Mohamed Affandi v Public Prosecutor: Drug Trafficking, Chain of Evidence
In [2018] SGCA 87, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard appeals by Mohamed Affandi bin Rosli and Mohamad Fadzli bin Ahmad against their convictions for drug-related offenses under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Affandi was convicted of possessing diamorphine for trafficking, while Fadzli was convicted of abetting Affandi. The Court allowed the appeals, finding that the Prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody for the drug exhibits, raising reasonable doubt. The Court set aside the convictions.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeals allowed. Convictions for both appellants set aside.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore Court of Appeal case involving Mohamed Affandi and Mohamad Fadzli, addressing drug trafficking charges and chain of evidence integrity.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Allowed | Lost | Tan Wen Hsien of Attorney-General’s Chambers Carene Poh of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| MOHAMED AFFANDI BIN ROSLI | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | |
| MOHAMAD FADZLI BIN AHMAD | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Chao Hick Tin | Senior Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Tan Wen Hsien | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Carene Poh | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Sankar s/o Kailasa Thevar Saminathan | Sterling Law Corporation |
| Chia Soo Michael | MSC Law Corporation |
| Hany Soh Hui Bin | MSC Law Corporation |
| Ramesh Chandr Tiwary | Messrs Ramesh Tiwary |
| Luo Ling Ling | RHTLaw Taylor Wessing LLP |
4. Facts
- Affandi was a fire safety supervisor at Marina Bay Sands.
- Fadzli was a part-time mover.
- CNB officers arrested Affandi and Fadzli on 12 July 2013.
- 132.82g of diamorphine was found in Affandi's car.
- 38.84g of methamphetamine was found in Fadzli's car.
- Affandi initially stated he was holding the drugs for 'Abut' (Fadzli).
- Affandi later claimed he was acting on instructions from 'Mamak'.
5. Formal Citations
- Mohamed Affandi bin Rosli v Public Prosecutor and another appeal, , [2018] SGCA 87
- MOHAMED AFFANDI BIN ROSLI v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, Criminal Appeal No 38 of 2017, Criminal Appeal No 38 of 2017
- MOHAMAD FADZLI BIN AHMAD v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, Criminal Appeal No 39 of 2017, Criminal Appeal No 39 of 2017
- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v (1)MOHAMAD FADZLI BIN AHMAD(2)MOHAMED AFFANDI BIN ROSLI, Criminal Case No 53 of 2015, Criminal Case No 53 of 2015
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Affandi and Fadzli arrested by CNB | |
| Diamorphine and methamphetamine seized from Affandi's car | |
| Methamphetamine and nimetazepam seized from Fadzli | |
| High Court convicts Affandi and Fadzli | |
| Court of Appeal hearing | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Court of Appeal allows appeals |
7. Legal Issues
- Chain of Custody
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal found that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody for the drug exhibits, raising reasonable doubt.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2005] 1 SLR(R) 103
- [1993] 3 SLR(R) 656
- [2009] 4 SLR(R) 946
- [1995] 1 SLR(R) 32
- [1993] 3 SLR(R) 143
- [1999] 1 SLR(R) 931
- [2003] SGHC 60
- [2018] SGCA 59
- Abetment by Instigation
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal found that the prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Fadzli instigated Affandi's involvement with the seized diamorphine.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2018] 1 SLR 610
- [2012] SGCA 18
- Use of Confessions Against Co-Accused
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal considered the use of Affandi's statements against Fadzli, noting the need for careful scrutiny when statements are retracted.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2006] 4 SLR(R) 45
- [2002] 1 SLR(R) 1166
- [1999] 3 SLR(R) 273
- [1995] 2 SLR(R) 806
- Corroboration of Evidence by Lies
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal disagreed with the High Court's finding that Fadzli's lies corroborated the evidence against him.
