PP v Mas Swan: Drug Importation, Wilful Blindness & Presumptions under Misuse of Drugs Act
In Public Prosecutor v Mas Swan bin Adnan and another, the Singapore High Court addressed charges against Mas Swan and Roshamima for importing diamorphine. Mas Swan admitted to importing what he believed were ecstasy pills, while Roshamima denied any knowledge. The court acquitted Mas Swan, finding he successfully rebutted the presumption of knowledge under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Roshamima was convicted after the court found she knew about the drugs. The case involved a charge under Section 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, read with Section 34 of the Penal Code.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Mas Swan acquitted; Roshamima convicted.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court: Addresses drug importation, wilful blindness, and statutory presumptions under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Mas Swan acquitted, Roshamima convicted.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Prosecution | Government Agency | Partial Success | Partial | Isaac Tan of Attorney-General’s Chambers Sharmila Sripathy-Shanaz of Attorney-General’s Chambers Wynn Wong of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Mas Swan bin Adnan | Defendant | Individual | Acquitted | Won | |
| Roshamima binti Roslan | Defendant | Individual | Guilty | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Steven Chong | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Isaac Tan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Sharmila Sripathy-Shanaz | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Wynn Wong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ranadhir Gupta | A Zamzam & Co |
| N Kanagavijayan | Kana & Co |
| Mohamed Muzammil Bin Mohamed | Muzammil & Company |
| K Prasad | K Prasad & Co |
4. Facts
- Mas Swan and Roshamima were arrested at Woodlands Checkpoint on 6 May 2009.
- Three bundles containing 21.48 grams of diamorphine were found in the front left door panel of the car.
- Mas Swan admitted to importing the bundles but claimed he believed they contained ecstasy.
- Roshamima denied any knowledge of the bundles.
- Mas Swan had made four successful drug deliveries for Mickey before his arrest.
- Roshamima introduced Mickey to Mas Swan and suggested he deliver drugs for Mickey.
- Roshamima had travelled into Singapore 29 times for short visits late at night within 3 months.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Mas Swan bin Adnan and another, Criminal Case No 22 of 2010, [2011] SGHC 107
- Public Prosecutor v Mas Swan bin Adnan and another, Criminal Appeals Nos 7 and 8 of 2011, [2012] SGCA 29
- Public Prosecutor v Abdul Ra’uf bin Abdul Rahman, , [1999] SGHC 187
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Mas Swan and Roshamima arrested at Woodlands Checkpoint. | |
| Diamorphine found in Malaysian-registered motor car. | |
| Contemporaneous statement recorded from Mas Swan. | |
| Contemporaneous statement recorded from Roshamima. | |
| Cautioned statement recorded from Mas Swan. | |
| First long statement recorded from Mas Swan. | |
| Second and third long statements recorded from Mas Swan. | |
| First and second long statements recorded from Roshamima. | |
| Fourth long statement recorded from Mas Swan. | |
| Third long statement recorded from Roshamima. | |
| Fifth long statement recorded from Mas Swan. | |
| Fourth long statement recorded from Roshamima. | |
| Sixth long statement recorded from Mas Swan. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Appeals allowed by the Court of Appeal. |
7. Legal Issues
- Importation of Controlled Drugs
- Outcome: Roshamima found guilty of importing diamorphine; Mas Swan acquitted due to lack of knowledge of the specific drug.
- Category: Substantive
- Wilful Blindness
- Outcome: Court found Mas Swan was not wilfully blind; Roshamima's knowledge was established.
- Category: Substantive
- Presumption of Knowledge
- Outcome: Mas Swan successfully rebutted the presumption; Roshamima did not.
- Category: Substantive
- Admissibility of Confessions
- Outcome: Mas Swan's cautioned statement admitted as evidence after voir dire.
