Public Prosecutor v Mohammed Fauziya: Drug Trafficking - Misuse of Drugs Act

In Public Prosecutor v Mohammed Fauziya and Komal Rihan Nand Kumar, the High Court of Singapore, presided over by Hoo Sheau Peng JC, convicted Fauziya, a Ghanaian national, of trafficking methamphetamine and Komal, a Malaysian national, of attempting to export methamphetamine, both offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The court found both accused persons satisfied the requirements under s 33B(2) of the MDA and sentenced each to life imprisonment commencing on 23 February 2012.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

The first and second accused persons were convicted of the respective charge against each of them and sentenced to life imprisonment.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Fauziya and Komal were convicted of drug trafficking under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Both were sentenced to life imprisonment after meeting requirements under s 33B(2).

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorProsecutionGovernment AgencyConvictionWon
Eugene Lee Yee Leng of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Jane Lim Ern Hui of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Mohammed FauziyaDefendantIndividualConvictionLost
Komal Rihan Nand KumarDefendantIndividualConvictionLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Hoo Sheau PengJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Eugene Lee Yee LengAttorney-General’s Chambers
Jane Lim Ern HuiAttorney-General’s Chambers
Mahadevan LukshumayehS T Chelvan & Company
Rengarajoo s/o Rengasamy BalasamyM/s B Rengarajoo & Associates
Aw Wee Chong NicholasClifford Law LLP
Lee Yoon Tet LukeLuke Lee & Co

4. Facts

  1. The first accused, a Ghanaian national, arrived in Singapore with a luggage bag from Niger.
  2. The luggage bag contained 1,871.6g of methamphetamine hidden in the sides.
  3. The first accused gave the luggage bag to the second accused at the Golden Royal Hotel.
  4. The second accused, a Malaysian national, attempted to export the luggage bag to Malaysia via Woodlands Checkpoint.
  5. The second accused claimed she was told the bag contained only clothes.
  6. Both accused persons claimed they were unaware of the methamphetamine in the luggage bag.
  7. The Public Prosecutor certified that the two accused persons have substantively assisted the CNB in disrupting drug trafficking activities within or outside Singapore.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Public Prosecutor v Mohammed Fauziya and another, HC/Criminal Case No 1 of 2015, [2015] SGHC 118

6. Timeline

DateEvent
First accused arrived at Changi Airport, Singapore.
First accused gave luggage bag to second accused at Golden Royal Hotel.
Second accused attempted to export the luggage bag from Singapore via Woodlands Checkpoint.
Second accused arrested.
First accused arrested.
Methamphetamine recovered from luggage bag.
First accused's cautioned statement recorded.
First and second accused persons were first charged in court.
Second accused's cautioned statement recorded.
First accused's second long statement recorded.
First accused's third long statement recorded.
Second accused's first long statement recorded.
Second accused's second long statement recorded.
Institute of Mental Health report dated.
Second accused's third long statement recorded.
Institute of Mental Health report dated.
The two accused persons appealed against only the sentences.
Decision Date.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Drug Trafficking
    • Outcome: The court found both accused guilty of drug trafficking.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Presumption of Knowledge
    • Outcome: The court held that neither accused successfully rebutted the presumption of knowledge under s 18(2) of the MDA.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2014] 3 SLR 721
      • [2012] 2 SLR 903
      • [2011] 4 SLR 1156

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Conviction
  2. Sentencing

9. Cause of Actions

  • Drug Trafficking
  • Attempt to Export Controlled Drugs

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Muhammad Ridzuan bin Md Ali v Public Prosecutor and other mattersCourt of AppealYes[2014] 3 SLR 721SingaporeCited for the principle that an accused cannot rebut the presumption of knowledge by a mere assertion of lack of knowledge if wilfully blind.
Dinesh Pillai a/l K Raja Retnam v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2012] 2 SLR 903SingaporeCited for the principle that an accused cannot rebut the presumption of knowledge by a mere assertion of lack of knowledge if wilfully blind.
Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2011] 4 SLR 1156SingaporeCited to define wilful blindness as deliberately refusing to inquire into facts, which may sustain an inference of knowledge of the relevant drug.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 5(1)(a)Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act ss 7 and 12Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act s 18Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 23Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code s 22Singapore
Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 1985 Rev Ed) s 2(1)Singapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) ss 14 and 15Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Methamphetamine
  • Luggage Bag
  • Drug Trafficking
  • Presumption of Knowledge
  • Wilful Blindness
  • Courier
  • Controlled Drug

15.2 Keywords

  • Drug Trafficking
  • Methamphetamine
  • Misuse of Drugs Act
  • Singapore
  • Criminal Law

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Misuse of Drugs Act95
Criminal Law60
Criminal Procedure60
Evidence50

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Drug Offences