Zainal bin Hamad v Public Prosecutor: Trafficking of Diamorphine under the Misuse of Drugs Act
Zainal bin Hamad and Rahmat bin Karimon appealed to the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore in 2018 against their convictions in the High Court for trafficking in not less than 53.64g of diamorphine under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The court, comprising Sundaresh Menon CJ, Tay Yong Kwang JA, and Steven Chong JA, dismissed both appeals, holding that the presumptions of possession and knowledge were not rebutted and clarifying the interplay between sections 17 and 18 of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
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
Zainal and Rahmat were convicted of trafficking diamorphine. The Court of Appeal dismissed their appeals, clarifying the application of presumptions under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal dismissed | Won | Shenna Tjoa of Attorney-General’s Chambers Muhamad Imaduddien of Attorney-General’s Chambers Chin Jincheng of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Rahmat Bin Karimon | Appellant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| ZAINAL BIN HAMAD | Appellant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge of Appeal | No |
| Steven Chong | Judge of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Shenna Tjoa | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Muhamad Imaduddien | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Chin Jincheng | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Daniel Chia Hsiung Wen | Morgan Lewis Stamford LLC |
| Leong Yi-Ming | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Chan Tai-Hui Jason | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Eugene Lee | Morgan Lewis Stamford LLC |
| Peter Keith Fernando | Leo Fernando |
| Khoo Shuzhen Jolyn | Kelvin Chia Partnership |
| Loo Khee Sheng | K S Loo & Co |
4. Facts
- Zainal and Rahmat were jointly tried and convicted of trafficking not less than 53.64g of diamorphine.
- Zainal claimed he was dealing with Samba, who was to arrange delivery of 200 cartons of uncustomed cigarettes.
- Rahmat claimed Kanna instructed him to deliver a package, which he thought contained medicines, to Bai, who directed him to deliver it to Zainal.
- Rahmat delivered the green bag to Zainal and collected $8,000.
- Zainal said he knew the green bag did not contain cigarettes but paid $8,000 as an advance for the cigarettes.
- Zainal moved the green bag behind pallets in the warehouse, intending to return it to Rahmat later.
- Zainal admitted to previously dealing in drugs.
5. Formal Citations
- Zainal bin Hamad v Public Prosecutor and another appeal, , [2018] SGCA 62
- ZAINAL BIN HAMAD v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, Criminal Appeal No 48 of 2017, Criminal Appeal No 48 of 2017
- RAHMAT BIN KARIMON v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, Criminal Appeal No 49 of 2017, Criminal Appeal No 49 of 2017
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Criminal Appeals Nos 48 and 49 of 2017 filed | |
| Zainal's statement to Central Narcotics Bureau | |
| Zainal received diamorphine from Samba through Rahmat | |
| Court of Appeal hearing | |
| Grounds of Decision delivered |
7. Legal Issues
- Drug Trafficking
- Outcome: The court upheld the convictions, finding that the appellants possessed and knowingly trafficked diamorphine.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Possession of controlled drugs
- Knowledge of the nature of drugs
- Purpose of trafficking
- Related Cases:
- [2018] SGHC 1
- [2000] 2 SLR(R) 959
- [1969] 2 AC 256
- [2008] 1 SLR(R) 1
- [2017] 1 SLR 771
- [2017] 1 SLR 633
- [1995] 3 SLR(R) 689
- [2018] 1 SLR 610
- [1994] 1 SLR(R) 64
- [1999] 2 SLR(R) 314
- [2006] 1 SLR(R) 548
- [2011] SGCA 38
- [2010] 4 SLR 696
- [2017] 5 SLR 564
- [2018] SGHC 19
- [2017] 2 SLR 850
- [2017] 1 SLR 373
- [1955] 1 AC 667
- Presumption of Possession
- Outcome: The court found that Zainal failed to rebut the presumption of possession.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Rebutting the presumption of possession
- Physical control of drugs
- Knowledge of the existence of drugs
- Related Cases:
- [2000] 2 SLR(R) 959
- [1969] 2 AC 256
- [2008] 1 SLR(R) 1
- [2017] 1 SLR 771
- Presumption of Knowledge
- Outcome: The court found that both Zainal and Rahmat failed to rebut the presumption that they knew the nature of the drugs.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Rebutting the presumption of knowledge
- Knowledge of the nature of drugs
- Wilful blindness
- Related Cases:
- [2017] 1 SLR 633
- Presumption of Trafficking
- Outcome: The court found that Zainal possessed the drugs for the purpose of trafficking, even without relying on the presumption.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Rebutting the presumption of trafficking
- Quantity of drugs
- Purpose of possession
- Interaction of Sections 17 and 18 of the Misuse of Drugs Act
- Outcome: The court clarified that the presumptions under ss 17 and 18(1) cannot run together, and preferred the approach in Mohd Halmi over that in Aziz regarding ss 17 and 18(2).
