PP v Syed Yasser Arafat: Trafficking Diamorphine at Lentor Avenue & Yishun Avenue 1

In Public Prosecutor v Syed Yasser Arafat bin Shaik Mohamed, the High Court of Singapore found the accused guilty of trafficking diamorphine. The charge stemmed from an incident on August 5, 1999, where the accused was found in possession of 32.27 grams of diamorphine in a taxi at the junction of Lentor Avenue and Yishun Avenue 1. The court, after admitting statements and considering evidence, concluded that the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the accused's conviction.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Accused found guilty of the charge and convicted.

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 trafficking diamorphine. The High Court found him guilty based on evidence and failure to rebut presumptions.

1.7 Decision Date

18 April 2000

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Public Prosecutor	Prosecution	Government Agency	Judgment for Prosecution	Won	Edwin San of Deputy Public Prosecutors Hay Hung Chung of Deputy Public Prosecutors
Syed Yasser Arafat bin Shaik Mohamed	Defendant	Individual	Accused found guilty	Lost	Yap Gim Chuan of Soh Wong & Yap Paul Anpualagan of Surian & Partners

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
MPH Rubin	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Edwin San	Deputy Public Prosecutors
Hay Hung Chung	Deputy Public Prosecutors
Yap Gim Chuan	Soh Wong & Yap
Paul Anpualagan	Surian & Partners

4. Facts

Accused was found with 5 packets of diamorphine weighing 32.27 grams in a taxi.
The drugs were found in a black and white haversack next to the accused.
The accused admitted in statements that he was in possession of the drugs.
The accused intended to put the heroin in the Yishun Ring Road flat.
Drug trafficking paraphernalia was found in the Yishun Ring Road flat.
The accused elected to remain silent during his defense.
The accused failed to rebut the presumptions under the Misuse of Drugs Act.

5. Formal Citations

Public Prosecutor v Syed Yasser Arafat bin Shaik Mohamed, CC 3/2000, [2000] SGHC 61

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1999-08-05	Accused trafficked in a controlled drug
1999-08-05	CNB officers watched Blk 65, #05-337 Kallang Bahru
1999-08-05	Mohamed Daud Bin Salih boarded taxi
1999-08-05	Accused boarded taxi
1999-08-05	Taxi intercepted by CNB officers
1999-08-05	Accused and Daud arrested
1999-08-05	Haversack found to contain heroin
1999-08-05	Keys found on accused
1999-08-05	Flat at Blk 243 Yishun Ring Road searched
1999-08-06	Accused made cautioned statement
1999-08-11	Statement recorded from accused
1999-08-14	Statement recorded from accused
1999-08-24	Statement recorded from accused
2000-04-19	Judgment delivered

7. Legal Issues

Admissibility of Statements
- Outcome: The court admitted the statements recorded on 11, 14 and 24 August 1999, finding they were voluntarily made.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Voluntariness of statements
  - Threat
  - Inducement
  - Oppression
- Related Cases:
  - [1999] 2 SLR 181
  - [1992] 2 SLR 1
  - [1975] 3 All ER 175
  - (1972) 56 Cr App R 51
  - [1994] 2 SLR 853
  - [1983] 2 MLJ 232
  - [1995] 3 MLJ 350
  - [1993] 2 SLR 599
  - [1995] 3 SLR 341
  - [1996] 1 SLR 209
  - [1914] AC 599
  - [1967] AC 760
Possession of Drugs for Trafficking
- Outcome: The court found the accused guilty of possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking.
- Category: Substantive
Presumptions under the Misuse of Drugs Act
- Outcome: The court found that the accused failed to rebut the presumptions under ss 17, 18(1)(a) and 18(2) of the MDA.
- Category: Substantive
Drawing Adverse Inferences from Silence
- Outcome: The court drew adverse inferences from the accused's decision to remain silent.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [1962] 28 MLJ 307

8. Remedies Sought

Conviction
Sentencing under the Misuse of Drugs Act

9. Cause of Actions

Drug Trafficking

10. Practice Areas

Criminal Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Gulam bin Notar Shariff Jamalddin v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1999] 2 SLR 181	Singapore	Cited for principles regarding admissibility of statements under s 24 of the Evidence Act.
Tan Boon Tat v PP	N/A	Yes	[1992] 2 SLR 1	Singapore	Cited for the principle that whether a statement is voluntary is a question of fact.
DPP v Ping Lin	N/A	Yes	[1975] 3 All ER 175	N/A	Cited for the principle that whether a statement is voluntary is a question of fact.
R v Prager	N/A	Yes	(1972) 56 Cr App R 51	N/A	Cited for the principle that the common law concept of involuntariness by oppression has been subsumed under s 24 of the Evidence Act.
Seow Choon Meng v PP	N/A	Yes	[1994] 2 SLR 853	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the test for determining admissibility under s 24 is first, whether the confession was made as a consequence of any inducement, threat or promise, and second, whether in making that confession, the accused did so in circumstances which, in the opinion of the court, would have led him reasonably to suppose that he would gain some advantage for himself or would avoid some evil of a temporal nature to himself.
Dato Mokhtar bin Hashim v PP	N/A	Yes	[1983] 2 MLJ 232	N/A	Cited for the principle that the test of voluntariness is applied in a manner which is partly objective and partly subjective.
Mohd Desa bin Hashim v PP	N/A	Yes	[1995] 3 MLJ 350	N/A	Cited for the principle that the test of voluntariness is applied in a manner which is partly objective and partly subjective.
Koh Aik Siew v PP	N/A	Yes	[1993] 2 SLR 599	Singapore	Cited for the principle that where voluntariness is challenged, the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the confession was made voluntarily.
Panya Martmontree v PP	N/A	Yes	[1995] 3 SLR 341	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the accused need only raise a reasonable doubt or, in other words, it is only necessary for the prosecution to remove a reasonable doubt of the existence of the threat, inducement or promise, and not every lurking shadow of influence or remnants of fear.
Poh Kay Keong v Public Prosecutor	Singapore Court of Appeal	Yes	[1996] 1 SLR 209	Singapore	Cited for the purpose or object of s 24 of the Evidence Act was to ensure the reliability of a confession.
Ibrahim v R	N/A	Yes	[1914] AC 599	N/A	Cited for the principle that an inducement, threat or promise ‘had reference to the charge against the accused person’ if it was made to obtain a confession relevant or relating to the charge in question.
Customs and Excise Commissioners v Harz & Anor	N/A	Yes	[1967] AC 760	N/A	Cited for the principle that an inducement, threat or promise ‘had reference to the charge against the accused person’ if it was made to obtain a confession relevant or relating to the charge in question.
Chan Chwen Kong v Public Prosecutor	Federation of Malaya Court of Appeal	Yes	[1962] 28 MLJ 307	N/A	Cited for the principle that once the prosecution produces evidence which if believed would support a conviction there is a tactical onus on the accused person either to produce evidence of his own or to point to something in the prosecution evidence.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185, section 5(1)(a)	Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185, section 5(2)	Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185, section 33	Singapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97) s 24	Singapore
CPC s 196(2)	Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act ss 17	Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act ss 18(1)(a)	Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act ss 18(2)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Diamorphine
Drug trafficking
Possession of drugs
CNB
Haversack
Statements
Voluntariness
Presumptions
Adverse inferences
Tactical onus

15.2 Keywords

Drug trafficking
Diamorphine
Singapore
Criminal law
Evidence
Statements
Possession
MDA
CPC

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Misuse of Drugs Act	95
Criminal Law	60
Criminal Procedure	60
Evidence	50

16. Subjects

Criminal Law
Drug Trafficking
Evidence