PP v Chum Tat Suan: Statutory Relief for Drug Couriers under Misuse of Drugs Act
In Public Prosecutor v Chum Tat Suan and Public Prosecutor v Abdul Kahar bin Othman, the Court of Appeal of Singapore addressed criminal references concerning the interpretation of Section 33B of the Misuse of Drugs Act, which provides a pathway for drug couriers to avoid the mandatory death penalty. The Public Prosecutor sought clarification on three questions of law regarding the burden of proof, the admissibility of evidence, and the definition of a courier. The Court clarified that the burden of proof lies with the convicted person, that all evidence from the trial must be considered, and that a person intending to sell drugs cannot be considered a courier. The court quashed the Judge's findings and remitted the cases.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
The Judge’s findings that Abdul Kahar’s and Chum’s involvement in committing the offences under ss 5(1) and 7 of the MDA respectively fell within the ambit of ss 33B(2)(a) and 33B(3)(a) ought to be quashed. The cases were remitted to the Judge.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court of Appeal clarified the application of s 33B of the Misuse of Drugs Act, concerning statutory relief for drug couriers.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Applicant | Government Agency | Cases remitted to the Judge | Remanded | Wong Woon Kwong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Suhas Malhotra of Attorney-General’s Chambers Aedit Abdullah of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Abdul Kahar bin Othman | Respondent | Individual | Finding quashed | Lost | |
| Chum Tat Suan | Respondent | Individual | Finding quashed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of Appeal | Yes |
| Woo Bih Li | Judge | No |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Wong Woon Kwong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Suhas Malhotra | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Aedit Abdullah | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Johan Ismail | Johan Ismail & Co |
| Abdul Rahman Bin Mohd Hanipah | Abdul Rahman Law Corporation |
| Manoj Nandwani Prakash | Gabriel Law Corporation |
| Eric Liew Hwee Tong | Gabriel Law Corporation |
| Dew Wong Li-Yen | Gabriel Law Corporation |
4. Facts
- Chum Tat Suan and Abdul Kahar were convicted of drug trafficking and importation offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
- Section 33B of the Misuse of Drugs Act allows a convicted person to avoid the death penalty if they are a courier and substantively assist the CNB.
- The High Court determined that both Chum Tat Suan and Abdul Kahar were couriers within the meaning of Section 33B(2)(a).
- The Public Prosecutor sought clarification from the Court of Appeal on three questions of law regarding the application of Section 33B.
- Abdul Kahar was found to be more than a courier because he re-packed the drugs into smaller packets.
- The Court of Appeal held that a person who intended to sell the controlled drugs cannot be considered a courier.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Chum Tat Suan and another, Criminal Reference Nos 5 and 6 of 2013, [2014] SGCA 59
- Public Prosecutor v Chum Tat Suan, , [2014] 1 SLR 336
- Public Prosecutor v Abdul Kahar bin Othman, , [2013] SGHC 222
- Public Prosecutor v Chum Tat Suan, , [2013] SGHC 221
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act came into effect. | |
| Chum Tat Suan convicted. | |
| Abdul Kahar bin Othman convicted. | |
| Section 33B of the Misuse of Drugs Act came into effect. | |
| Amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act came into effect. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Court of Appeal decision issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Interpretation of Section 33B of the Misuse of Drugs Act
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal clarified the interpretation of Section 33B, providing guidance on the definition of a courier, the admissibility of evidence, and the burden of proof.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Definition of a courier
- Admissibility of evidence at sentencing
- Burden of proof under Section 33B
- Related Cases:
- [2014] 1 SLR 336
- [2013] SGHC 222
- Admissibility of New Evidence at Sentencing
- Outcome: The court clarified the conditions under which new evidence can be admitted at the sentencing stage, emphasizing that it should not contradict the conviction and should be material to determining the appropriate sentence.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Use of Newton hearing
- Conditions for adducing new evidence
- Related Cases:
- [2014] 2 SLR 783
8. Remedies Sought
- Clarification of legal questions
- Quashing of the Judge's findings
