PP v Saridewi & Haikal: Drug Trafficking under Misuse of Drugs Act

Saridewi Binte Djamani and Muhammad Haikal Bin Abdullah were jointly tried in the High Court of Singapore for drug trafficking offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Saridewi was charged with possessing not less than 30.72 grams of diamorphine, while Haikal was charged with delivering not less than 28.22 grams of diamorphine to Saridewi. The court found both accused persons guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Saridewi was sentenced to the mandatory death penalty, and Haikal was sentenced to life imprisonment with 15 strokes of the cane.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Guilty verdict and sentencing for both accused persons

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Saridewi and Haikal were convicted of drug trafficking. Saridewi failed to rebut the presumption of trafficking, while Haikal was found to have known about the drugs.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorProsecutionGovernment AgencyConviction of both accused personsWon
Marcus Foo of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Lim Shin Hui of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Saridewi Binte DjamaniDefendantIndividualConvicted of drug traffickingLost
Muhammad Haikal Bin AbdullahDefendantIndividualConvicted of drug traffickingLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
See Kee OonJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Marcus FooAttorney-General’s Chambers
Lim Shin HuiAttorney-General’s Chambers
N K RajarhStraits Law Practice LLC
Luo Ling LingRHTLaw Taylor Wessing LLP
Dhanaraj James SelvarajJames Selvaraj LLC
Masih James BahadurJames Masih & Co

4. Facts

  1. Saridewi was found in possession of 30.72 grams of diamorphine.
  2. Haikal delivered two packets containing 28.22 grams of diamorphine to Saridewi.
  3. CNB officers recovered SGD$10,050 from Haikal.
  4. Saridewi threw items, including drugs, out of her kitchen window.
  5. Saridewi admitted to running a drug trafficking business.
  6. Haikal claimed he did not know the substance he delivered was diamorphine.
  7. Saridewi claimed a portion of the diamorphine was for her own consumption.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Public Prosecutor v Saridewi Bte Djamani and another, Criminal Case No 28 of 2018, [2018] SGHC 204

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Haikal delivered drugs to Saridewi at Block 350 Anchorvale Road.
Haikal was arrested by CNB officers.
Saridewi was arrested by CNB officers.
Saridewi and Haikal were convicted and sentenced.
Grounds of decision issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Drug Trafficking
    • Outcome: The court found both accused persons guilty of drug trafficking.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Possession of controlled drugs
      • Knowledge of the nature of drugs
      • Presumption of trafficking
      • Rebuttal of presumption
    • Related Cases:
      • [2017] 1 SLR 427
      • [2012] 2 SLR 903
      • [2017] 1 SLR 633
  2. Admissibility of Similar Fact Evidence
    • Outcome: The court ruled that the similar fact evidence was admissible because its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Probative value vs. prejudicial effect
    • Related Cases:
      • [2017] 1 SLR 748
      • [1996] 2 SLR(R) 178
  3. Mental State of Accused During Statement Recording
    • Outcome: The court rejected the evidence of Saridewi's impaired mental state, finding that she was lucid and capable of giving an accurate account of events.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Voluntariness of statements
      • Impact of mental conditions on accuracy of statements
      • Drug withdrawal symptoms

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Conviction
  2. Sentencing
  3. Death Penalty (for Saridewi)
  4. Life Imprisonment (for Haikal)

9. Cause of Actions

  • Drug Trafficking
  • Possession of Controlled Drugs
  • Delivery of Controlled Drugs

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Litigation
  • Drug Offences

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Micheal Anak Garing v PP and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2017] 1 SLR 748SingaporeCited for the principle that the purpose for which evidence is adduced is vital in determining its admissibility.
Tan Meng Jee v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[1996] 2 SLR(R) 178SingaporeCited for the principles regarding the admissibility of similar fact evidence and the balancing test between prejudicial effect and probative weight.
Muhammad bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2017] 1 SLR 427SingaporeCited for the factors relevant to the assessment of a defence of consumption in drug trafficking cases.
Kwek Seow Hock v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2011] 3 SLR 157SingaporeCited for the principles regarding drawing adverse inferences against an accused person for failing to mention facts relied upon in their defence.
Public Prosecutor v Saravanan ChandaramHigh CourtYes[2017] SGHC 262SingaporeCited as an example of a case where an adverse inference was drawn against an accused person for failing to mention their defence.
Public Prosecutor v Fazali bin MohamedHigh CourtYes[2018] SGHC 23SingaporeCited as an example of a case where an adverse inference was drawn against an accused person for failing to mention their defence.
Public Prosecutor v BLVHigh CourtYes[2017] SGHC 154SingaporeCited as an example of a case where an adverse inference was drawn against an accused person for failing to mention their defence.
Yap Giau Beng Terence v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[1998] 2 SLR(R) 855SingaporeCited as an example of a case where an adverse inference was drawn against an accused person for failing to mention their defence.
R v LucasCourt of AppealYes[1981] QB 720England and WalesCited for the Lucas criteria for lies as corroborative evidence of guilt.
Ng Beng Siang and others v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2003] SGCA 17SingaporeCited for the approval of the Lucas criteria in Singapore.
Dinesh Pillai a/l K Raja Retnam v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2012] 2 SLR 903SingaporeCited for the burden on the accused person to prove lack of knowledge of the nature of the controlled drug.
Obeng Comfort v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2017] 1 SLR 633SingaporeCited for the assessment of the accused’s evidence as to his subjective knowledge and the inference of actual knowledge in wilful blindness.
Khor Soon Lee v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2011] 3 SLR 201SingaporeCited to distinguish negligence or recklessness from wilful blindness.

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 ActSingapore
s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs ActSingapore
s 17 of the Misuse of Drugs ActSingapore
s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs ActSingapore
s 33(1) of the Misuse of Drugs ActSingapore
s 33B(2) of the Misuse of Drugs ActSingapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 267(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 261(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure CodeSingapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)Singapore
ss 14 and 15 of the Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Diamorphine
  • Drug Trafficking
  • Misuse of Drugs Act
  • Presumption of Trafficking
  • Possession
  • Delivery
  • CNB
  • Statement Recording
  • Similar Fact Evidence
  • Wilful Blindness
  • Courier

15.2 Keywords

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

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Misuse of Drugs Act95
Criminal Law90
Sentencing70
Criminal Procedure60
Evidence50

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Drug Offences
  • Statutory Interpretation