Public Prosecutor v Syed Abdul Mutalip & Roetikno: Drug Trafficking Case

In Public Prosecutor v Syed Abdul Mutalip bin Syed Sidek and Another, the High Court of Singapore convicted Syed Abdul Mutalip bin Syed Sidek and Roetikno bin Shariff on 18 February 2002 for drug trafficking. The defendants were found guilty of possessing 78.85 grams of diamorphine with the intention of trafficking, violating the Misuse of Drugs Act. The court rejected their defenses, relying on their initial statements and fingerprint evidence to establish their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Guilty as charged

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 for possessing 78.85g of diamorphine in a hotel room.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorProsecutionGovernment AgencyGuilty as chargedWon
Christopher Ong of Deputy Public Prosecutors
Adriel Loh of Deputy Public Prosecutors
Syed Abdul Mutalip bin Syed SidekDefendantIndividualGuilty as chargedLost
Roetikno Bin ShariffDefendantIndividualGuilty as chargedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
MPH RubinJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Christopher OngDeputy Public Prosecutors
Adriel LohDeputy Public Prosecutors
Gurdip SinghGeorge Sandosham Gurdip & Partners
D VivekenandaNiru & Co
Sanjiv RajanAllen & Gledhill
ThangaveluRajah Velu & Co

4. Facts

  1. The accused were jointly charged with trafficking 78.85g of diamorphine.
  2. Police raided room 406 of Taipei Hotel and found drugs and drug-related paraphernalia.
  3. Both accused were present in room 406 at the time of the raid.
  4. The accused initially admitted to repacking drugs in their statements to the police.
  5. Fingerprints of both accused were found on items in the hotel room.
  6. Both accused later retracted their statements, claiming they were false.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Public Prosecutor v Syed Abdul Mutalip bin Syed Sidek and Another, CC 52/2001, [2002] SGHC 24

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Accused persons resided in Taipei Hotel
Anti-vice raid at Taipei Hotel
First accused arrested
Second accused arrested
Judgment Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Possession of Controlled Drugs for Trafficking
    • Outcome: The court found that the accused were in possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking, based on their admissions and the circumstances of the case.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Common Intention
    • Outcome: The court determined that the accused shared a common intention to traffic in drugs, based on their actions and the circumstances of the case.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Conviction
  2. Sentencing

9. Cause of Actions

  • Drug Trafficking

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Litigation
  • Drug Offenses

11. Industries

  • Hospitality

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Foong Seow Ngui & Ors v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[1995] 3 SLR 785SingaporeCited to support the principle that possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking constitutes the offense of trafficking.
Reg v WarnerN/AYes[1969] 2 AC 256N/ACited for the definition of 'possession' in the context of drug offenses.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA)Singapore
Penal CodeSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Diamorphine
  • Drug trafficking
  • Possession
  • Common intention
  • Retracted confession
  • Taipei Hotel

15.2 Keywords

  • Drug trafficking
  • Singapore
  • Criminal law
  • Diamorphine
  • Hotel raid

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Misuse of Drugs Act95
Criminal Law60
Criminal Procedure50
Theft10

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Drug Trafficking