- Category: Evidentiary
- Related Cases:
- [1981] 1 QB 720
- [2015] SGCA 33
8. Remedies Sought
- Acquittal from drug trafficking charges
9. Cause of Actions
- Possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking
- Abetment by instigation to possess drugs for the purpose of trafficking
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Mohamad Fadzli bin Ahmad and another | High Court | Yes | [2017] SGHC 233 | Singapore | Refers to the High Court's judgment where Affandi and Fadzli were initially convicted. |
| Nguyen Tuong Van v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 1 SLR(R) 103 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the prosecution bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the drug exhibits analyzed by the HSA are the very ones seized from the accused. |
| Abdul Rashid bin Mohamed and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 3 SLR(R) 656 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where a reasonable doubt is raised as to the identity of the drug exhibits, the Prosecution has not discharged its burden. |
| Public Prosecutor v Chen Mingjian | High Court | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 946 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the prosecution must show an unbroken chain of custody and that speculative arguments about contamination will not be entertained. |
| Lim Swee Seng v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1995] 1 SLR(R) 32 | Singapore | Cited for the importance of ensuring a complete chain of custody. |
| Lai Kam Loy v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 3 SLR(R) 143 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the prosecution does not have to laboriously call every single witness to establish the chain of possession of the seized drugs unless a doubt as to the identity of an exhibit has arisen. |
| Satli bin Masot v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR(R) 931 | Singapore | Reaffirms the principle in Lai Kam Loy v Public Prosecutor. |
| Public Prosecutor v Yen May Woen | High Court | Yes | [2003] SGHC 60 | Singapore | Reaffirms the principle in Lai Kam Loy v Public Prosecutor. |
| Mui Jia Jun v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] SGCA 59 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused is clear as to what that case is. |
| Jagatheesan s/o Krishnasamy v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 45 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that the Prosecution would, at least, have to dispel all doubts that are relatable to and supported by the evidence presented. |
| Ali bin Mohamad Bahashwan v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 610 | Singapore | Cited for the elements of the offence of abetment by instigation. |
| Chan Heng Kong and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] SGCA 18 | Singapore | Cited for the elements of the offence of abetment by instigation. |
| Regina v Lucas (Ruth) | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1981] 1 QB 720 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a lie can amount to corroboration of evidence of guilt. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ilechukwu Uchechukwu Chukwudi | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] SGCA 33 | Singapore | Cited for the principle in Regina v Lucas (Ruth) that a lie can amount to corroboration of evidence of guilt. |
| Syed Abdul Mutalip bin Syed Sidek and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR(R) 1166 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a confession that has been retracted can still be used against a co-accused. |
| Ong Chee Hoe and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR(R) 273 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a confession that has been retracted can still be used against a co-accused. |
| Panya Martmontree and others v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR(R) 806 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a confession that has been retracted can still be used against a co-accused. |
| Muhammad bin Kadar and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 1205 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the weight to be assigned to retracted statements and the assessment of the witness’s credibility falls to be determined by the general corpus of case law relating to inconsistencies, discrepancies and falsehoods in a witness’s statement. |
| Chean Siong Guat v PP | Federal Court | Yes | [1969] 2 MLJ 63 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that minor discrepancies in a witness’s testimony should not be held against the witness in assessing his credibility. |
| Ng Kwee Leong v PP | High Court | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 281 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that minor discrepancies in a witness’s testimony should not be held against the witness in assessing his credibility. |
| Public Prosecutor v Yeo Choon Poh | High Court | Yes | [1993] 3 SLR(R) 302 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a witness may lie but need not be completely distrusted if he lies not out of guilt but because of a misguided desire to bolster his case, or in other cases, to prevent shameful information from being revealed. |
| Kamrul Hasan Abdul Quddus v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] SGCA 52 | Singapore | Cited for the principle in Regina v Lucas (Ruth) that a lie can amount to corroboration of evidence of guilt. |
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 (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 12 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 8(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 21 of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 33(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 33B of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 232(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 258(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Methamphetamine
- Chain of custody
- Abetment
- Instigation
- Possession
- Trafficking
- Reasonable doubt
- Contemporaneous statement
- Cautioned statement
- Investigative statement
15.2 Keywords
- Drug trafficking
- Chain of custody
- Singapore Court of Appeal
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Abetment
- Diamorphine
- Methamphetamine
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Procedure | 90 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Sentencing | 80 |
| Evidence | 70 |
| Appeal | 60 |
| Statutory Interpretation | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Evidence
- Criminal Procedure