PP v Hishamrudin: Trafficking Diamorphine & Misuse of Drugs Act
In [2016] SGHC 56, the High Court of Singapore convicted Hishamrudin Bin Mohd on two charges of trafficking diamorphine under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The first charge involved 3.56 grams of diamorphine, and the second, a capital charge, involved 34.94 grams. The court, presided over by Chan Seng Onn J, found Hishamrudin guilty on both counts, rejecting his claims of being framed and evidence tampering. He was sentenced to six years' imprisonment for the first charge and the mandatory death penalty for the capital charge.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Guilty of both charges. Mandatory death penalty imposed for the capital charge; six years' imprisonment for the non-capital charge.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Hishamrudin was convicted of trafficking diamorphine under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The court found him guilty on two charges and sentenced him.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Prosecution | Government Agency | Judgment for Prosecution | Won | Wong Woon Kwong of Attorney-General’s Chambers N K Anitha of Attorney-General’s Chambers Shen Wanqin of Attorney-General’s Chambers Shahla Iqbal of Attorney-General’s Chambers Mohamed Faizal s/o Md Abdul Kadir of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Hishamrudin bin Mohd | Defendant | Individual | Convicted | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Seng Onn | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Wong Woon Kwong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| N K Anitha | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Shen Wanqin | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Shahla Iqbal | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Mohamed Faizal s/o Md Abdul Kadir | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Vinit Chhabra | Vinit Chhabra Partnership |
| Lim Swee Tee | Lim Swee Tee & Co. |
4. Facts
- Accused was arrested on 7 October 2010 for drug trafficking.
- 59 packets of diamorphine were found in the accused's car.
- 193 packets of diamorphine were found in a luggage bag in the accused's flat.
- Accused claimed the drugs were planted and he was framed.
- DNA evidence linked the accused to the drugs and drug paraphernalia.
- Accused gave inconsistent statements and made false allegations.
- The Public Prosecutor did not issue a certificate of substantive assistance.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Hishamrudin Bin Mohd, Criminal Case No 18 of 2013, [2016] SGHC 56
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Accused arrested and drugs seized from car and flat | |
| Accused remanded | |
| Trial began | |
| Trial concluded | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Trafficking of Controlled Drugs
- Outcome: The court found the accused guilty of trafficking diamorphine.
- Category: Substantive
- Witness Credibility
- Outcome: The court found the accused severely lacking in credibility due to internal and external inconsistencies in his evidence and the presence of Lucas lies.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Inconsistencies in evidence
- Lucas lies
- Related Cases:
- [2001] 3 SLR(R) 592
- [2006] 4 SLR(R) 45
- [1969] 2 MLJ 63
- [1998] 3 SLR(R) 281
- [2001] 2 SLR(R) 131
- [2010] 1 SLR 874
- [2003] SGHC 74
- [2015] SGCA 33
- [1981] QB 720
- [1993] 3 SLR(R) 302
- [2011] SGCA 52
8. Remedies Sought
- Imprisonment
- Death Penalty
9. Cause of Actions
- Trafficking in a controlled drug
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Farida Begam d/o Mohd Artham v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR(R) 592 | Singapore | Cited for principles on assessing witness credibility based on demeanour, internal consistency, and external consistency. |
| Jagatheesan s/o Krishnasamy v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 45 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that minor discrepancies in testimony should not undermine a witness's credibility. |
| Chean Siong Guat v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1969] 2 MLJ 63 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that human fallibility in observation, retention and recollection is recognised and understandable. |
| Ng Kwee Leong v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 281 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that human fallibility in observation, retention and recollection is recognised and understandable. |
| Lewis Christine v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR(R) 131 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court is perfectly entitled to accept the other parts of a witness’s testimony which are credible and untainted by discrepancies. |
| ADF v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 874 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court is perfectly entitled to accept the other parts of a witness’s testimony which are credible and untainted by discrepancies. |
| Public Prosecutor v Yeow Beng Chye | High Court | Yes | [2003] SGHC 74 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a systematic and widespread pattern of many inconsistencies coming together can destroy the credibility of a witness. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ilechukwu Uchechukwu Chukwudi | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] SGCA 33 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements laid down by the English Court of Appeal in Regina v Lucas (Ruth) for a Lucas lie. |
| Regina v Lucas (Ruth) | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1981] QB 720 | England and Wales | Cited for the Lucas test for lies. |
| Public Prosecutor v Yeo Choon Poh | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 3 SLR(R) 302 | Singapore | Cited for the application of the Lucas test for lies. |
| Kamrul Hasan Abdul Quddus v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] SGCA 52 | Singapore | Cited for the application of the Lucas test for lies. |
| Vasentha d/o Joseph v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 122 | Singapore | Cited for the framework for appropriate benchmark sentences for trafficking in diamorphine. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 5(1)(a) read with Section 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| Section 33 of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| Section 33B(2)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| Section 17(c) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| Section 21 of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 322(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 325(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Trafficking
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- CNB
- DNA evidence
- Lucas lies
- Drug paraphernalia
- Possession
- Certificate of substantive assistance
15.2 Keywords
- Drug trafficking
- Diamorphine
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Singapore
- Criminal law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 80 |
| Criminal Procedure | 70 |
| Evidence Law | 60 |
| Witnesses | 50 |
| Admissibility of evidence | 40 |
| Criminal Revision | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Evidence