Rosman bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor: Drug Trafficking, Re-Sentencing Application, Substantive Assistance to CNB
In 2015, the High Court of Singapore heard a re-sentencing application by Rosman bin Abdullah, who was convicted of drug trafficking, seeking life imprisonment instead of the death penalty. Rosman argued he was merely a courier and had provided substantive assistance to the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB). Justice Tay Yong Kwang dismissed the application, affirming the original death sentence, finding that Rosman's involvement exceeded that of a mere courier and the Public Prosecutor did not certify that Rosman had provided substantive assistance to the CNB.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed and the death sentence imposed at the trial was affirmed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Re-sentencing application by Rosman bin Abdullah, convicted of drug trafficking, for life imprisonment instead of the death penalty. Application dismissed.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROSMAN BIN ABDULLAH | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | Harpreet Singh Nehal SC, Shobna Chandran, Jerald Foo |
| PUBLIC PROSECUTOR | Respondent | Government Agency | Judgment for Respondent | Won | Ng Cheng Thiam, Soh Weiqi |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Harpreet Singh Nehal SC | Cavenagh Law LLP |
| Shobna Chandran | Cavenagh Law LLP |
| Jerald Foo | Cavenagh Law LLP |
| Ng Cheng Thiam | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Soh Weiqi | Attorney-General's Chambers |
4. Facts
- The applicant was arrested in a hotel room with four bundles of heroin.
- The applicant claimed he did not know the drugs were heroin and thought they were Erimin.
- The applicant admitted in a statement that the heroin belonged to him and was for sale.
- The applicant helped May Day source for heroin and acted as a middleman in negotiations.
- The applicant facilitated payment for the heroin.
- The applicant was involved in packing the heroin into smaller packets after the first transaction.
- The Public Prosecutor did not certify that the applicant had substantively assisted the CNB.
5. Formal Citations
- Rosman bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 17 of 2015, [2015] SGHC 287
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| CNB officers raided the applicant’s hotel room. | |
| Trial took place in June and July 2010. | |
| The accused was convicted on the capital charge. | |
| The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. | |
| The applicant’s petition for clemency was submitted to the President. | |
| Parliament passed the Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Act 2012. | |
| Section 33B of the MDA came into effect. | |
| The applicant filed his re-sentencing application. | |
| The applicant filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision. | |
| The High Court dismissed the re-sentencing application. | |
| The appeal to this decision in Criminal Appeal No 31 of 2015 was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. |
7. Legal Issues
- Whether the applicant was merely a courier
- Outcome: The court found that the applicant's conduct went beyond that of a mere courier.
- Category: Substantive
- Whether the applicant had substantively assisted the CNB
- Outcome: The court found that the Public Prosecutor did not certify that the applicant had substantively assisted the CNB.
- Category: Substantive
- Interpretation of 'substantively assisted' in s 33B(2)(b) of the MDA
- Outcome: The court declined to define the meaning of 'substantive assistance', holding that it is within the sole discretion of the Public Prosecutor.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Re-sentencing to life imprisonment
- Declaration that the requirement under s 33B(2)(b) of the MDA is satisfied if an applicant renders substantive assistance to the CNB which either disrupts or has the potential to disrupt drug trafficking activities within or outside Singapore.
9. Cause of Actions
- Drug Trafficking
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Abdul Haleem bin Abdul Karim and another | High Court | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 734 | Singapore | Cited to distinguish the facts surrounding the first transaction from the facts concerning the second transaction. |
| Muhammad Ridzuan bin Mohd Ali v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 773 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Public Prosecutor is better placed than the courts to decide on the operational value of the assistance provided by an accused. |
| Chum Tat Suan v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 834 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the question of whether a particular act is necessary for the work of a courier is fact-specific but this caveat must be construed strictly. |
| Public Prosecutor v Christeen d/o Jayamany and another | High Court | Yes | [2015] SGHC 126 | Singapore | Cited for factors that provide guidance on whether a particular role makes an accused person more than a courier. |
| Muhammad Ridzuan bin Mohd Ali v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] SGCA 53 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Judge is not the appropriate person to determine the question of whether a convicted drug trafficker has rendered substantive assistance. |
| Cheong Chun Yin v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2014] SGHC 124 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Public Prosecutor’s determination can only be challenged on the basis of unconstitutionality, such as where the executive act amounts to intentional and arbitrary discrimination. |
| United States v Rosado | Unspecified | Yes | [2001] WL 1360224 | United States | Cited to argue that US courts have provided guidance on what constitutes substantial assistance. |
| United States v Harris | Unspecified | Yes | 188 F Supp 2d 394 (WDNY 2001) | United States | Cited to argue that US courts have provided guidance on what constitutes substantial assistance. |
| R v Cartwright | Unspecified | Yes | (1989) 17 NSWLR 243 | New Zealand | Cited to argue that New Zealand courts also recognise the potential value of an accused’s cooperation in the sentencing context. |
| Public Prosecutor v Rosman bin Abdullah | High Court | Yes | [2010] SGHC 271 | Singapore | The original trial where the applicant was convicted on the capital charge. |
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 (Amendment) Act 2012 (Act 30 of 2012) | Singapore |
| s 33B of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| Section 27(6) of the Amendment Act | Singapore |
| Title 18, s 3553(e) of the United States Code | United States |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Courier
- Substantive assistance
- Central Narcotics Bureau
- Re-sentencing
- Drug trafficking
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Certificate of substantive assistance
15.2 Keywords
- Drug trafficking
- Re-sentencing
- Substantive assistance
- CNB
- Courier
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Sentencing
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Sentencing
- Statutory Interpretation