Muhammad Ridzuan v PP: Trafficking, Common Intention, Misuse of Drugs Act. Appeal Dismissed.

The Singapore Court of Appeal heard the case of Muhammad Ridzuan bin Md Ali v Public Prosecutor, an appeal against the High Court's decision to convict Ridzuan on a capital charge of drug trafficking under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding Ridzuan's conviction, finding that he had a common intention with his co-accused to traffic drugs and that the elements of the offense were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also dismissed a related criminal motion challenging the Public Prosecutor's decision not to issue a certificate of cooperation.

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

Singapore Court of Appeal upheld Muhammad Ridzuan's conviction for drug trafficking, finding common intention with his co-accused and dismissing challenges to evidence.

1.7 Decision Date

27 May 2014

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Public Prosecutor	Respondent	Government Agency	Appeal Dismissed	Won	Wong Woon Kwong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Ailene Chou of Attorney-General’s Chambers Francis Ng of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Muhammad Ridzuan bin Md Ali	Appellant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	James Bahadur Masih of James Masih & Company Joseph Tan Chin Aik of Atkins Law Corporation Dr Chuang Wei Ping of WP Chuang & Company
Abdul Haleem bin Abdul Karim	Other	Individual

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Chao Hick Tin	Justice of Appeal	No
Andrew Phang Boon Leong	Justice of Appeal	Yes
V K Rajah	Justice of Appeal	No
Woo Bih Li	Judge	No
Quentin Loh	Judge	No

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Wong Woon Kwong	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Ailene Chou	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Francis Ng	Attorney-General’s Chambers
James Bahadur Masih	James Masih & Company
Joseph Tan Chin Aik	Atkins Law Corporation
Dr Chuang Wei Ping	WP Chuang & Company

4. Facts

Ridzuan and Abdul Haleem agreed to purchase and sell heroin as partners.
Ridzuan arranged to purchase one 'ball' of heroin from Afad for $7,000.
Gemuk instructed Ridzuan that a jockey would deliver half a 'ball' of heroin.
Abdul Haleem collected one bundle of heroin from the jockey and returned to the Flat.
Ridzuan received a call from Gemuk to standby to collect the remaining half a 'ball' of heroin.
Abdul Haleem returned to the Flat carrying a black sling bag containing eight bundles.
CNB officers recovered eight bundles and 21 plastic sachets containing diamorphine from the Flat.

5. Formal Citations

Muhammad Ridzuan bin Md Ali v Public Prosecutor and other matters, Criminal Appeal No 3 of 2013; Criminal Motions Nos 68 and 69 of 2013, [2014] SGCA 32
PP v Abdul Haleem bin Abdul Karim and another, , [2013] 3 SLR 734

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2010-05-06	Ridzuan and Abdul Haleem arrested by CNB officers
2013-01-01	High Court convicts Ridzuan and Abdul Haleem on drug charges
2013-01-01	Ridzuan files Criminal Appeal No 3 of 2013
2013-01-01	Ridzuan files Criminal Motions Nos 68 and 69 of 2013
2014-02-27	Hearing before the Court of Appeal
2014-05-28	Court of Appeal dismisses appeal and criminal motion

7. Legal Issues

Drug Trafficking
- Outcome: The court found that the elements of drug trafficking were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Possession of controlled drugs
  - Knowledge of the nature of the drug
  - Purpose of trafficking
Common Intention
- Outcome: The court found that the elements of Section 34 of the Penal Code were made out and that constructive liability for the capital offense should thus be imputed to Ridzuan.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Pre-arranged plan
  - Acting in concert
  - Participation in the criminal act
Presumption of Possession
- Outcome: The court found that Ridzuan was deemed to be jointly in possession of the drugs with Abdul Haleem pursuant to s 18(4) of the MDA and that Ridzuan failed to rebut the presumption of possession arising pursuant to s 18(1)(c) of the MDA.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Joint possession
  - Possession of keys to premises
Presumption of Knowledge
- Outcome: The court found that Ridzuan's conduct amounted to wilful blindness and therefore the s 18(2) MDA presumption was not rebutted.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Wilful blindness
  - Rebuttal of presumption
Judicial Review
- Outcome: The court found that the proper forum to hear the merits of the substantive arguments Mr Masih sought to make on behalf of his client in CM 68 was the High Court.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court
  - Prerogative orders

