Suboh bin Ramli v Public Prosecutor: Trafficking in Diamorphine & Misuse of Drugs Act

Suboh bin Ramli and Wong Kok Loong were charged with trafficking diamorphine under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The High Court convicted Suboh and Wong, while acquitting Abdul Salam bin Mustapha. Suboh and Wong appealed. The Court of Appeal of Singapore dismissed both appeals, upholding the convictions for trafficking diamorphine.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Suboh bin Ramli appeals conviction for trafficking diamorphine under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The Court of Appeal dismisses the appeal, affirming the conviction.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorRespondentGovernment AgencyJudgment for RespondentWon
Hay Hung Chun of Deputy Public Prosecutors
Paul Chia of Deputy Public Prosecutors
Suboh bin RamliAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
Wong Kok LoongAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chao Hick TinJudge of AppealYes
MPH RubinJudgeNo
L P TheanJudge of AppealNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Hay Hung ChunDeputy Public Prosecutors
Paul ChiaDeputy Public Prosecutors
Johan IsmailJohan Ismail & Co
Edmond PereiraEdmond Pereira & Partners
Ang Sin TeckRajah Loo & Chandra
Tan Tee GiamAw & Tan

4. Facts

  1. Suboh and Salam were jointly tried for trafficking in not less than 165.67 grams of diamorphine.
  2. Wong was charged with trafficking in the same quantity of drugs by delivering them to Salam and Suboh.
  3. CNB officers observed Salam at Block 137 Yishun Ring Road and followed him to Block 489 Jurong West Avenue 1.
  4. Suboh was seen arriving at Block 489.
  5. Wong was seen arriving in a Malaysian vehicle and carrying a blue plastic bag.
  6. Salam and Suboh were arrested after leaving the flat.
  7. Ten sachets of heroin were found on Suboh.
  8. A blue plastic bag containing drugs was found in the flat.
  9. Hazafi admitted to giving Suboh the keys to the flat.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Suboh bin Ramli and Another v Public Prosecutor, Cr App 16/2000, [2000] SGCA 62

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Trafficking of diamorphine occurred at Block 489, Jurong West Avenue 1
Salam spotted at Block 137 Yishun Ring Road
Suboh arrived at Block 489
Wong arrived at Block 489 in a Malaysian vehicle
Salam and Suboh arrested
Wong arrested at the junction of Upper Thomson Road and Marymount Lane
Judgment Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Trafficking in Controlled Drug
    • Outcome: The court upheld the conviction of Suboh and Wong for trafficking in diamorphine.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Possession of Drugs for Trafficking
    • Outcome: The court found that Suboh had possession of the drugs for the purpose of trafficking.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Presumption of Trafficking
    • Outcome: The court found that Suboh failed to rebut the presumption that he possessed the drugs for trafficking.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Appeal against conviction and sentence

9. Cause of Actions

  • Trafficking in controlled drugs

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Low Kok Wai v Public ProsecutorN/AYes[1994] 1 SLR 676SingaporeCited to establish that the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Suboh had possession of the drugs at the material time.
Public Prosecutor v Wan Yue Kong and orsN/AYes[1995] 1 SLR 417SingaporeCited to establish that the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Suboh had possession of the drugs at the material time.
Lim Lye Huat Benny v Public ProsecutorN/AYes[1996] 1 SLR 253SingaporeCited to establish that the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Suboh had possession of the drugs at the material time.
Fun Seong Cheng v Public ProsecutorN/AYes[1997] 3 SLR 523SingaporeCited to establish that the prosecution has to prove (i) that Suboh had physical custody of the quantity of substance, and (ii) that he knew that the quantity of substance contained drugs.
Su Chee Kiong v Public ProsecutorN/AYes[1999] 1 SLR 782SingaporeCited to establish that the prosecution has to prove (i) that Suboh had physical custody of the quantity of substance, and (ii) that he knew that the quantity of substance contained drugs.
Gulam bin Notam Mohd Shariff Jamalddin and anor v Public ProsecutorN/AYes[1999] 2 SLR 181SingaporeCited to establish that the prosecution has to prove (i) that Suboh had physical custody of the quantity of substance, and (ii) that he knew that the quantity of substance contained drugs.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 1998 Ed) s 5(1)(a)Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 1998 Ed) s 5(2)Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 1998 Ed) s 33Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 1998 Ed) s 17(c)Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 1998 Ed) s 18(1)Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 1998 Ed) s 18(2)Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 ed) s 122(6)Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code s 121Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act s 17(1)Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act s 5(2)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Diamorphine
  • Trafficking
  • Possession
  • Misuse of Drugs Act
  • CNB
  • Surveillance
  • Common intention

15.2 Keywords

  • Drug trafficking
  • Diamorphine
  • Misuse of Drugs Act
  • Singapore
  • Criminal Law

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Misuse of Drugs Act95
Criminal Law75
Evidence Law60
Theft10

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Drug Offences