PP v Adnan bin Kadir: Importation of Controlled Drugs & Purpose of Trafficking under Misuse of Drugs Act
In Public Prosecutor v Adnan bin Kadir, the Court of Appeal of Singapore addressed a criminal reference regarding the interpretation of Section 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The Public Prosecutor sought clarification on whether the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an accused imported a controlled drug for the purpose of trafficking. The Court of Appeal, comprising Chao Hick Tin JA, V K Rajah JA, and Lee Seiu Kin J, held that the prosecution does not need to prove the intent to traffic for a conviction under Section 7. The court set aside the High Court's orders, dismissed the Respondent's appeal against his sentence, given that his sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment and 5 strokes of the cane is the mandatory minimum sentence for his offence of importing a Class A drug.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal held that the prosecution does not need to prove that the accused imported the controlled drug for the purpose of trafficking to secure a conviction under Section 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court of Appeal held that the prosecution does not need to prove the accused imported drugs for trafficking to secure a conviction under Section 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Applicant | Government Agency | Appeal Allowed | Won | Wong Woon Kwong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Lee Lit Cheng of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Adnan bin Kadir | Respondent | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of Appeal | Yes |
| V K Rajah | Justice of Appeal | No |
| Lee Seiu Kin | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Wong Woon Kwong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Lee Lit Cheng | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Abraham Vergis | Providence Law Asia LLC |
| Clive Myint Soe | Providence Law Asia LLC |
4. Facts
- Adnan bin Kadir pleaded guilty in the District Court to importing 0.01g of diamorphine, a Class A controlled drug.
- The Respondent asserted he imported the drugs for his own consumption.
- The Senior District Judge sentenced the Respondent to the mandatory minimum punishment of 5 years’ imprisonment and 5 strokes of the cane.
- The High Court held that s 7 required the Prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused imported the drugs concerned for the purpose of trafficking.
- The High Court set aside the Respondent’s conviction and remitted the case to the District Court for a new trial.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Adnan bin Kadir, Criminal Reference No 3 of 2012, [2013] SGCA 34
- Adnan bin Kadir v Public Prosecutor, , [2013] 1 SLR 276
- Adnan bin Kadir v Public Prosecutor, , [2012] SGHC 196
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| High Court decision in Adnan bin Kadir v Public Prosecutor issued | |
| Public Prosecutor referred a question of law to the Court of Appeal | |
| Singapore acceded to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961 | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Court of Appeal decision issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Importation of Controlled Drugs
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that the prosecution does not need to prove that the accused imported the controlled drug for the purpose of trafficking to secure a conviction under Section 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
- Category: Substantive
- Statutory Interpretation
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal applied the plain meaning of 'import' as defined in the Interpretation Act to Section 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting aside of conviction
- New trial
9. Cause of Actions
- Importation of Controlled Drugs
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ong Ah Chuan and another v PP | Privy Council | Yes | [1979-1980] SLR(R) 710 | Singapore | Cited to explain that the Misuse of Drugs Act is to prevent the growth of drug addiction in Singapore by stamping out the illicit drug trade. |
| PP v Ko Mun Cheung and another | High Court | Yes | [1990] 1 SLR(R) 226 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the word 'import' in s 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act should be given its ordinary and natural meaning of bringing something into a country, whatever the purpose may be. |
| Ko Mun Cheung and another v PP | Court of Criminal Appeal | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR(R) 887 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the definition of 'import' in the Interpretation Act applies to the word 'import' in the Misuse of Drugs Act. |
| PP v Ng Kwok Chun and another | High Court | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR(R) 159 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the words 'import into Singapore' as used in the Act is not intended to bear the narrow and uniquely specialised meaning. |
| Ng Kwok Chun and another v PP | Court of Criminal Appeal | Yes | [1992] 3 SLR(R) 256 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the definition of 'import' in the Interpretation Act applied to the Misuse of Drugs Act. |
| Tse Po Chung Nathan and another v PP | Court of Criminal Appeal | Yes | [1993] 1 SLR(R) 308 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there is nothing in the context or subject of the MDA which demands that the definition of 'import' in the Interpretation Act should not be applied to the MDA. |
| Tan Kiam Peng v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 1 | Singapore | Cited for applying the Interpretation Act's definition of 'import' to s 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. |
| Tan Kheng Chun Ray v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 2 SLR 437 | Singapore | Cited to show that motive in committing an offence is a relevant sentencing consideration. |
| PP v Majid bin Abdul Rahman | District Court | Yes | [2007] SGDC 222 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the High Court in Ko Mun Cheung (HC) has ruled on the definition of 'import' in the Misuse of Drugs Act and there was absolutely no reason for the court to agree with defence counsel that an offence under Section 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act would not be committed unless the importer intended to deliver the controlled drug to other parties. |
| Lau Chi Sing v PP | High Court | Yes | [1988] 2 SLR(R) 451 | Singapore | Cited to show that the Privy Council in Ong Ah Chuan had drawn a distinction between the transportation of drugs intended to be retained solely for the transporter’s own consumption as contrasted with those intended to be delivered to someone else whether it be the actual consumer or a distributor or another dealer. |
| Ng Yang Sek v PP | High Court | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR(R) 816 | Singapore | Cited to show that the courts had three reasons for deciding that the acts listed in the s 2 definition of “traffic” (in particular the word “transport”) had to be performed for the purpose of trafficking to sustain a trafficking charge. |
| Trade Facilities Pte Ltd and others v PP | High Court | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR(R) 7 | Singapore | Cited to show a case where the word “import” was given a more restrictive meaning than that prescribed in the IA. |
| Organon (India) Ltd v Collector of Excise | Supreme Court of India | Yes | (1995) Supp (1) SCC 53 | India | Cited to show that the definition of “import” and “export” in the Opium Act does not require an element of sale. |
| Gramophone Co of India Ltd v Birendra Bahadur Pandey | Supreme Court of India | Yes | (1984) 2 SCC 534 | India | Cited to show that the word “import” means “bringing into India from outside India”, and that it is not limited to importation for commerce only, but also includes importation for transit across the country. |
| Central India Spinning and Weaving and Manufacturing Company Ltd v Municipal Committee, Wardha | Supreme Court | Yes | [1958] SCR 1102 | India | Cited to show that the phrase “terminal tax” indicated that the bringing of goods into a municipality in transit to another municipality did not count as an “import” within the meaning of s 66(1)(o). |
| PP v Low Kok Heng | High Court | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 183 | Singapore | Cited to show that statutory provisions are not construed, in the name of a purposive approach, in a manner that goes against all possible and reasonable interpretation of the express literal wording of the provision. |
| Attorney General v Lau Chi-sing | Hong Kong Court of Appeal | Yes | [1987] HKLR 703 | Hong Kong | Cited to show that if a person takes or causes to be taken dangerous drugs out of Hong Kong then he is exporting them and it matters not that he intends to use the unlawful substance for his own consumption once he leaves the Territory. |
| United States of America v Robert Alan Probert | United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan | Yes | 737 F Supp 1010 (ED Mich, 1989) | United States | Cited to show that the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous. It prohibits the “bringing in,” 21 USC § 951, of any controlled substance into the United States. |
| Warner v Metropolitan Police Commissioner | House of Lords | Yes | [1969] 2 AC 256 | United Kingdom | Cited to show that had there been a minimum penalty imposed, as under the Canadian Act considered in Beaver v. The Queen [1957] S.C.R. 531, that would have been a strong argument in favour of the offence not being absolute. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Chapter 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Importation
- Controlled Drugs
- Trafficking
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Interpretation Act
- Mens Rea
- Diamorphine
15.2 Keywords
- Drugs
- Importation
- Trafficking
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 70 |
| Import and Export Law | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Offences
- Statutory Interpretation