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Whether the presumptions under ss 17 and 18(1) can run together
- Whether the presumptions under ss 17 and 18(2) can operate in the same case
- Related Cases:
- [1995] 3 SLR(R) 689
- [2018] 1 SLR 610
- [1994] 1 SLR(R) 64
- [1999] 2 SLR(R) 314
- [2006] 1 SLR(R) 548
- [2011] SGCA 38
- [2010] 4 SLR 696
- [2017] 5 SLR 564
- [2018] SGHC 19
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against mandatory death sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Drug Trafficking
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
- Drug Offences
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PP v Rahmat bin Karimon and another | High Court | Yes | [2018] SGHC 1 | Singapore | The High Court's decision that Zainal and Rahmat were guilty of drug trafficking was appealed. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision. |
| Sim Teck Ho v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR(R) 959 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that to prove possession, it is necessary to prove physical control and knowledge of the existence of the package. |
| Warner v Metropolitan Police Commissioner | House of Lords | Yes | [1969] 2 AC 256 | United Kingdom | Cited to define 'possession' as knowledge of the existence of the thing itself, not necessarily its qualities. |
| Tan Kiam Peng v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 1 | Singapore | Clarified the relevant portions of Warner applicable to Singapore jurisprudence regarding the concept of possession. |
| Harven a/l Segar v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 771 | Singapore | Cited to illustrate that knowledge of the contents of a package is a separate inquiry from possession. |
| Obeng Comfort v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 633 | Singapore | Laid down the analytical approach to rebutting the presumption of knowledge under s 18(2) of the MDA. |
| Lim Lye Huat Benny v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR(R) 689 | Singapore | Established that the presumptions under ss 17 and 18(1) of the MDA cannot run together. |
| Ali bin Mohamad Bahashwan v PP and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 610 | Singapore | Reiterated that the presumptions under ss 17 and 18(1) of the MDA cannot run together. |
| Low Kok Wai v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 1 SLR(R) 64 | Singapore | Stated that Parliament intended the presumption under s 17 to apply only where an accused is proved, and not merely presumed, to be in possession of a controlled drug. |
| Aziz bin Abdul Kadir v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR(R) 314 | Singapore | Addressed whether the presumptions under ss 17 and 18(2) can operate in the same case. |
| Mohd Halmi bin Hamid and another v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 548 | Singapore | Explicitly stated that ss 17 and 18(2) could not apply together. |
| Director of Public Prosecutions v Schildkamp | N/A | Yes | (1969) 3 All ER 1640 | England and Wales | Cited for the observation that it is more realistic to accept the Act as printed as being the product of the whole legislative process, and to give due weight to everything found in the printed Act. |
| Tang Hai Liang v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] SGCA 38 | Singapore | Cited and applied Mohd Halmi. |
| PP v Lim Boon Hiong and another | High Court | Yes | [2010] 4 SLR 696 | Singapore | Cited and applied Mohd Halmi. |
| PP v Tan Lye Heng | High Court | Yes | [2017] 5 SLR 564 | Singapore | Cited and applied Mohd Halmi. |
| PP v Mohd Aziz bin Hussain | High Court | Yes | [2018] SGHC 19 | Singapore | Cited and applied Mohd Halmi. |
| Tan Cheng Bock v AG | N/A | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 850 | Singapore | Cited for the approach to the purposive interpretation of statutes. |
| AG v Ting Choon Meng and another appeal | N/A | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 373 | Singapore | Cited for the approach to the purposive interpretation of statutes. |
| Madras Electric Supply Corp Ltd v Boarland (Inspector of Taxes) | House of Lords | Yes | [1955] 1 AC 667 | United Kingdom | Cited for the rule of construction that the same word used variously within the same instrument should be taken to bear the same meaning throughout. |
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)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 33(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 17 of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 18 of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 18(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 9A(3) of our Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 9A of the Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act 1964 (c 64) (UK) | United Kingdom |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Drug trafficking
- Presumption of possession
- Presumption of knowledge
- Presumption of trafficking
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Rebuttal of presumption
- Actual possession
- Wilful blindness
- Uncustomed cigarettes
15.2 Keywords
- Drug trafficking
- Diamorphine
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Presumption of possession
- Presumption of knowledge
- Singapore Court of Appeal
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Evidence | 70 |
| Sentencing | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Statutory Interpretation
- Evidence