9. Cause of Actions
- Drug Trafficking
- Drug Importation
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Chum Tat Suan | High Court | Yes | [2014] 1 SLR 336 | Singapore | The High Court decision in this case led to one of the criminal references regarding the interpretation of Section 33B of the Misuse of Drugs Act. |
| Public Prosecutor v Abdul Kahar bin Othman | High Court | Yes | [2013] SGHC 222 | Singapore | The High Court decision in this case led to one of the criminal references regarding the interpretation of Section 33B of the Misuse of Drugs Act. |
| Mohammad Faizal bin Sabtu and another v Public Prosecutor and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 2 SLR 141 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case where a criminal reference may be inappropriately brought and accordingly dismissed. |
| Ng Chun Hian v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 783 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that every offender should be sentenced on the basis of accurate facts and that a Newton hearing is called for only if the court is satisfied that it is necessary to do so in order to resolve a difficult question of fact that is material to the court’s determination of the appropriate sentence. |
| Public Prosecutor v Aniza bte Essa | High Court | Yes | [2009] 3 SLR(R) 327 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that every offender should be sentenced on the basis of accurate facts. |
| Public Prosecutor v Azuar Bin Ahamad | High Court | Yes | [2014] SGHC 149 | Singapore | Cited as a recent example of a Newton hearing. |
| R v Cairns | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 2 Cr App R (S) 73 | England and Wales | Reference may also be had to Leveson LJ’s judgment in R v Cairns [2013] 2 Cr App R (S) 73 at [9] where he stated that a Newton hearing after a trial might be necessary in circumstances where the disputed fact which was not canvassed at trial is not relevant to guilt but relevant to sentence. |
| Public Prosecutor v Andrew Sivanesan s/o Balakrishnan | District Court | Yes | [2011] SGDC 66 | Singapore | Locally, a Newton hearing was sought by the Prosecution at the sentencing stage in at least one case where the accused person had claimed trial, although the district judge there decided that the hearing was inappropriate on the facts |
| Public Prosecutor v Shaw Chai Li Howard | District Court | Yes | [2012] SGDC 319 | Singapore | I agree with See Kee Oon SDJ’s (as he then was) description in Public Prosecutor v Shaw Chai Li Howard [2012] SGDC 319 at [39] of s 228(5)(a) of the CPC as encapsulating the concept of a Newton hearing. |
| Biplob Hossain Younus Akan and others v Public Prosecutor and another matter | High Court | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 217 | Singapore | Newton hearing is an established procedure and has been applied by countless courts determining cases governed by the old CPC regime |
| Public Prosecutor v Soh Song Soon | High Court | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 857 | Singapore | Newton hearing is an established procedure and has been applied by countless courts determining cases governed by the old CPC regime |
| Public Prosecutor v McCrea Michael | High Court | Yes | [2006] 3 SLR(R) 677 | Singapore | Newton hearing is an established procedure and has been applied by countless courts determining cases governed by the old CPC regime |
| Public Prosecutor v Abdul Haleem bin Abdul Karim and another | High Court | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 734 | Singapore | In that case, the court, in concluding that a courier is one whose involvement is limited to delivering or conveying drugs from point A to point B, referred to an exchange in Parliament which deserves replication here |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 5(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 33B of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 59(4) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| ss 228(5)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Act 2012 (No 30 of 2012) | Singapore |
| s 27(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Act 2012 (No 30 of 2012) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Courier
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Section 33B
- Statutory Relief
- Newton Hearing
- Substantive Assistance
- Criminal Reference
15.2 Keywords
- Drug Trafficking
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Courier
- Section 33B
- Criminal Reference
- Singapore Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Sentencing | 80 |
| Criminal Procedure | 70 |
| Statutory Interpretation | 60 |
| Evidence | 50 |
| Administrative Law | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Law
- Sentencing