8. Remedies Sought

Setting aside the sentence of execution
Remitting the case back to the Public Prosecutor for reconsideration
Review of the case by the trial Judge

9. Cause of Actions

Drug Trafficking

10. Practice Areas

Criminal Appeals
Drug Offences

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
PP v Abdul Haleem bin Abdul Karim and another	High Court	Yes	[2013] 3 SLR 734	Singapore	Decision from which this appeal arose; the High Court convicted Ridzuan on drug charges.
Daniel Vijay s/o Katherasan and others v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2010] 4 SLR 1119	Singapore	Cited for the purpose of Section 34 of the Penal Code to impute constructive liability on a secondary offender.
Foong Seow Ngui and others v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1995] 3 SLR(R) 254	Singapore	Cited to support the point that if Section 34 of the Penal Code applies, it does not matter whether the accused had possession of the drugs at the material time.
Lee Chez Kee v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2008] 3 SLR(R) 447	Singapore	Cited to emphasize that participation, not presence, is the key ingredient in imposing liability under Section 34 of the Penal Code.
Mahbub Shah v Emperor	Privy Council	Yes	AIR (32) 1945 PC 118	India	Cited for the principle that common intention implies a pre-arranged plan.
Tan Chuan Ten and another v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1997] 1 SLR(R) 666	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the existence of a common intention must be inferred from the offenders’ conduct and all the other relevant circumstances of the case.
Chai Chien Wei Kelvin v PP	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1998] 3 SLR(R) 619	Singapore	Cited for principles relating to the treatment of a co-accused's evidence.
Public Prosecutor v Mohammed Liton Mohammed Syeed Mallik	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2008] 1 SLR(R) 601	Singapore	Cited for the legal principles governing appellate intervention in criminal appeals.
R v Lou Hay Hung	Ontario Court of Appeal	Yes	[1946] 3 DLR 111	Canada	Cited for the principle that both knowledge and consent are necessary for joint possession.
R v Guilbride	British Columbia Provincial Court	Yes	(2004) BCPC 101	Canada	Cited for the principle that consent can be inferred from an accused person’s direct participation in the operation or activity relating to the drugs, including participation in a common design.
R v Terrence	Supreme Court of Canada	Yes	[1983] 1 SCR 357	Canada	Cited for the principle that consent cannot exist without the co-existence of some measure of control by the person over the subject matter being deemed to be in his or her possession.
R v Colvin and Gladue	British Columbia Court of Appeal	Yes	[1942] BCJ No 26	Canada	Cited for the principle that in situations where the association, interest or participation of the accused cannot be reasonably regarded as an exercise of control over the subject matter, it would not amount to consent.
R v Gibbs	Ontario Court of Justice	Yes	2002 CarswellOnt 4607	Canada	Cited for the principle that the ability to choose is inherent in the concept of consent.
R v Mohamad	Ontario Court of Appeal	Yes	2004 CarswellOnt 335	Canada	Cited for the principle that control did not require an accused person to exercise physical control over the object in question but, rather, referred to his or her power or authority over the object in question.
Public Prosecutor v Lim Ah Poh and anor	High Court	Yes	[1991] 2 SLR(R) 307	Singapore	Discussed some of the Canadian authorities mentioned above and concluded that acquiescence or condonation is not enough. There must be some dealing between the parties in relation to the drug, such as an agreement to buy it or help in concealing it.
Hartej Sidhu & another v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1994] 2 SLR(R) 541	Singapore	Approved and applied the decision in Public Prosecutor v Lim Ah Poh and anor.
Sharom bin Ahmad v PP	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2000] 2 SLR(R) 541	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the presumption under s 18(1)(c) of the MDA is not dependent upon the ownership of the premises in which the drug concerned was found.
Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2011] 4 SLR 1156	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the express words of s 18(2) of the MDA clearly contemplated that the provision applied where possession of the drug was presumed without any requirement for physical custody or control.
Dinesh Pillai a/l K Raja Retnam v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2012] 2 SLR 903	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an accused would also not be able to rebut the presumption by a mere assertion of his lack of knowledge had he been wilfully blind as to the nature of the drugs.
Public Prosecutor v Hla Win	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1995] 2 SLR(R) 104	Singapore	Distinguished from the present case on its facts.
