Rosman bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor: Trafficking, Misuse of Drugs Act & Sentencing
Rosman bin Abdullah was convicted in the High Court of Singapore for trafficking diamorphine and sentenced to death. His appeal against the conviction and sentence was dismissed in 2011. Following the enactment of the Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Act 2012, Rosman sought resentencing, arguing he met the requirements for life imprisonment under s 33B of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The High Court affirmed the death sentence, and Rosman appealed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that Rosman was not merely a courier and did not meet the requirements for resentencing.
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
Rosman bin Abdullah was convicted of drug trafficking. The court dismissed his appeal for resentencing, affirming the death sentence.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Chan Yi Cheng of Attorney-General’s Chambers Ng Cheng Thiam of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Rosman bin Abdullah | 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 |
| Judith Prakash | Judge of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Chan Yi Cheng | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ng Cheng Thiam | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Low Cheong Yeow | Tito Isaac & Co LLP |
| Daniel Koh Choon Guan | Eldan Law LLP |
| Dawn Tan Ly-Ru | ADTvance Law LLC |
| Adriel Chia | ADTvance Law LLC |
4. Facts
- Appellant was convicted of trafficking in not less than 57.43g of diamorphine.
- Appellant sought resentencing under s 33B of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
- Appellant argued he was merely a courier and had an abnormality of mind.
- Public Prosecutor did not certify that the Appellant had substantively assisted the Central Narcotics Bureau.
- The High Court affirmed the death sentence.
- The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
5. Formal Citations
- Rosman bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Appeal No 31 of 2015, [2016] SGCA 62
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| CNB officers raided the Appellant’s hotel room and seized five packets of heroin. | |
| Appellant convicted of trafficking in not less than 57.43g of diamorphine. | |
| Court dismissed the appeal against the conviction and sentence. | |
| Appellant submitted a petition for clemency to the President, which was rejected. | |
| Singapore Parliament passed the Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Act 2012. | |
| Appellant commenced Criminal Motion No 17 of 2015 seeking a re-sentencing. | |
| High Court judge held that the Appellant had not fulfilled the requirements for re-sentencing. | |
| Court of Appeal heard the appeal. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Whether the Appellant was merely a courier within the meaning of s 33B of the Misuse of Drugs Act
- Outcome: The court held that the Appellant was not merely a courier.
- Category: Substantive
- Whether the court can and should define the phrase 'substantively assisted' in s 33B(2)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act
- Outcome: The court held that it is for the Public Prosecutor to determine whether substantive assistance has been provided.
- Category: Substantive
- Whether the court should remit the issue of the Appellant's mental state at the time of the commission of the offence to the Judge for his decision
- Outcome: The court held that the issue was moot in light of the decision that the Appellant was not merely a courier. In any event, the court found that the Appellant would not satisfy the requirement set out in s 33B(3)(b).
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Resentencing to life imprisonment instead of the death penalty
9. Cause of Actions
- Drug Trafficking
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Rosman bin Abdullah | High Court | Yes | [2010] SGHC 271 | Singapore | Cited for the initial conviction and sentencing of the appellant. |
| Rosman bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2015] SGHC 287 | Singapore | Cited for the High Court's decision to affirm the death sentence after the enactment of s 33B of the MDA. |
| Chum Tat Suan v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 834 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the caveat that mere incidental acts in the course of transporting, sending or delivering the drugs would not take a trafficker outside the scope of being a mere courier must be construed strictly. |
| Public Prosecutor v Christeen d/o Jayamany and another | High Court | Yes | [2015] SGHC 126 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the more functions an accused person performs beyond bringing drugs from point A to point B and the longer the duration of those functions, the less he can be said to be a mere courier. |
| Tan Meng Jee v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 2 SLR(R) 178 | Singapore | Cited to establish that there is no blanket rule against the admission of similar fact evidence. |
| Muhammad Ridzuan bin Mohd Ali v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 1222 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an offender’s good faith cooperation with CNB is not a necessary or sufficient basis for the PP to grant him a certificate of substantive assistance. |
| 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. |
| Phua Han Chuan Jeffery v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 706 | Singapore | Cited to distinguish the present case from one where the accused person knew that he was committing an illegal act, he still fell within the ambit of s 33B(3)(b) because the abnormality of mind had “an influence on the applicant’s ability to resist the act in question”. |
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 (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) | Singapore |
| Art 93 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| ss 14 and 15 of the Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Exception 7 to s 300 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Drug trafficking
- Courier
- Substantive assistance
- Abnormality of mind
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Resentencing
- Central Narcotics Bureau
15.2 Keywords
- Drug trafficking
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Sentencing
- Courier
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Sentencing | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 90 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
- Drug Trafficking