PP v Muhammad Farid: Trafficking, Misuse of Drugs Act & Adverse Inference

In Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Farid bin Mohd Yusop, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal by the prosecution against the High Court's decision to amend the charge against Muhammad Farid from trafficking in methamphetamine to possessing a lesser amount for trafficking. The High Court had sentenced Farid to 23 years’ imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's determination was not plainly wrong or against the weight of the evidence. The case concerned the presumptions under the Misuse of Drugs Act and the issue of whether the court should draw an adverse inference when a party does not call a witness.

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

Muhammad Farid's drug trafficking conviction was amended. The Court of Appeal addressed adverse inferences and manufactured defenses.

1.7 Decision Date

10 March 2015

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Public Prosecutor	Appellant	Government Agency	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Lau Wing Yum of Attorney-General’s Chambers Lim How Khang of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Muhammad Farid bin Mohd Yusop	Respondent	Individual	Convicted on Amended Charge	Partial	Amolat Singh of Amolat & Partners Mervyn Cheong Jun Ming of Eugene Thuraisingam

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Chao Hick Tin	Justice of the Court of Appeal	Yes
Andrew Phang Boon Leong	Justice of the Court of Appeal	Yes
Tay Yong Kwang	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Lau Wing Yum	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Lim How Khang	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Amolat Singh	Amolat & Partners
Mervyn Cheong Jun Ming	Eugene Thuraisingam

4. Facts

The respondent was arrested with 386.7g of methamphetamine.
The respondent claimed he had an agreement with Bapak to deliver no more than 250g of Ice.
The respondent stated he did not know the weight of Ice exceeded 250g.
The High Court amended the charge to possession of 249.99g of Ice for trafficking.
The respondent had made three prior deliveries for Bapak.
The respondent was paid $500 for each delivery, regardless of weight.
The respondent did not call Bapak as a witness.

5. Formal Citations

Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Farid bin Mohd Yusop, Criminal Appeal No 4 of 2014, [2015] SGCA 12
Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Farid bin Mohd Yusop, , [2014] SGHC 125

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2011-03-10	Muhammad Farid arrested for drug trafficking
2014-10-16	Appeal heard by the Court of Appeal
2014-01-01	Respondent started dealing in Ice
2014-05-01	High Court decision in Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Farid bin Mohd Yusop
2015-03-11	Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal

7. Legal Issues

Drug Trafficking
- Outcome: The court upheld the High Court's decision to amend the charge to possession for the purpose of trafficking, finding the respondent did not know he possessed more than 250g of Ice.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Possession of controlled drugs
  - Trafficking of controlled drugs
  - Knowledge of drug quantity
- Related Cases:
  - [2014] SGHC 125
  - [2012] 2 SLR 903
  - [2011] 3 SLR 201
Adverse Inference
- Outcome: The court held that no adverse inference should be drawn against the respondent for not calling Bapak as a witness, as it was a tactical decision by the defense.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Failure to call a witness
  - Tactical decision of the defense
- Related Cases:
  - (1881) ILR 8 Cal 121
  - [1949] MLJ 150
  - [2001] SGDC 298
  - [2007] SGDC 29
  - [2008] SGDC 298
  - [1963] MLJ 288
  - [2009] 7 MLJ 761
  - [2012] 4 MLJ 502
  - [2014] 3 MLJ 616
  - [1988] 1 MLJ 421
  - [2003] 1 SLR(R) 52
  - [2004] SGDC 71
  - [2007] SGDC 243
  - [2008] SGDC 23
  - [2009] SGDC 41
  - [2010] SGDC 309
  - [2003] SGHC 268
  - [2004] 2 SLR(R) 27
  - [2009] 4 SLR(R) 577
  - [2000] 1 SLR(R) 922
Wilful Blindness
- Outcome: The court found that the respondent was not wilfully blind, as his suspicion was not firmly grounded on specific facts.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2012] 2 SLR 903
Manufactured Defenses
- Outcome: The court cautioned against accused persons manufacturing defenses to escape the death penalty.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2011] 3 SLR 201
Appellate Intervention
- Outcome: The court reiterated the principles governing appellate intervention vis-à-vis findings of fact by a trial judge.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [2014] 3 SLR 562
  - [2009] 4 SLR(R) 1101
  - [2013] 1 SLR 207
  - [2008] 2 SLR(R) 61

8. Remedies Sought

Appeal against conviction and sentence

9. Cause of Actions

Drug Trafficking
Possession of Controlled Drugs

10. Practice Areas

Criminal Litigation
Appeals

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Farid bin Mohd Yusop	High Court	Yes	[2014] SGHC 125	Singapore	The High Court decision that was appealed against in the current judgment.
Dinesh Pillai a/l K Raja Retnam v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2012] 2 SLR 903	Singapore	Cited regarding the issue of wilful blindness in drug trafficking cases.
Khor Soon Lee v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2011] 3 SLR 201	Singapore	Cited regarding the issue of knowledge and the burden of proof in drug trafficking cases, and the issue of manufactured defenses.
In the Matter of the Petition of Dhunno Kazi and another; The Empress v Dhunno Kazi and another	Calcutta High Court	Yes	(1881) ILR 8 Cal 121	India	Cited for the principle that no adverse inference can be drawn against an accused in a criminal trial for failing to call a witness.
Goh Ah Yew v Public Prosecutor	Federation of Malaya Court of Appeal	Yes	[1949] MLJ 150	Malaysia	Cited for the principle that no adverse inference can be drawn against an accused in a criminal trial for failing to call a witness.
Goh Eng Hock v Public Prosecutor	District Court	Yes	[2001] SGDC 298	Singapore	Cited for the principle that no adverse inference can be drawn against an accused in a criminal trial for failing to call a witness.
Public Prosecutor v Harvey Chong	District Court	Yes	[2007] SGDC 29	Singapore	Cited for the principle that no adverse inference can be drawn against an accused in a criminal trial for failing to call a witness.
Public Prosecutor v Foo Chee Ring	District Court	Yes	[2008] SGDC 298	Singapore	Cited for the principle that no adverse inference can be drawn against an accused in a criminal trial for failing to call a witness.
Abu Bakar v Regina	High Court	Yes	[1963] MLJ 288	Singapore	Cited for the principle that no adverse inference can be drawn against an accused in a criminal trial for failing to call a witness.
Gunasegaran a/l Singaravelu v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2009] 7 MLJ 761	Malaysia	Cited for the principle that no adverse inference can be drawn against an accused in a criminal trial for failing to call a witness.
Tay Kok Wah v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2012] 4 MLJ 502	Malaysia	Cited for the principle that no adverse inference can be drawn against an accused in a criminal trial for failing to call a witness.
Azmer bin Mustafa v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] 3 MLJ 616	Malaysia	Cited for the principle that no adverse inference can be drawn against an accused in a criminal trial for failing to call a witness.
Illian & Anor v Public Prosecutor	Supreme Court	Yes	[1988] 1 MLJ 421	Malaysia	Cited for the principle that no adverse inference can be drawn against an accused in a criminal trial for failing to call a witness.
Public Prosecutor v Nurashikin bte Ahmad Borhan	High Court	Yes	[2003] 1 SLR(R) 52	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an adverse inference can be drawn against a defendant if they fail to call a material witness when calling such a witness is the only way to rebut the Prosecution’s case.
Public Prosecutor v Sim Teck Meng David	District Court	Yes	[2004] SGDC 71	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an adverse inference can be drawn against a defendant if they fail to call a material witness when calling such a witness is the only way to rebut the Prosecution’s case.
Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Hafiz bin Sapeh	District Court	Yes	[2007] SGDC 243	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an adverse inference can be drawn against a defendant if they fail to call a material witness when calling such a witness is the only way to rebut the Prosecution’s case.
Public Prosecutor v Deng Xiaohong	District Court	Yes	[2008] SGDC 23	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an adverse inference can be drawn against a defendant if they fail to call a material witness when calling such a witness is the only way to rebut the Prosecution’s case.
