Mohd Sharif v PP: Trafficking Diamorphine - Knowledge & Presumption under Misuse of Drugs Act

In Mohd Sharif bin Ibrahim v Public Prosecutor, the Court of Appeal of Singapore dismissed Mohd Sharif's appeal against his conviction in the High Court for possessing 98.71 grams of diamorphine for trafficking. The court found that Mohd Sharif had knowledge of the drugs in the briefcase and failed to rebut the presumption under Section 17 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The prosecution presented evidence that Mohd Sharif was in physical control of the briefcase containing the drugs and that he had made statements admitting to knowing the briefcase contained heroin and intending to traffic them.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Mohd Sharif was convicted of possessing diamorphine for trafficking. The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding he knew the briefcase contained drugs.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Mohd Sharif bin IbrahimAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLostJames Bahadur Masih, Gurcharanjit Singh
Public ProsecutorRespondentGovernment AgencyConviction UpheldWonHan Ming Kuang

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chao Hick TinJudge of AppealNo
L P TheanJudge of AppealNo
Yong Pung HowChief JusticeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
James Bahadur MasihJames Masih & Co
Gurcharanjit SinghJames Masih & Co
Han Ming KuangPublic Prosecutor

4. Facts

  1. Appellant was found in possession of 98.71 grams of diamorphine.
  2. Appellant made statements admitting the drugs were his and for smoking.
  3. Appellant collected a plastic bag containing heroin from Ah Chai.
  4. Appellant transferred the heroin into a black briefcase.
  5. Appellant delivered heroin to Idris shortly before his arrest.
  6. Appellant claimed he fabricated statements to protect his uncle and aunt.
  7. Appellant claimed Emran gave him the briefcase containing pornographic VCDs.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Mohd Sharif bin Ibrahim v Public Prosecutor, Cr App 18/2001, [2002] SGCA 7

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Appellant and Siti Rohaza seen leaving flat
Appellant met Malay couple at Tampines Mall
Appellant purchased shoes at Americaya shoe store
Appellant passed heroin to Mohamed Idris Bin Sanip
Appellant and Siti arrested by CNB officers
CNB officers entered the flat and found heroin
Urine test conducted on appellant and Siti
Appeal heard
Appeal dismissed

7. Legal Issues

  1. Possession of Drugs for Trafficking
    • Outcome: The court found that the appellant had knowledge of the drugs and failed to rebut the presumption that possession was for the purpose of trafficking.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Knowledge of drugs
      • Purpose of trafficking
    • Related Cases:
      • [1994] 1 SLR 676
      • [1978-1979] SLR 211
      • [2000] 4 SLR 39
      • [2000] 3 SLR 565
  2. Admissibility of Confession
    • Outcome: The court held that the retraction of the confession only goes towards the weight to be accorded to the confession and it does not prevent the confession from being relied upon to convict the accused.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Voluntariness of statement
      • Retraction of confession
    • Related Cases:
      • [1974] 2 MLJ 180
      • [1995] 2 SLR 341
  3. Drawing of Adverse Inference
    • Outcome: The court held that no adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution for not calling a witness when the prosecution has sufficiently proven its case by other independent evidence.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to call witness
      • Burden of proof
    • Related Cases:
      • [1996] 1 SLR 510
      • [1999] 1 SLR 663
      • [1994] 2 SLR 257

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Appeal against conviction

9. Cause of Actions

  • Possession of Drugs for Trafficking

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Litigation
  • Appeals

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Low Kok Wai v PPHigh CourtYes[1994] 1 SLR 676SingaporeCited for the principle that the prosecution must prove the accused was in possession of the drugs in order to invoke the presumption in s 17 of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
Tan Ah Tee v PPN/AYes[1978-1979] SLR 211SingaporeCited for the principle that physical control per se is not sufficient to prove possession within the meaning of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
Sim Teck Ho v PPN/AYes[2000] 4 SLR 39SingaporeCited for the principle that physical control per se is not sufficient to prove possession within the meaning of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
Sharom bin Ahmad v PPN/AYes[2000] 3 SLR 565SingaporeCited for the principle that possession of the drugs must be proved to trigger the presumption in s 17 of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
Ismail bin UK Abdul RahmanN/AYes[1974] 2 MLJ 180N/ACited for the principle that retraction of an accused’s confession will only go towards the weight to be accorded to the confession and it does not prevent the confession from being relied upon to convict the accused
Panya Marimontree v PPN/AYes[1995] 2 SLR 341SingaporeCited for the principle that retraction of an accused’s confession will only go towards the weight to be accorded to the confession and it does not prevent the confession from being relied upon to convict the accused
Chua Keem Long v PPN/AYes[1996] 1 SLR 510SingaporeCited for the principle that a court will not draw an adverse inference against the prosecution for not having called a witness, where the prosecution has sufficiently proven its case by other independent evidence.
Satli bin Masot v PPN/AYes[1999] 1 SLR 663SingaporeCited for the principle that a court will not draw an adverse inference against the prosecution for not having called a witness, where the prosecution has sufficiently proven its case by other independent evidence.
Lim Young Sien v PPN/AYes[1994] 2 SLR 257SingaporeCited for the principle that the prosecution has a discretion whether or not to call a particular witness, provided the discretion is exercised in good faith and the witness whom the prosecution does not propose to call (if available) is offered to the defence.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA)Singapore
s 17 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Diamorphine
  • Trafficking
  • Possession
  • Mens Rea
  • Actus Reus
  • Presumption
  • Fabrication
  • Confession
  • Adverse Inference

15.2 Keywords

  • Diamorphine
  • Drug Trafficking
  • Singapore
  • Criminal Law
  • Misuse of Drugs Act
  • Possession
  • Appeal

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Drug Trafficking

17. Areas of Law

  • Criminal Law
  • Drug Trafficking Law
  • Evidence Law