Zulfikar v PP: Misuse of Drugs Act & Possession for Trafficking
In Zulfikar bin Mustaffah v Public Prosecutor, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal against the High Court's decision to convict Zulfikar for possession of diamorphine for the purpose of trafficking under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Zulfikar claimed he was an innocent courier. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding his explanation unconvincing and upholding the original conviction and sentence.
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
Zulfikar was convicted of possessing diamorphine for trafficking. The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding his defense of being an innocent courier unconvincing.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zulfikar bin Mustaffah | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | SS Dhillon |
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Judgment Upheld | Won | Han Ming Kuang, Mohamed Nasser Ismail |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| L P Thean | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| SS Dhillon | Dhillon Dendroff & Partners |
| Han Ming Kuang | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Mohamed Nasser Ismail | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
4. Facts
- Appellant was found with five bundles of diamorphine wrapped in newspaper.
- The total diamorphine content was not less than 72.58 grams.
- Appellant was also found with S$4,890 in cash.
- Appellant claimed he was an innocent courier.
- Appellant claimed the cash was from lottery and horse-betting winnings.
- The appellant received strange instructions from ‘Ah Boy’ over the telephone.
- The appellant took delivery of a plastic bag containing five suspicious bundles from a stranger at Sengkang.
5. Formal Citations
- Zulfikar bin Mustaffah v Public Prosecutor, Cr App 21/ 2000, [2001] SGCA 8
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant went to the “Europa” pub at East Coast | |
| Appellant received a call from “Ah Boy” about a job offer | |
| Appellant received plastic bag P22 at Riverdale Primary School | |
| Appellant arrested at Block 701, Yishun Avenue 5 | |
| Appellant's home was searched | |
| Urine test conducted on the appellant | |
| Appellant charged in the High Court | |
| Appellant was found to be in possession of two wads of money | |
| CNB officers lay in wait on the 12th floor of Block 701, Yishun Avenue 5 | |
| CNB officers proceeded to the ninth floor of Block 701, Yishun Avenue 5 | |
| Appeal dismissed |
7. Legal Issues
- Possession of Controlled Drugs for Trafficking
- Outcome: The court held that the appellant had the requisite knowledge of the drugs and was in possession for the purpose of trafficking.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Requisite knowledge of contents of packages
- Wilful blindness as to contents
- Related Cases:
- [1969] 2 AC 256
- [1978–1979] SLR 211
- [1980] 1 MLJ 49
- [1995] 2 SLR 424
- [1998] 1 SLR 217
- Failure to Disclose Identity of Informer
- Outcome: The court held that the prosecution was not required to disclose the identity of the informer.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [1994] 1 SLR 787
- [1995] 2 SLR 129
- [1994] 2 SLR 226
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction and sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Possession of controlled drugs for the purpose of trafficking
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Drug Offences
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Warner v Metropolitan Police Commissioner | House of Lords | Yes | [1969] 2 AC 256 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that establishing possession under the Misuse of Drugs Act requires proving the accused had knowledge of the contents of what he was carrying. |
| Tan Ah Tee v PP | Court of Criminal Appeal | Yes | [1978–1979] SLR 211 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that establishing possession under the Misuse of Drugs Act requires proving the accused had knowledge of the contents of what he was carrying. |
| Tan Ah Tee v PP | Federal Court | Yes | [1980] 1 MLJ 49 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that establishing possession under the Misuse of Drugs Act requires proving the accused had knowledge of the contents of what he was carrying. |
| PP v Hla Win | High Court | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR 424 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the finding of the mental state of knowledge is an inference to be drawn by a trial judge from all the facts and circumstances of the particular case. |
| Yeo Choon Huat v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR 217 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that ignorance is a defence only when there is no reason for suspicion and no right and opportunity of examination. |
| Ubaka v PP | High Court | Yes | [1995] 1 SLR 267 | Singapore | Cited in Yeo Choon Huat v PP for the principle that ignorance simpliciter is not enough. |
| Osman bin Din v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR 129 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the absence of fingerprints on drug wrappings is not inconsistent with knowledge of the contents. |
| Yeo See How v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR 390 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the absence of fingerprints on drug wrappings is not inconsistent with knowledge of the contents. |
| Lai Kam Loy v PP | High Court | Yes | [1994] 1 SLR 787 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there is no duty on the prosecution to disclose the identity of the informer if the informer’s evidence was not vital to the prosecution’s case. |
| Vinit Sopon v PP | High Court | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR 226 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there is no duty on the prosecution to disclose the identity of the informer if the informer’s evidence was not vital to the prosecution’s case. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) s 5(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) s 23 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) s 5 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) s 17 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 33 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Trafficking
- Possession
- Informer
- Courier
- Wilful blindness
- Misuse of Drugs Act
15.2 Keywords
- Drugs
- Trafficking
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Statutory Offences