Abdul Malik v PP: Trafficking in Controlled Drug & Admissibility of Evidence
Abdul Malik bin Abdul Jamil appealed to the Court of Appeal of Singapore against his conviction for trafficking in diamorphine under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The High Court had found him guilty based on self-incriminating statements and circumstantial evidence. The Court of Appeal, comprising Chao Hick Tin JA, Tan Lee Meng J, and Yong Pung How CJ, dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge correctly admitted the statements and that the evidence supported the conviction.
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
Abdul Malik appeals his conviction for trafficking diamorphine. The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding his self-incriminating statements admissible.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Koy Su Hua Peter of Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Abdul Malik bin Abdul Jamil | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Judge of Appeal | No |
| Tan Lee Meng | Judge | No |
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Koy Su Hua Peter | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| SS Dhillon | Dhillon Dendroff & Partners |
4. Facts
- Malik was seen entering and leaving Norazmi's flat.
- A red plastic bag containing diamorphine was found near a washing machine on the ninth floor of Block 109.
- Malik initially led officers to a grass verge, claiming he threw a bag of heroin there.
- Malik admitted the drugs in the red plastic bag were his.
- Malik made several self-incriminating statements to CNB officers.
- Norazmi stated that he gave Malik about 53 packets of heroin.
5. Formal Citations
- Abdul Malik bin Abdul Jamil v Public Prosecutor, Cr App 19/2001, [2002] SGCA 19
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Malik in possession of diamorphine | |
| CNB officers surveilled Norazmi’s flat | |
| Malik entered and left Norazmi's flat | |
| Malik arrested | |
| Norazmi arrested | |
| Red plastic bag found | |
| Malik brought to residence for search | |
| Urine samples taken from Malik | |
| Statements A, B, C, and D made by Malik | |
| Norazmi's statement given to CNB | |
| Statement E made by Malik | |
| Norazmi's statement given to CNB | |
| Statement F made by Malik | |
| Statement G made by Malik | |
| Appeal dismissed |
7. Legal Issues
- Admissibility of Self-Incriminating Statements
- Outcome: The court held that the statements were admissible as they were made voluntarily.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Involuntariness of statements
- Oppression
- Inducement
- Related Cases:
- [1999] 1 SLR 25
- [1993] 3 SLR 421
- Trafficking in Controlled Drug
- Outcome: The court found that the prosecution had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Malik possessed the drugs for the purpose of trafficking.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Possession of drugs for trafficking
- Reasonable doubt
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
9. Cause of Actions
- Trafficking in Controlled Drug
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chai Chien Wei Kelvin v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR 25 | Singapore | Cited for the test of voluntariness of statements, which is partly objective and partly subjective. |
| Fung Yuk Shing v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 3 SLR 421 | Singapore | Cited regarding the failure to offer sustenance to an accused and whether it constitutes a threat or inducement. |
| Chin Seow Noi v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 1 SLR 135 | Singapore | Cited for the interpretation of section 30 of the Evidence Act regarding the admissibility of co-accused statements. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 1998 Ed) ss 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 17 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 33 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act s 30 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Trafficking
- Controlled drug
- Voluntariness
- Self-incriminating statements
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- CNB
- Reasonable doubt
15.2 Keywords
- Drug trafficking
- Singapore
- Criminal law
- Evidence
- Appeal
- Diamorphine
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Admissibility of evidence | 80 |
| Evidence Law | 70 |
| Criminal Law | 60 |
| Offences | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Evidence Law