Amran Bin Eusuff v PP: Drug Trafficking, Entrapment, & Admissibility of Confessions
Amran Bin Eusuff and Rabu Bin Rahmat were convicted in the High Court of Singapore for trafficking more than 500 grams of cannabis, in violation of the Misuse of Drugs Act. They appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal, comprising Yong Pung How CJ, Chao Hick Tin JA, and Tan Lee Meng J, dismissed their appeals, holding that entrapment is not a valid defense and affirming the admissibility of their confessions. Amran and Rabu were sentenced to death.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Appeals Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Amran and Rabu were convicted of drug trafficking. The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions, rejecting entrapment as a defense and affirming the admissibility of confessions.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Judgment Upheld | Won | |
| Amran Bin Eusuff | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Rabu Bin Rahmat | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Chao Hick Tin | Judge of Appeal | No |
| Tan Lee Meng | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Peter Koy | Deputy Public Prosecutors |
| Paul Chia | Deputy Public Prosecutors |
| Luke Lee | Luke Lee & Co |
| David Tan Tee Boon | Lawrence Chua & Partners |
| Johan Ismail | Johan Ismail & Co |
| Ho Meng Hee | Ho Meng Hee & Co |
4. Facts
- Amran and Rabu were jointly charged with trafficking more than 500 grams of cannabis.
- CPL Fazuri received information that 'Daud' was looking for a buyer of cannabis.
- CPL Fazuri posed as a buyer and negotiated with 'Daud' and 'Abu' to purchase cannabis.
- Amran and Rabu introduced themselves as 'Daud' and 'Abu' to undercover CNB officers.
- Rabu collected the drugs and handed them to an undercover officer.
- Amran made statements admitting to negotiating the sale of cannabis.
- Rabu initially denied involvement but later admitted to procuring the drugs for sale.
5. Formal Citations
- Amran Bin Eusuff & Anor v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Appeal No 23 of 2001, [2002] SGCA 20
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| CNB received information about 'Daud' seeking a cannabis buyer. | |
| CPL Fazuri contacted 'Daud' to negotiate cannabis purchase. | |
| Amran and Rabu delivered cannabis to undercover CNB officers. | |
| Amran and Rabu were arrested. | |
| Amran made a long statement to the Investigating Officer. | |
| Rabu made a long statement to the Investigating Officer. | |
| Amran made a further statement to the Investigating Officer. | |
| Rabu made a further statement to the Investigating Officer. | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Entrapment
- Outcome: The court held that entrapment is not a valid defense to a criminal charge.
- Category: Substantive
- Admissibility of Confession
- Outcome: The court held that the statements made by Rabu were admissible as they were made voluntarily.
- Category: Procedural
- Admissibility of Co-Accused Confession
- Outcome: The court held that Amran’s confession was admissible as against Rabu.
- Category: Procedural
- Judicial Discretion in Sentencing
- Outcome: The court held that it does not have any judicial discretion to reduce Rabu’s sentence from one of death to life imprisonment.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Drug Trafficking
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Appeals
- Evidence Admissibility
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chin Seow Noi & Ors. v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 1 SLR 135 | Singapore | Cited to admit Amran’s oral evidence and written statements as against Rabu as these amounted to confessions by Rabu’s co-accused. |
| Gulam bin Notan v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR 26 | Singapore | Cited for the test of voluntariness as a partly objective and partly subjective one regarding the admissibility of confessions made to CNB officers. |
| How Poh Sun v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1991] 1 SLR 220 | Singapore | Cited to support the position that entrapment is not a valid defence to a criminal charge in Singapore. |
| Ng Ai Tiong v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR 454 | Singapore | Cited for the caution that an appellate court should not overturn a trial judge’s findings of fact unless they are clearly wrong. |
| SM Summit Holdings v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR 922 | Singapore | Cited to elaborate the rationale that entrapment is not a substantive defence to a charge of a criminal offence. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 1998 Ed.), s 5(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 1998 Ed.), s 33 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Ed.), s 34 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 1998 Ed.), Second Schedule | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97), s 30 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act, s 24 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Cannabis
- Drug trafficking
- Entrapment
- Confession
- Undercover operation
- CNB
- Voluntariness
- Co-accused
- Admissibility
- Sentence
- Mitigating factors
15.2 Keywords
- Drug Trafficking
- Entrapment
- Confession
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Evidence Law | 80 |
| Criminal Procedure | 70 |
| Sentencing | 60 |
| Entrapment | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Evidence
- Sentencing