Syed Abdul Mutalip v PP: Retracted Confessions, Common Intention, and Drug Trafficking
Syed Abdul Mutalip bin Syed Sidek and Roetikno Bin Shariff were convicted in the High Court of Singapore for drug trafficking under the Misuse of Drugs Act, read with section 34 of the Penal Code. They appealed the decision. The Court of Appeal, comprising Chao Hick Tin JA, Tan Lee Meng J, and Yong Pung How CJ, dismissed their appeals, holding that their retracted confessions were admissible and that the trial judge had not erred in his assessment of the evidence or application of the law regarding common intention.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeals dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Syed Abdul Mutalip and Roetikno were convicted of drug trafficking. The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding their retracted confessions 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 | Bala Reddy of Deputy Public Prosecutors Jason Tan of Deputy Public Prosecutors |
| Syed Abdul Mutalip bin Syed Sidek | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Roetikno Bin Shariff | 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 |
|---|---|
| Bala Reddy | Deputy Public Prosecutors |
| Jason Tan | Deputy Public Prosecutors |
| Gurdip Singh | George Sandosham Gurdip & Partners |
| D Vivekananda | Niru & Co |
| SS Dhillon | Dhillon Dendroff & Partners |
| Suresh Veloo | Suresh & Co |
4. Facts
- Syed and Roetikno were found in Room 406 of Taipei Hotel during a police raid.
- Police found yellowish granular substances in packets on the floor and in the false ceiling of the toilet.
- The substances were confirmed to contain 78.85 grams of diamorphine.
- Syed and Roetikno made statements to the CNB admitting they were repacking heroin in the room.
- Both Wong and Sgt May Tan testified that they saw Syed and Roetikno walking briskly past them and out of the hotel premises.
- Fingerprints of Syed and Roetikno were found on a box in Room 406.
- Syed and Roetikno retracted their confessions during the trial.
5. Formal Citations
- Syed Abdul Mutalip bin Syed Sidek and Another v Public Prosecutor, Cr App 1/2002, [2002] SGCA 27
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellants committed the offence of drug trafficking at Taipei Hotel. | |
| Police conducted a vice raid at the Taipei Hotel. | |
| Syed was arrested by Central Narcotics Bureau officers. | |
| Syed gave a statement to the Central Narcotics Bureau. | |
| Roetikno was arrested at the Compass Hotel. | |
| Syed gave another statement to the Central Narcotics Bureau. | |
| Roetikno gave a statement to the Central Narcotics Bureau. | |
| Roetikno gave another statement to the Central Narcotics Bureau. | |
| Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals. |
7. Legal Issues
- Admissibility of Retracted Confessions
- Outcome: The court held that the retracted confessions were admissible because they were made voluntarily and were true.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Voluntariness of confession
- Truthfulness of confession
- Weight of retracted confession
- Related Cases:
- [1999] 1 SLR 25
- [1962] MLJ 289
- [1947] MLJ 90
- [1972-74] SLR 232
- [1995] 3 SLR 317
- [1995] 3 SLR 341
- Common Intention
- Outcome: The court held that the appellants had a common intention to traffic in drugs.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1995] 3 SLR 785
- (1945) 47 Bom LR 941
- AIR 1925 PC 1
- Alibi Defence
- Outcome: The court held that the trial judge adequately dealt with the question of drawing an adverse inference from the fact that Sasha was not called as a witness.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to furnish witness particulars
- Burden of proof of alibi
- Adverse inference
- Related Cases:
- [1996] 1 SLR 264
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against mandatory death sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Drug Trafficking
- Possession of Controlled Drugs
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Appeals
11. Industries
- Hospitality
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chai Chien Wei Kelvin v PP | High Court | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR 25 | Singapore | Cited as precedent regarding the test of whether a statement is a confession. |
| Anandagoda v The Queen | Unknown | Yes | [1962] MLJ 289 | Malaysia | Cited as precedent regarding the test of whether a statement is a confession. |
| Yap Sow Keong v PP | Malayan Union Court of Appeal | Yes | [1947] MLJ 90 | Malaysia | Cited as precedent regarding the admissibility of retracted confessions in evidence. |
| Ismail bin U K Abdul Rahman v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1972-74] SLR 232 | Singapore | Cited as precedent regarding the admissibility of retracted confessions in evidence. |
| Foong Seow Ngui & Ors v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR 785 | Singapore | Cited as precedent regarding common intention under Section 34 of the Penal Code. |
| Mahbub Shah v Emperor | Unknown | Yes | (1945) 47 Bom LR 941 | India | Cited as precedent regarding common intention under Section 34 of the Penal Code. |
| Barendra Kumar Ghosh v Emperor | Privy Council | Yes | AIR 1925 PC 1 | Unknown | Cited as precedent regarding common intention under Section 34 of the Penal Code. |
| PP v Rozman bin Jusoh & Anor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR 317 | Singapore | Cited as precedent regarding the use of a retracted confession against a co-accused. |
| Panya Martmontree v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR 341 | Singapore | Cited as precedent regarding the use of a retracted confession against a co-accused. |
| Lee Choon Chee v PP | High Court | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR 264 | Singapore | Cited as precedent regarding the purpose of furnishing particulars of an alibi. |
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 |
| Penal Code, Chapter 224, section 34 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185, section 33 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act, section 17 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code, section 155(1) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act, section 105 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Drug Trafficking
- Retracted Confession
- Common Intention
- Alibi
- Central Narcotics Bureau
- Taipei Hotel
- Repacking
- Possession
- Statements to CNB
15.2 Keywords
- Drug Trafficking
- Retracted Confession
- Common Intention
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 95 |
| Criminal Procedure | 95 |
| Drug Crimes | 95 |
| Admissibility of evidence | 90 |
| Evidence Law | 90 |
| Offences | 80 |
| Evidence | 80 |
| Penal Code | 80 |
| Theft | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Evidence
- Criminal Procedure