Hishamrudin bin Mohd v Public Prosecutor: Drug Trafficking under the Misuse of Drugs Act

Hishamrudin bin Mohd appealed to the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore against his conviction and sentence for two charges of trafficking in diamorphine under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The High Court had convicted Hishamrudin on charges related to 3.56 grams and 34.94 grams of diamorphine. The Court of Appeal, after considering Hishamrudin's arguments that the drugs were planted and evidence tampered with, dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and the mandatory death penalty for the capital charge.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Hishamrudin bin Mohd appeals his conviction and sentence for trafficking diamorphine. The court dismisses the appeal, upholding the conviction and mandatory death penalty.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorRespondentGovernment AgencyAppeal DismissedWon
Anandan Bala of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Rajiv Rai of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Hishamrudin bin MohdAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chao Hick TinJudge of AppealYes
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJudge of AppealNo
Judith PrakashJudge of AppealNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Anandan BalaAttorney-General’s Chambers
Rajiv RaiAttorney-General’s Chambers
Liang Hanwen CalvinTan Kok Quan Partnership
Amolat SinghAmolat & Partners

4. Facts

  1. Appellant was arrested on 7 October 2010 for drug trafficking.
  2. 3.56 grams of diamorphine were found in a white plastic bag in the Appellant's car.
  3. 34.94 grams of diamorphine and drug paraphernalia were found in the Appellant's flat.
  4. Appellant's DNA was found on the drugs and drug paraphernalia.
  5. Appellant claimed the drugs were planted by others and the evidence was tampered with.
  6. Appellant was the sole lessee of the flat where drugs were found.
  7. Appellant had a history of inconsistent statements regarding who planted the drugs.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Hishamrudin bin Mohd v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Appeal No 1 of 2016, [2017] SGCA 41

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Appellant arrested with drugs in his car and flat
Trial judge convicted the Appellant on both charges of drug trafficking
Court of Appeal heard the appeal
Appellant submitted further written submissions
Appellant submitted further written submissions
Appellant submitted further written submissions
Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal

7. Legal Issues

  1. Possession of Controlled Drugs
    • Outcome: The court found that the Prosecution had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Appellant had possession of the drugs.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Presumption of Trafficking
    • Outcome: The court found that the Appellant had failed to rebut the presumption under s 17(c) and that, in any event, given the drug paraphernalia found in the Flat, the Judge was satisfied that the Appellant possessed the drugs for the purposes of trafficking even without resorting to the presumption.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Framing and Tampering of Evidence
    • Outcome: The court found the Appellant's allegations of being framed and evidence tampering to be unfounded and did not raise reasonable doubt about his convictions.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Appeal against Conviction
  2. Appeal against Sentence

9. Cause of Actions

  • Drug Trafficking

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Law
  • Drug Trafficking

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Fun Seong Cheng v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[1997] 2 SLR 796SingaporeCited for the elements to prove actual possession of controlled drugs.
Tan Kiam Peng v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2008] 1 SLR (R) 1SingaporeCited for the elements to prove actual possession of controlled drugs.
Tang Hai Liang v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2011] SGCA 38SingaporeCited for the application of presumptions under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
Mohd Halmi bin Hamid and another v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2006] 1 SLR(R) 548SingaporeCited for the application of presumptions under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
Tan Ah Tee and another v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[1979–1980] SLR(R) 311SingaporeCited for the principle that once physical possession is established, the individual must explain why the ordinary consequences should not follow.
Regina v Lucas (Ruth)Queen's BenchYes[1981] QB 720England and WalesCited to define Lucas lies.
Public Prosecutor v Hishamrudin Bin MohdHigh CourtYes[2016] SGHC 56SingaporeThe judgment under appeal.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 17(c) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 21 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Diamorphine
  • Drug Trafficking
  • Misuse of Drugs Act
  • DNA Evidence
  • Framing
  • Evidence Tampering
  • Presumption of Possession
  • Lucas Lies
  • Number Nine Theory

15.2 Keywords

  • Drug Trafficking
  • Diamorphine
  • Singapore
  • Criminal Appeal
  • Misuse of Drugs Act

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Misuse of Drugs Act100
Criminal Law90
Criminal Procedure60
Sentencing50
Criminal Revision40

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Drug Offences
  • Appeals