lim Lye Huat Benny v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR 253 | Singapore | Cited regarding the presumption under s 17 MDA only arises where possession of the drug has been proven. |
| Poh Kay Keong v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR 209 | Singapore | Cited regarding the presumption under s 17 MDA only arises where possession of the drug has been proven. |
| Yeo See How v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR 390 | Singapore | Cited regarding the presumption under s 17 MDA only arises where possession of the drug has been proven. |
| Tan Ah Tee v PP | Unknown | Yes | SLR 211 | Singapore | Cited regarding the appellant's bare denial in his cautioned statement. |
| Abdul Karim bin Mohd v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited regarding the finding of drug-related paraphernalia was treated as telling evidence of or, to be used as an inference of trafficking. |
| Chan Hock Wai v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1995] 1 SLR 728 | Singapore | Cited regarding the finding of drug-related paraphernalia was treated as telling evidence of or, to be used as an inference of trafficking. |
| Gulam bin Notan Shariff Jamalddin v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR 181 | Singapore | Cited regarding the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the statements were made voluntarily. |
| Seow Choon Meng v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR 853 | Singapore | Cited regarding the admissibility of the evidence in the three statements. |
| Sim Ah Cheoh & Ors v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1991] SLR 150 | Singapore | Cited regarding the admissibility of the evidence in the three statements. |
| Ibrahim v R | Privy Council | Yes | [1914] AC 599 | United Kingdom | Cited regarding the inducement must relate or have reference to the charge in order to exclude a confession made as a result of that inducement |
| Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Harz & Anor | House of Lords | Yes | [1967] 1 AC 760 | United Kingdom | Cited regarding the inducement must relate or have reference to the charge in order to exclude a confession made as a result of that inducement |
| Lim Ah Poh v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR 713 | Singapore | Cited regarding an appellant court would not disturb the findings of fact of a trial judge unless they were clearly reached against the weight of evidence. |
| Ng Soo Hin v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1994] 1 SLR 105 | Singapore | Cited regarding an appellant court would not disturb the findings of fact of a trial judge unless they were clearly reached against the weight of evidence. |
| Haw Tua Tau & Ors v PP | Unknown | Yes | SLR 73 | Singapore | Cited regarding there was more than sufficient evidence to call on the appellant to enter his defence, under s 189(1) CPC. |
| Haw Tua Tau & Ors v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1981] 2 MLJ 49 | Malaysia | Cited regarding there was more than sufficient evidence to call on the appellant to enter his defence, under s 189(1) CPC. |
| Sim Ah Cheoh v PP | Unknown | Yes | SLR 150 | Singapore | Cited regarding there was more than sufficient evidence to call on the appellant to enter his defence, under s 189(1) CPC. |
| Oh Laye Koh v PP | Unknown | Yes | 1 CLAS News 142 | Singapore | Cited regarding there was more than sufficient evidence to call on the appellant to enter his defence, under s 189(1) CPC. |
| Murray v DPP | Unknown | Yes | [1994] 1 WLR 1 | Unknown | Cited regarding a proper inference under s 196(2) CPC included the drawing of an inference that the appellant was guilty of the offence charged. |
| Chai Chien Wei Kelvin v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR 25 | Singapore | Cited regarding a proper inference under s 196(2) CPC included the drawing of an inference that the appellant was guilty of the offence charged. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 1998 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Trafficking
- Possession
- Haversack
- Drug-related paraphernalia
- Cautioned statement
- Long statements
- Voluntariness
- Adverse inference
- Controlled drug
15.2 Keywords
- Drug trafficking
- Diamorphine
- Possession
- Singapore
- Criminal law
- Evidence
- Appeal
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Evidence Law | 85 |
| Criminal Procedure | 80 |
| Theft | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Evidence Law
- Criminal Procedure