Adnan bin Kadir v PP: Importation of Diamorphine, Personal Consumption Defence
Adnan bin Kadir appealed to the High Court of Singapore against his sentence for importing 0.01g of diamorphine into Singapore, an offence under s 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. He argued the drugs were for personal consumption. Chan Sek Keong CJ set aside the conviction and remitted the case to the District Court for a new trial to determine whether the drugs were imported for his own consumption.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Conviction set aside and case remitted to the District Court for a new trial.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Adnan bin Kadir appealed his sentence for importing diamorphine. The court examined whether personal consumption is a defense to importation under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Allowed | Lost | Wong Woon Kwong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Lee Lit Cheng of Attorney-General’s Chambers Ruth Wong of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Adnan bin Kadir | Appellant | Individual | Conviction set aside | Other |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Sek Keong | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Wong Woon Kwong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Lee Lit Cheng | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ruth Wong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- The Appellant pleaded guilty to importing 0.01g of diamorphine into Singapore.
- The Appellant claimed the drugs were for his own consumption.
- The District Court sentenced the Appellant to five years’ imprisonment and five strokes of the cane.
- The Appellant appealed against the sentence.
- The High Court considered whether personal consumption is a defense to the charge of importation.
5. Formal Citations
- Adnan bin Kadir v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate's Appeal No 122 of 2012, [2012] SGHC 196
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant imported diamorphine into Singapore. | |
| Appellant was arrested at Immigration Checkpoint Authority, Woodlands Checkpoint. | |
| Health Sciences Authority issued a certificate stating the exhibit contained diamorphine. | |
| Appellant initially claimed trial in the court below. | |
| Oral hearing of the appeal. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Importation of Controlled Drugs
- Outcome: The court held that the offence of importation of a controlled drug under s 7 of the current MDA is committed only if the drug is brought into Singapore for the purpose of distribution.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Personal consumption as a defense to importation
- Interpretation of 'import' under the Misuse of Drugs Act
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Importation of Controlled Drugs
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Adnan bin Kadir | District Court | Yes | [2012] SGDC 203 | Singapore | Cited as the grounds of decision in the lower court. |
| Ko Mun Cheung and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR(R) 887 | Singapore | Cited for the interpretation of 'import' under the Misuse of Drugs Act. |
| Ng Kwok Chun and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 3 SLR(R) 256 | Singapore | Cited for the interpretation of 'import' under the Misuse of Drugs Act. |
| Tse Po Chung Nathan and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 1 SLR(R) 308 | Singapore | Cited for the interpretation of 'import' under the Misuse of Drugs Act. |
| Tan Kheng Chun Ray v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 2 SLR 437 | Singapore | Cited regarding the relevance of motive in importing drugs as a sentencing consideration. |
| Public Prosecutor v Majid Bin Abdul Rahim | District Court | Yes | [2007] SGDC 222 | Singapore | Cited for the argument that personal consumption is not a defense to importation. |
| Ong Ah Chuan and another v Public Prosecutor | Privy Council | Yes | [1979–1980] SLR(R) 710 | Singapore | Cited for the interpretation of 'traffic' under the Misuse of Drugs Act and the distinction between drug dealers and addicts. |
| Lau Chi Sing v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1988] 2 SLR(R) 451 | Singapore | Cited for the interpretation of 'transport' in the context of drug trafficking. |
| Ng Yang Sek v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR(R) 816 | Singapore | Cited for the purposive approach to interpreting the definition of 'trafficking'. |
| AOF v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 3 SLR 34 | Singapore | Cited for the fundamental principle that the Prosecution bears the burden of proving its case against the accused person beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Abdul Karim bin Mohd v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR(R) 514 | Singapore | Cited for the possibility that an accused who is charged with a capital offence of importing more than 15g of diamorphine can escape the mandatory death penalty by satisfying the court that part of the diamorphine was imported for personal consumption. |
| Public Prosecutor v Tan Kiam Peng | High Court | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 522 | Singapore | Cited for the harm that drugs inflict on an addict’s well-being, drug trafficking engenders and feeds a vicious cycle of crime that inexorably ripples through the community. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ko Mun Cheung and another | High Court | Yes | [1990] 1 SLR(R) 226 | Singapore | Cited for the argument that they were not guilty of the offence of importing diamorphine into Singapore because they had not intended to deliver the drugs to anyone in Singapore. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ng Kwok Chun and another | High Court | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR(R) 159 | Singapore | Cited for the argument that since they had not gone through passport control, they had not entered Singapore, and therefore could not have imported the drugs into Singapore. |
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 |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 33 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 8 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 17 | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) s 2(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (Act 15 of 2010) s 390(3) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (Act 15 of 2010) s 394 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (Act 15 of 2010) s 400 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Importation
- Personal Consumption
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Trafficking
- Distribution
15.2 Keywords
- Diamorphine
- Importation
- Personal Consumption
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 60 |
| Criminal Procedure | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Offences
- Importation
- Statutory Interpretation