Mohd Suief v Public Prosecutor: Trafficking, Common Intention, Misuse of Drugs Act
The Singapore Court of Appeal heard the appeal of Mohd Suief bin Ismail against his conviction and sentence for trafficking in diamorphine in furtherance of a common intention with V Shanmugam a/l Veloo. The High Court had convicted Suief, and because the Public Prosecutor did not issue a certificate of substantive assistance, Suief was sentenced to death. The Court of Appeal dismissed Suief's appeal, finding that he shared a common intention with Shanmugam to traffic the drugs.
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
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore Court of Appeal affirms Mohd Suief's conviction and death sentence for trafficking diamorphine, finding common intention with Shanmugam.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal dismissed | Won | Lau Wing Yum of Attorney-General’s Chambers Eunice Lau of Attorney-General’s Chambers Jasmine Chin-Sabado of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Mohd Suief bin Ismail | Appellant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Judge of Appeal | No |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Judge of Appeal | Yes |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Lau Wing Yum | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Eunice Lau | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Jasmine Chin-Sabado | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Mahesh Rai s/o Vedprakash Rai | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Ramesh Tiwary | Ramesh Tiwary |
4. Facts
- Shanmugam drove a car from Malaysia to Singapore on Puni's instructions.
- Shanmugam and Suief met at a bus stop outside Haw Par Villa.
- Suief boarded the car driven by Shanmugam.
- The car stopped at an Esso petrol station along Pasir Panjang Road.
- Bundles containing diamorphine were placed in Suief’s haversack.
- The car stopped at a car park located at Block 405 Pandan Gardens.
- Suief was seen leaving the car and walking towards Block 405 Pandan Gardens.
5. Formal Citations
- Mohd Suief bin Ismail v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Appeal No 2 of 2015, [2016] SGCA 6
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Shanmugam drove a car from Malaysia to Singapore on Puni's instructions. | |
| Shanmugam and Suief met at a bus stop outside Haw Par Villa. | |
| Suief boarded the car driven by Shanmugam. | |
| The car stopped at an Esso petrol station along Pasir Panjang Road. | |
| Bundles containing diamorphine were placed in Suief’s haversack. | |
| The car stopped at a car park located at Block 405 Pandan Gardens. | |
| Suief was seen leaving the car and walking towards Block 405 Pandan Gardens. | |
| Shanmugam was arrested. | |
| Suief was arrested outside unit #13-34 of Block 405. | |
| Court hearing. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Trafficking in Diamorphine
- Outcome: The court upheld the conviction for trafficking in diamorphine.
- Category: Substantive
- Common Intention
- Outcome: The court found that the appellant shared a common intention with another individual to traffic in diamorphine.
- Category: Substantive
- Adducing Fresh Evidence on Appeal
- Outcome: The court considered the principles for adducing fresh evidence on appeal, particularly when the appellant raises a new defense inconsistent with the defense at trial.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Drug Trafficking
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
- Drug Offences
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v V Shanmugam a/l Veloo and another | High Court | Yes | [2015] SGHC 33 | Singapore | The judgment being appealed from. |
| Syed Feisal bin Yahya v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR(R) 853 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that transporting drugs for distribution constitutes trafficking. |
| Wong Kok Men and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR(R) 463 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that the offence of trafficking will be made out if a quantity of drugs is transported from one place to another, and the transporter’s purpose, whether it is achieved or not, is to part with possession of the drug or any portion of it to some other person whether already known to him or a potential purchaser whom he hopes to find. |
| Ong Ah Chuan v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1979-1980] SLR(R) 53 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that the offence of trafficking will be made out if a quantity of drugs is transported from one place to another, and the transporter’s purpose, whether it is achieved or not, is to part with possession of the drug or any portion of it to some other person whether already known to him or a potential purchaser whom he hopes to find. |
| Ong Ah Chuan v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1979-1980] SLR(R) 710 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that the offence of trafficking will be made out if a quantity of drugs is transported from one place to another, and the transporter’s purpose, whether it is achieved or not, is to part with possession of the drug or any portion of it to some other person whether already known to him or a potential purchaser whom he hopes to find. |
| Mohamed Kunjo v Public Prosecutor | Privy Council | Yes | [1977-1978] SLR(R) 211 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a defendant is not precluded from relying upon a defence that is raised for the first time on appeal if there is sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable tribunal could find the defence made out. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mas Swan bin Adnan and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 3 SLR 527 | Singapore | Cited for illustrating how the general principles regarding alternative defenses raised on appeal apply in concrete fact situations. |
| Muhammad bin Kadar v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 1205 | Singapore | Cited for the substance and spirit of the rule underlying the duty of disclosure placed on the Prosecution. |
| Kwaku Mensah v R | Privy Council | Yes | [1946] AC 83 | United Kingdom | Cited regarding the principles on which the Board acts in criminal cases. |
| Chamru Budhwa v State of Madhya Pradesh | Supreme Court of India | Yes | AIR 1954 SC 652 | India | Cited regarding a bench trial in which the Supreme Court of India substituted a verdict of culpable homicide for one of murder because it found that the special exception of sudden fight was made out notwithstanding that this special exception was not raised during the trial. |
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 33 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 33B | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap, 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 34 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Trafficking
- Common Intention
- Substantive Assistance
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Transportation
- Possession
- Singapore
- Puni
- Haversack
- Black Plastic Bag
15.2 Keywords
- Drug Trafficking
- Singapore Court of Appeal
- Criminal Law
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Common Intention
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 100 |
| Criminal Procedure | 90 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Sentencing | 80 |
| Appeal | 70 |
| Statutory offences | 70 |
| Penal Code | 40 |
| Criminal Revision | 40 |
| Adducing fresh evidence | 30 |
| Admissibility of evidence | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Appeals