- Category: Procedural
- Similar Fact Evidence
- Outcome: Evidence of Roshamima's previous deliveries admitted to show knowledge and intent.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Conviction
- Mandatory Death Sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Importation of Controlled Drugs
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ko Mun Cheung and another v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR(R) 887 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of 'import' under the Interpretation Act. |
| Seeraj Ajodha and others v The State | Judicial Committee of the Privy Council | Yes | [1982] AC 204 | Trinidad and Tobago | Cited regarding the issue of voluntariness of statements and admissibility. |
| Ng Kwok Chun and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 3 SLR(R) 256 | Singapore | Cited to support that proof of mens rea is required for drug importation offences. |
| Abdul Ra’uf bin Abdul Rahman v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR(R) 533 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that the prosecution must show the accused knew or intended to bring diamorphine into Singapore. |
| Tse Po Chung Nathan and another v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1993] 1 SLR(R) 308 | Singapore | Cited to support that proof of mens rea is required for drug importation offences. |
| Iwuchukwu Amara Tochi and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 2 SLR(R) 503 | Singapore | Cited as an example where the accused was in possession of controlled drugs. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ko Mun Cheong and another | High Court | Yes | [1990] 1 SLR(R) 226 | Singapore | Cited as an example where the accused was in possession of controlled drugs. |
| Yeoh Aik Wei v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2003] SGCA 4 | Singapore | Cited as an example where the accused was in possession of controlled drugs. |
| Tan Kiam Peng v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 1 | Singapore | Cited for the doctrine of wilful blindness and interpretation of s 18(2) of the MDA. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lim Boon Hiong and another | High Court | Yes | [2010] 4 SLR(R) 696 | Singapore | Cited for the consideration of the interpretation of s 18(2) of the MDA. |
| Public Prosecutor v Koo Pui Fong | High Court | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR(R) 734 | Singapore | Cited to show that wilful blindness is not the same as actual knowledge. |
| Roper v Taylor's Central Garages (Exeter), Limited | High Court | Yes | [1951] 2 TLR 284 | England and Wales | Cited for the distinction between actual knowledge and constructive knowledge. |
| Ong Pang Siew v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2011] 1 SLR 606 | Singapore | Cited for the rule in Browne v Dunn regarding unchallenged testimony. |
| Khor Soon Lee v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] SGCA 17 | Singapore | Cited regarding the issue of wilful blindness and the level of suspicion required. |
| Tan Meng Jee v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 2 SLR(R) 178 | Singapore | Cited for the discussion on similar fact evidence and the Boardman test (but authority superseded). |
| Director of Public Prosecutions v Boardman | House of Lords | Yes | [1975] AC 421 | United Kingdom | Cited for the probative value/prejudicial effect balancing test for similar fact evidence. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Tan Guat Neo Phyllis | High Court | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 239 | Singapore | Cited for the inapplicability of the fairness exception and the admissibility of relevant evidence under the EA. |
| Lee Chez Kee v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 447 | Singapore | Cited for the courts having no residual discretion to exclude evidence deemed legally relevant under the EA. |
| Noor Mohamed v R | Privy Council | Yes | [1949] AC 182 | United Kingdom | Cited for the judicial discretion to exclude prejudicial evidence. |
| Hin Hup Bus Service (a firm) v Tay Chwee Hiang | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 723 | Singapore | Cited for the 'striking similarity' test. |
| R v Sang | House of Lords | Yes | [1980] AC 402 | United Kingdom | Cited for the fairness exception. |
| Browne v Dunn | NA | Yes | (1893) 6 R 67 | United Kingdom | Cited for the rule in Browne v Dunn regarding unchallenged testimony. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 7 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 34 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 33 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 122(6) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 121(1) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) s 24 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 18 | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) s 2(1) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act ss 14 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act ss 15 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 163(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 163(2) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 164(1) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Ecstasy
- Wilful Blindness
- Presumption of Knowledge
- Importation
- Controlled Drugs
- Woodlands Checkpoint
- Similar Fact Evidence
- Voir Dire
- Segmen
15.2 Keywords
- Drug Importation
- Diamorphine
- Wilful Blindness
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
- Evidence Act
- Presumption of Knowledge
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Illegal importation of controlled drugs | 85 |
| Criminal Procedure | 70 |
| Evidence | 60 |
| Penal Code | 60 |
| Statutory Interpretation | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Evidence
- Statutory Interpretation