PP v Amran bin Eusuff: Drug Trafficking, Misuse of Drugs Act

Amran bin Eusuff and Rabu bin Rahmat were jointly charged with drug trafficking under the Misuse of Drugs Act in Singapore. The High Court, presided over by Judicial Commissioner Tay Yong Kwang, found both accused guilty. The case involved an undercover operation where the accused were caught delivering cannabis. Both accused were convicted and sentenced to the mandatory death penalty due to the quantity of drugs involved.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Guilty as charged; mandatory death sentence passed on both accused.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Amran bin Eusuff and Rabu bin Rahmat were convicted of drug trafficking under the Misuse of Drugs Act for dealing in cannabis.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorProsecutionGovernment AgencyGuilty as chargedWon
Amarjit Singh of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Eddy Tham of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Amran Bin EusuffDefendantIndividualGuilty as chargedLost
Rabu Bin RahmatDefendantIndividualGuilty as chargedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Tay Yong KwangJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

4. Facts

  1. CNB officer posed as a buyer of cannabis.
  2. Amran (Daud) negotiated the drug deal with the undercover officer.
  3. Rabu (Abu) delivered the cannabis at Bukit Merah View.
  4. Both accused were arrested after the delivery.
  5. The delivered substance was 2174.86 grams of cannabis.
  6. Rabu's urine sample tested positive for cannabis.
  7. Amran was promised a commission for the drug deal.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Public Prosecutor v Amran bin Eusuff and Another, CC 55/2001, [2001] SGHC 376

6. Timeline

DateEvent
CPL Fazuri contacted about a cannabis buyer
CPL Fazuri negotiates cannabis purchase with Daud and Abu
Drug deal takes place; Amran and Rabu arrested
Accused persons' urine samples obtained
Investigating Officer recorded a long statement from the First Accused
Investigating Officer recorded a long statement from the Second Accused
Investigating Officer recorded further statements from both accused
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Drug Trafficking
    • Outcome: Both accused found guilty of drug trafficking.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Admissibility of Statements
    • Outcome: Statements admitted as evidence after trial within a trial.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [1999] 2 SLR 181

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Conviction
  2. Mandatory Death Sentence

9. Cause of Actions

  • Drug Trafficking

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Chin Seow Noi & Ors v PPCourt of AppealYes[1994] 1 SLR 135SingaporeCited for the application of Section 30 of the Evidence Act regarding the use of a co-accused's confession.
Gulam bin Notan & Anor v PPCourt of AppealYes[1999] 2 SLR 181SingaporeCited regarding the burden of proof for voluntariness of statements.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185Singapore
Penal Code, Chapter 224Singapore
Criminal Procedure CodeSingapore
Evidence ActSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Cannabis
  • Drug Trafficking
  • Undercover Operation
  • Controlled Drug
  • Common Intention
  • Agent Provocateur
  • CNB
  • Ganja

15.2 Keywords

  • Drug Trafficking
  • Cannabis
  • Singapore
  • Criminal Law
  • Misuse of Drugs Act

17. Areas of Law

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Drug Offences