Public Prosecutor v Jayasangar s/o G Packirisamy	District Court	Yes	[2009] SGDC 41	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an adverse inference can be drawn against a defendant if they fail to call a material witness when calling such a witness is the only way to rebut the Prosecution’s case.
Koh Young Lyndon v Masao Lim Zheng Xiong	District Court	Yes	[2010] SGDC 309	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an adverse inference can be drawn against a defendant if they fail to call a material witness when calling such a witness is the only way to rebut the Prosecution’s case.
Han Yung Ting v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2003] SGHC 268	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an adverse inference can be drawn against a defendant if they fail to call a material witness when calling such a witness is the only way to rebut the Prosecution’s case.
Loo See Mei v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2004] 2 SLR(R) 27	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an adverse inference can be drawn against a defendant if they fail to call a material witness when calling such a witness is the only way to rebut the Prosecution’s case.
Valentino Globe BV v Pacific Rim Industries Inc	High Court	Yes	[2009] 4 SLR(R) 577	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an adverse inference can be drawn against a defendant if they fail to call a material witness when calling such a witness is the only way to rebut the Prosecution’s case.
Mohamed Abdullah s/o Abdul Razak v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2000] 1 SLR(R) 922	Singapore	Cited for the principles regarding the application of s 116 illus (g) of the Evidence Act to the defence’s failure to call a material witness.
Public Prosecutor v Jaya d/o Gopal	District Court	Yes	[2007] SGDC 189	Singapore	Cited for the principles regarding the application of s 116 illus (g) of the Evidence Act to the defence’s failure to call a material witness.
Public Prosecutor v Bijabahadur Rai s/o Shree Kantrai	District Court	Yes	[2008] SGDC 174	Singapore	Cited for the principles regarding the application of s 116 illus (g) of the Evidence Act to the defence’s failure to call a material witness.
Public Prosecutor v NYH	District Court	Yes	[2014] SGDC 432	Singapore	Cited for the principles regarding the application of s 116 illus (g) of the Evidence Act to the defence’s failure to call a material witness.
Tan Kiam Peng v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2008] 1 SLR(R) 1	Singapore	Cited regarding the assessment of the credibility of the accused person.
Sandz Solutions (Singapore) Pte Ltd and others v Strategic Worldwide Assets Ltd and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] 3 SLR 562	Singapore	Cited regarding the principles governing appellate intervention vis-à-vis findings of fact by a trial judge.
Tat Seng Machine Movers Pte Ltd v Orix Leasing Singapore Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2009] 4 SLR(R) 1101	Singapore	Cited regarding the principles governing appellate intervention vis-à-vis findings of fact by a trial judge.
Thorben Langvad Linneberg v Leong Mei Kuen	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2013] 1 SLR 207	Singapore	Cited regarding the principles governing appellate intervention vis-à-vis findings of fact by a trial judge.
Public Prosecutor v Wang Ziyi Able	High Court	Yes	[2008] 2 SLR(R) 61	Singapore	Cited regarding the principles governing appellate intervention vis-à-vis findings of fact by a trial judge.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 5(1)(a)	Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 5(2)	Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 33	Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 33B	Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 18(1)	Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 18(2)	Singapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) s 116(g)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Methamphetamine
Ice
Drug trafficking
Adverse inference
Wilful blindness
Manufactured defenses
Burden of proof
Presumption of knowledge
Agreement with supplier
Appellate intervention

15.2 Keywords

Drug trafficking
Methamphetamine
Adverse inference
Wilful blindness
Singapore
Criminal law

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Misuse of Drugs Act	95
Criminal Law	60
Criminal Procedure	50
Evidence	40
Appeal	30

16. Subjects

Criminal Law
Drug Trafficking
Evidence
Criminal Procedure