PP v Mohd Aziz: Trafficking of Diamorphine under Misuse of Drugs Act
In Public Prosecutor v Mohd Aziz bin Hussain, the High Court of Singapore convicted Mohd Aziz bin Hussain for possession of not less than 49.98 grams of diamorphine for the purpose of trafficking, an offence under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The court, presided over by See Kee Oon J, found the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, rejecting his defense and finding his statements to be voluntary and his actions indicative of guilt. The court sentenced the accused to the mandatory death penalty.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Accused guilty as charged and convicted.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Mohd Aziz was convicted of possessing diamorphine for trafficking under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The High Court found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
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 | Terence Chua of Attorney-General’s Chambers Kenny Yang of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| MOHD AZIZ BIN HUSSAIN | Defendant | Individual | Accused found guilty | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| See Kee Oon | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Terence Chua | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Kenny Yang | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Hassan Esa Almenoar | R. Ramason & Almenoar |
| Diana Foo | Tan See Swan & Co. |
4. Facts
- The accused was found in possession of not less than 49.98 grams of diamorphine.
- The accused admitted in his statements that he knew the items were heroin.
- The accused was acting under the instructions of “Datuk” to repack and deliver the drugs.
- The accused was to collect payments on behalf of “Datuk”.
- The sum of money which he had with him amounting to over $20,000 was meant for ‘Datuk’ from the sale of the drugs.
- The drugs and relevant repacking paraphernalia were found in his van.
- The accused abandoned his van and tried to escape on foot when CNB officers approached.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Mohd Aziz bin Hussain, Criminal Case No 9 of 2017, [2018] SGHC 19
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Accused committed the offence | |
| Accused arrested | |
| Committal Hearing | |
| Trial commenced | |
| Accused convicted and sentenced | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Possession of Controlled Drugs for Trafficking
- Outcome: The court found that the accused was in possession of the drugs and knew the nature of the drugs, and that he possessed them for the purpose of trafficking.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Knowledge of the nature of the drugs
- Intention to traffic
- Admissibility of Investigation Statements
- Outcome: The court admitted the seven statements in evidence, finding that they were given voluntarily and without any inducement, threat, or promise.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Voluntariness of statements
- Inducement, threat, or promise
- Applicability of the Death Penalty
- Outcome: The court found that the accused was not a courier and that the Prosecution declined to issue a certificate of substantive assistance. Therefore, the accused was sentenced to the mandatory death penalty.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Whether the accused was a mere courier
- Whether the accused provided substantive assistance to the CNB
- Related Cases:
- [2015] 1 SLR 834
- [2013] 3 SLR 734
8. Remedies Sought
- Conviction
- Sentencing
9. Cause of Actions
- Trafficking in Controlled Drugs
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Neo Ah Soi v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR(R) 199 | Singapore | Cited to distinguish the present case, where there was no discernible doubt as to the manner in which the statements in question were recorded. |
| Mohd Halmi bin Hamid and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 548 | Singapore | Cited for the approach to presumptions under the Misuse of Drugs Act. |
| Tang Hai Liang v Public Prosecutor | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] SGCA 38 | Singapore | Cited for the approach to presumptions under the Misuse of Drugs Act. |
| Masoud Rahimi bin Mehrzad v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 257 | Singapore | Cited for the approach to presumptions under the Misuse of Drugs Act. |
| Hishamrudin bin Mohd v Public Prosecutor | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] SGCA 41 | Singapore | Cited for the approach to presumptions under the Misuse of Drugs Act. |
| Farida Begam d/o Mohd Artham v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR(R) 592 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an accused person’s lies can amount to corroboration because they indicate a consciousness of guilt. |
| Public Prosecutor v Yeo Choon Poh | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 3 SLR(R) 302 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an accused person’s lies can amount to corroboration because they indicate a consciousness of guilt. |
| Poon Soh Har and another v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1977-1978] SLR(R) 97 | Singapore | Cited to distinguish the present case, as the Prosecution’s case against the accused did not depend solely on similar fact evidence to establish guilt. |
| Public Prosecutor v Chum Tat Suan and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 834 | Singapore | Cited for the narrow meaning to be accorded to the definition of a “courier” in s 33B(2)(a) of the MDA. |
| Public Prosecutor v Abdul Haleem bin Abdul Karim and another | High Court | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 734 | Singapore | Cited for the narrow meaning to be accorded to the definition of a “courier” in s 33B(2)(a) of the MDA. |
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 |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 5(2) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 2 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 264 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 23 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 22 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 258(3) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 21 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 18(2) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 17 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 33(1) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 33B | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Trafficking
- Possession
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Courier
- Substantive Assistance
- CNB
- Investigation Statements
- Voluntariness
- Presumption
15.2 Keywords
- Diamorphine
- Drug Trafficking
- Singapore
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Criminal Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 60 |
| Evidence Law | 50 |
| Sentencing | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Statutory Interpretation