PP v Muhammad Farid: Trafficking, Misuse of Drugs Act & Penal Code
In the High Court of Singapore, Muhammad Farid bin Sudi, Hamzah bin Ibrahim, and Tika Pesik were tried for trafficking in diamorphine. Farid and Tika were charged with a single count of trafficking in a controlled drug, namely 26.29g of diamorphine, in furtherance of their common intention, an offence under s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”) read with s 34 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed). Hamzah was charged with having the 26.29g of diamorphine in his possession for the purpose of trafficking, an offence under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the MDA. The court convicted all three accused. Farid was sentenced to life imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane, while Hamzah and Tika received the death penalty.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Muhammad Farid was sentenced to life imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane. Hamzah bin Ibrahim and Tika Pesik were sentenced to death.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Muhammad Farid and others were tried for trafficking diamorphine. Farid was sentenced to life imprisonment, while Hamzah and Tika received the death penalty.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Prosecution | Government Agency | Judgment for the Prosecution | Won | Wong Woon Kwong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Sarah Shi of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Hamzah bin Ibrahim | Defendant | Individual | Convicted | Lost | |
| Tika Pesik | Defendant | Individual | Convicted | Lost | |
| Muhammad Farid bin Sudi | Defendant | Individual | Convicted | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Hoo Sheau Peng | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Wong Woon Kwong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Sarah Shi | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Luke Lee Yoon Tet | Luke Lee & Co |
| Sukdave Singh S/O Banta Singh | Winchester Law LLC |
| Mohamed Baiross | I.R.B Law LLP |
| Mohamed Niroze Idroos | I.R.B Law LLP |
| Mahmood Gaznavi s/o Bashir Muhammad | Mahmood Gaznavi & Partners |
| Mahadevan Lukshumayeh | S.T. Chelvan & Company |
4. Facts
- Farid and Tika made arrangements for Farid to deliver diamorphine to Hamzah.
- Farid delivered two packets of granular/powdery substance containing 26.29g of diamorphine to Hamzah.
- Hamzah had 26.29g of diamorphine in his possession for the purpose of trafficking.
- Farid was arrested at Dairy Farm Crescent.
- Hamzah was arrested at Dairy Farm Crescent.
- Tika was arrested at Woodlands Checkpoint.
- Farid's DNA was found on the Giant plastic bag and other exhibits.
- Hamzah's DNA was found on the digital weighing scale.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Farid bin Sudi and others, Criminal Case No 2 of 2017, [2017] SGHC 228
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Farid received a call from Tika to collect and deliver drugs. | |
| Farid collected drugs from an Indian Malaysian at Woodlands. | |
| Farid called Tika to inform her that he had collected the drugs. | |
| Tika instructed Farid on how to pack the drugs. | |
| Farid called Hamzah at 1.53pm. | |
| Hamzah boarded the car driven by Farid. | |
| Farid passed Hamzah the bag containing two bundles of drugs. | |
| Hamzah was arrested by CNB officers at Dairy Farm Crescent. | |
| Farid was arrested by CNB officers at Dairy Farm Crescent. | |
| Farid and Hamzah were escorted to Petir Road carpark. | |
| A1A1 and A1A2 were submitted by the CNB to the Health Sciences Authority for analysis. | |
| Tika was stopped at Woodlands Checkpoint. | |
| Trial began. | |
| Hearing fixed to address matters raised in Hamzah's letter. | |
| Judgment delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Trafficking in Controlled Drugs
- Outcome: The court found all three accused persons guilty of trafficking in diamorphine.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2014] 3 SLR 721
- Common Intention
- Outcome: The court found that Farid and Tika shared a common intention to traffic in a controlled drug.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2014] 3 SLR 721
- Possession of Controlled Drugs
- Outcome: The court found that Hamzah was in possession of diamorphine for the purpose of trafficking.
- Category: Substantive
- Courier Defence
- Outcome: The court found that Farid's role was restricted to delivering the drugs, while Hamzah and Tika's roles went beyond that of a courier.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2015] 1 SLR 834
- [2015] SGHC 193
- [2017] 3 SLR 66
- [2017] 3 SLR 317
- Extraterritoriality
- Outcome: The court found that Tika's acts were committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Singapore.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Related Cases:
- [1998] 2 SLR(R) 489
- [2012] 4 SLR 845
- [2013] 4 SLR 57
8. Remedies Sought
- Punishment under the Misuse of Drugs Act
9. Cause of Actions
- Trafficking in Controlled Drugs
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Muhammad Ridzuan bin Md Ali v Public Prosecutor and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 721 | Singapore | Cited to explain how s 5(1)(a) of the MDA interacts with s 34 of the Penal Code. |
| Nagaenthran A/L K Dharmalingam v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [2011] 4 SLR 1156 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that to rebut the presumption in s 18(2), the accused had to show, on a balance of probabilities, that he had no knowledge of the nature of the drug. |
| K Saravanan Kuppusamy v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [2016] 5 SLR 88 | Singapore | Cited to show that Saravanan was charged and convicted of abetting another person to import diamorphine into Singapore. |
| Public Prosecutor v Taw Cheng Kong | Unknown | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR(R) 489 | Singapore | Cited for the presumption that a statute has no extraterritorial application in the absence of express words to the contrary. |
| Wong Yuh Lan v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 845 | Singapore | Cited to show that an act of abetment that consisted in sending email correspondence which was received by a person in Singapore could be construed as having been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Singapore. |
| Hia Soo Gan Benson v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 57 | Singapore | Cited to show that Choo J did not apply the statutory provision in question extra-territorially; he had found that the act had taken place in Singapore because the recipient of the communication was in Singapore. |
| Lee Yuan Kwang and another v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [1995] 1 SLR(R) 778 | Singapore | Cited to show that by s 5(2) of the MDA, a person commits the offence of trafficking once it is shown that he had the drugs in his possession for the purpose of trafficking. |
| Prosecutor v Chum Tat Suan and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 834 | Singapore | Cited to show that acts necessary for transporting, sending or delivering the drugs cannot include packing. |
| Public Prosecutor v Yogaras Poongavanam | High Court | Yes | [2015] SGHC 193 | Singapore | Cited to show that the kind of packing contemplated by the Court of Appeal was someone who packs by ensuring that the right type and quantity of drugs go into the right packaging. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ranjit Singh Gill Menjeet Singh and another | Unknown | Yes | [2017] 3 SLR 66 | Singapore | Cited to show that segregating the drugs into smaller packets is not the kind of packing that is incidental to delivery. |
| Public Prosecutor v Zainudin bin Mohamed and another | Unknown | Yes | [2017] 3 SLR 317 | Singapore | Cited to show that segregating the drugs into smaller packets is not the kind of packing that is incidental to delivery. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 5(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 34 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 5(2) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 33(1) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 33B(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 33B(2) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 33B(2)(a)(i)–(iv) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 33B(2)(b) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 258(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 283(1) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 2 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 18 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 18(1) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 18(2) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 18(3) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 18(4) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 7 read with s 13(aa) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Trafficking
- Common intention
- Courier
- Possession
- Controlled drug
- Substantive assistance
- MDA
- Penal Code
- Satu bola
- Setengah bola
15.2 Keywords
- Diamorphine
- Drug trafficking
- Singapore
- Criminal law
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Penal Code
- Common intention
- Courier
- Possession
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 75 |
| Criminal Procedure | 60 |
| Penal Code | 50 |
| Statutory Interpretation | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking