Masoud Rahimi v Public Prosecutor: Misuse of Drugs Act & Trafficking
Masoud Rahimi bin Mehrzad and Mogan Raj Terapadisamy were jointly tried and convicted in the High Court for drug offenses under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Masoud was convicted of possessing diamorphine for trafficking, while Mogan was convicted of trafficking diamorphine. Both appealed their convictions. The Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore, comprising Chao Hick Tin JA, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA, and Tay Yong Kwang JA, dismissed both appeals, finding that neither appellant had successfully rebutted the presumption of knowledge regarding the drugs in their possession.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeals Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Masoud Rahimi and Mogan Raj were convicted under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The Court of Appeal dismissed their appeals, upholding the convictions.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Judgment upheld | Won | Carene Poh of Attorney-General’s Chambers Ng Cheng Thiam of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Masoud Rahimi bin Mehrzad | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Mogan Raj Terapadisamy | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Judge of Appeal | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Judge of Appeal | No |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Carene Poh | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ng Cheng Thiam | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Sim Jin Simm Alina | Axis Law Corporation |
| Dhanaraj James Selvaraj | James Selvaraj LLC |
| Seah Eng Chee Rupert | Rupert Seah & Co. |
| Suang Wijaya | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
| Eugene Thuraisingam | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
| Gino Hardial Singh | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
4. Facts
- Masoud was arrested for possession of not less than 31.14g of diamorphine for trafficking.
- Mogan was arrested for trafficking in not less than 14.99g of diamorphine.
- Mogan retrieved bundles from a coffee shop and handed a black bundle to Masoud.
- Masoud's vehicle contained a black bundle and a Mickey Mouse bag containing diamorphine.
- Mogan claimed he did not know the contents of the black bundle.
- Masoud claimed he did not know the contents of the black bundle or the Mickey Mouse bag.
- Notebook entries and text messages found in Masoud's possession contained drug slang.
5. Formal Citations
- Masoud Rahimi bin Mehrzad v Public Prosecutor and another appeal, Criminal Appeal Nos 35 and 36 of 2015, [2016] SGCA 69
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Mogan retrieved four bundles from a coffee shop in Woodlands. | |
| Masoud and Mogan were arrested by CNB officers. | |
| Trial judge's decision in Public Prosecutor v Masoud Rahimi bin Mehrzad and another [2015] SGHC 288. | |
| Appeals dismissed at the conclusion of the hearing. | |
| Grounds of decision issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Rebuttal of Presumption of Knowledge
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that both appellants failed to rebut the presumption of knowledge.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Wilful Blindness
- Reasonable Person Test
- Admissibility of Expert Evidence
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal found no reason to doubt the competency of the expert witness.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Drug Trafficking
- Possession of Controlled Drugs for the Purpose of Trafficking
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Drug Offences
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Masoud Rahimi bin Mehrzad and another | High Court | Yes | [2015] SGHC 288 | Singapore | The current appeal is against the decision of the trial judge in this case. |
| Dinesh Pillai a/l K Raja Retnam v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 2 SLR 903 | Singapore | Discusses the test for rebutting the presumption of knowledge under s 18(2) of the MDA. |
| Dinesh Pillai a/l K Raja Retnam v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 772 | Singapore | Discusses whether the presumption of knowledge can be rebutted if the accused made no effort to find out what he was bringing into Singapore. |
| R v Hunt | House of Lords | Yes | [1987] 1 AC 352 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the burden of proof in statutory exceptions. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ilechukwu Uchechukwu Chukwudi | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] SGCA 33 | Singapore | Confirms that an accused bears a legal burden of rebutting the s 18(2) presumption on a balance of probabilities. |
| Tan Kiam Peng v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 1 | Singapore | Establishes that an accused against whom the s 18(2) presumption operates bears a legal burden of rebutting this presumption on a balance of probabilities. |
| Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 4 SLR 1156 | Singapore | Considers the distinction between narrow and broad forms of knowledge under s 18(2) of the MDA. |
| Khor Soon Lee v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 201 | Singapore | Refines the doctrine of wilful blindness. |
| Muhammad Ridzuan bin Md Ali v Public Prosecutor and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 721 | Singapore | States that where actual knowledge or wilful blindness has been established, an accused would not be able to rebut the s 18(2) presumption. |
| Leong Wing Kong v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 1 SLR(R) 681 | Singapore | Deals with the competency of an expert witness. |
| Kwek Seow Hock v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 157 | Singapore | A court is entitled to disbelieve the evidence of a witness even without having to draw an adverse inference against him for omitting to mention earlier some material facts. |
| Mohd Halmi bin Hamid and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 548 | Singapore | Clarifies that the presumptions in ss 17 and 18 cannot be applied together. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 5(1) Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 5(2) Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 33B(2)(a) Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 33B(2)(b) Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 18(2) Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 232(1)(b) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 47 Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 51 Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1990 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Trafficking
- Presumption of Knowledge
- Wilful Blindness
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Courier
- Drug Slang
- Moneylending Syndicate
15.2 Keywords
- Drug Trafficking
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Presumption of Knowledge
- Singapore
- Criminal Appeal
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 100 |
| Presumption of Knowledge | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Drug Trafficking | 85 |
| Criminal Procedure | 70 |
| Evidence | 60 |
| Admissibility of evidence | 40 |
| Penal Code | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking