Abdul Kahar v Public Prosecutor: Trafficking, Misuse of Drugs Act & Knowledge of Drugs
Abdul Kahar bin Othman appealed to the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore against his conviction and death sentence for two charges of trafficking in diamorphine under the Misuse of Drugs Act. He claimed he was merely safekeeping the drugs for a friend named Latif and had no knowledge of their nature. The court, comprising Chao Hick Tin JA, Woo Bih Li J, and Tay Yong Kwang J, dismissed both his appeal and his application to adduce further evidence, finding sufficient evidence to rebut his claim of ignorance and upholding the original conviction and sentence.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Abdul Kahar appeals death sentence for trafficking diamorphine, claiming lack of knowledge. The court dismissed the appeal, finding sufficient evidence.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Mark Jayaratnam of Attorney-General’s Chambers Lim How Khang of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Abdul Kahar bin Othman | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Judge of Appeal | Yes |
| Woo Bih Li | Judge | No |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Mark Jayaratnam | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Lim How Khang | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ranadhir Gupta | A Zamzam & Co |
| Rupert Seah | Rupert Seah & Co. |
4. Facts
- Appellant was arrested on 6 July 2010 while driving on a slip road.
- A red tote bag containing 26.13g of diamorphine was found under the passenger seat.
- A search of the Appellant's flat revealed 40.64g of diamorphine in two plastic bags.
- Traces of the Appellant's DNA were found on the interior and exterior of one of the bags.
- A metal spoon and weighing scale stained with diamorphine were found in the Appellant's bedroom.
- Approximately $70,000 in cash was recovered from a cupboard in the Appellant's bedroom.
- The Appellant claimed he was safekeeping the drugs for a friend named Latif.
5. Formal Citations
- Abdul Kahar bin Othman v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Appeal No 4 of 2015, [2016] SGCA 11
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant arrested with drugs in his car | |
| Appellant's flat searched and drugs found in his bedroom | |
| Appellant's cautioned statements are recorded | |
| Appellant’s first long statement recorded | |
| Appellant’s second long statement recorded | |
| Appellant’s third long statement recorded | |
| Judge convicted the Appellant of the two drug trafficking charges | |
| Judge delivered his judgment on sentence | |
| Court of Appeal heard the appeal | |
| Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal |
7. Legal Issues
- Rebuttal of Presumption of Knowledge
- Outcome: The court held that the Appellant failed to rebut the presumption of knowledge under s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Sufficiency of evidence to rebut presumption under s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act
- Admissibility of Statements
- Outcome: The court held that the Appellant's cautioned statements and long statements were made voluntarily and were admissible as evidence.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Voluntariness of cautioned statements
- Voluntariness of long statements
- Threats, inducement, or promises
- Oppressive conditions
- Fabrication of statements
- Adducing Further Evidence on Appeal
- Outcome: The court dismissed the Appellant's application for leave to adduce further evidence on appeal.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Relevance of further evidence
- Materiality of further evidence
- Credibility of further evidence
- Reasonable diligence in obtaining evidence
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against Conviction
- Appeal against Death Sentence
- Adducing Further Evidence
- Stay of Execution
9. Cause of Actions
- Drug Trafficking
- Possession of Controlled Drugs
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
- Drug Offences
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mohammad Zam bin Abdul Rashid v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 410 | Singapore | Cited for the legal principles governing the adducing of further evidence on appeal to avoid a miscarriage of justice. |
| Ladd v Marshall | Not Available | Yes | [1954] 1 WLR 1489 | England and Wales | Cited as a helpful reference in assessing whether further evidence should be permitted on appeal, specifically regarding the criteria for introducing new evidence. |
| ADF v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 874 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court will interfere with a trial judge’s finding of fact only where it is plainly wrong or against the weight of the evidence. |
| Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 4 SLR 1156 | Singapore | Cited for the effect of the presumption under s 18(2) of the MDA and what an accused needs to show to rebut the presumption, establishing the standard of proof required. |
| Warner v Metropolitan Police Commissioner | House of Lords | Yes | [1969] 2 AC 256 | United Kingdom | Cited as an example of rebutting the presumption of knowledge by proving a genuine belief that the possessed item was innocuous. |
| Khor Soon Lee v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 201 | Singapore | Cited as an example where the accused successfully rebutted the presumption under s 18(2) of the MDA by proving lack of knowledge that the drugs contained heroin. |
| Dinesh Pillai a/l K Raja Retnam v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 2 SLR 903 | Singapore | Cited as a contrasting case where the offender failed to rebut the presumption of knowledge under s 18(2) of the MDA because he suspected the package contained something illegal but did not check it. |
| Public Prosecutor v Chum Tat Suan and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 834 | Singapore | Cited to explain the procedural history of the case, specifically the criminal reference brought by the Prosecution regarding the Judge's initial sentencing decision. |
| Public Prosecutor v Abdul Kahar bin Othman | High Court | Yes | [2013] SGHC 164 | Singapore | Cited to reference the trial judge's decision on conviction and the reasons behind it. |
| Public Prosecutor v Abdul Kahar bin Othman | High Court | Yes | [2013] SGHC 222 | Singapore | Cited to reference the trial judge's decision on sentencing and the initial application of s 33B of the MDA. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| 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 18(2) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 122(6) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 121 | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed) s 55(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 392(1) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 33B | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 33B(2) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 33B(2)(a)(i) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Trafficking
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Presumption of Knowledge
- Cautioned Statement
- Long Statement
- Substantive Assistance
- Drug Courier
- DNA Evidence
- Voir Dire
- Rebuttal of Presumption
- Voluntariness of Statements
- Circumstantial Evidence
15.2 Keywords
- Drug Trafficking
- Diamorphine
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Singapore
- Criminal Appeal
- Presumption of Knowledge
- Death Penalty
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 85 |
| Appeal | 70 |
| Admissibility of evidence | 65 |
| Statutory Interpretation | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Appeals
- Evidence
- Sentencing