Public Prosecutor v Khampali Suchart	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1996] SGCA 38	Singapore	Distinguished from the present case on its facts.
Khor Soon Lee v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2011] 3 SLR 201	Singapore	Distinguished from the present case on its facts.
Nguyen Tuong Van v PP	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2005] 1 SLR(R) 103	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the constitutionality of the mandatory nature of the death penalty itself was emphatically confirmed by this court.
Ng Chye Huey and another v PP	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] 2 SLR(R) 106	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the issuance of prerogative writs (now known in the ROC as prerogative orders) is an expression of the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction.
R v Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal Ex parte Shaw	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1952] 1 KB 338	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the Court of King’s Bench has an inherent jurisdiction to control all inferior tribunals, not in an appellate capacity, but in a supervisory capacity.
Haron bin Mundir v Singapore Amateur Athletic Association	High Court	Yes	[1991] 2 SLR(R) 494	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court has also been extended to actions by administrative tribunals and other public bodies discharging public functions.
Singapore Amateur Athletic Association v Haron bin Mundir	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1993] 3 SLR(R) 407	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court has also been extended to actions by administrative tribunals and other public bodies discharging public functions.
Re Nalpon Zero Geraldo Mario	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2013] 3 SLR 258	Singapore	Cited for the principle that references to the “inherent jurisdiction of the court” were in fact references to the exercise by the court of its fund of powers conferred on it by virtue of its institutional role to dispense justice, rather than an inherent “authority” to hear and determine a matter.
Abdullah bin A Rahman v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1994] 2 SLR(R) 1017	Singapore	Cited for the principle that Section 29A(4) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act is concerned with the Court of Appeal’s power in a situation where it already has been seised of jurisdiction to hear a particular matter.
Koh Zhan Quan Tony v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2006] 2 SLR(R) 830	Singapore	Cited for the principle that Section 29A(4) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act is concerned with the Court of Appeal’s power in a situation where it already has been seised of jurisdiction to hear a particular matter.
Denko-HLB Sdn Bhd v Fagerdala Singapore Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2002] 2 SLR(R) 336	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the effect of s 29A(3) is that the Court of Appeal will only have the powers of the High Court, where there is in existence an appeal.
Au Wai Pang v Attorney-General and another matter	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] SGCA 23	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the precise contours of the line to be drawn between a free-standing and incidental application can only be determined “on a case by case basis”.
Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-General	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2012] 2 SLR 49	Singapore	Distinguished from the present case.
Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2010] 2 SLR 192	Singapore	Distinguished from the present case.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
O 53 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed)	Singapore
s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act	Singapore
s 33B(2)(b) Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)	Singapore
s 34 of the Penal Code	Singapore
s 18(4) of the Misuse of Drugs Act	Singapore
s 18(1)(c) of the Misuse of Drugs Act	Singapore
s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act	Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed)	Singapore
s 27(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act	Singapore
s 29A(2) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act	Singapore
s 29A(4) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act	Singapore
s 29A(3) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Diamorphine
Heroin
Trafficking
Common intention
Joint possession
Wilful blindness
Certificate of substantive assistance
Jockey
Bundles
Capital charge

15.2 Keywords

Drug trafficking
Common intention
Misuse of Drugs Act
Penal Code
Singapore Court of Appeal
Capital charge
Criminal motion
Possession of drugs
Knowledge of drugs

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Misuse of Drugs Act	95
Criminal Law	90
Criminal Procedure	70
Penal Code	60
Statutory Interpretation	50
Public Prosecutor	40
Appeal	30
Administrative Law	20

16. Subjects

Criminal Law
Drug Trafficking
Appeals
Criminal Procedure