Public Prosecutor v Shah Putra bin Samsuddin: Importation of Diamorphine under the Misuse of Drugs Act
In Public Prosecutor v Shah Putra bin Samsuddin, the High Court of Singapore convicted Shah Putra, a Malaysian national, for importing not less than 54.69 grams of diamorphine into Singapore, in violation of Section 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The court, presided over by Justice Chan Seng Onn, found that Shah either had actual knowledge that he was importing diamorphine or was wilfully blind to that fact. The court also held that Shah failed to rebut the presumption of knowledge under Section 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The judgment was delivered on November 30, 2018.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Guilty
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Shah Putra was convicted of importing diamorphine into Singapore, violating the Misuse of Drugs Act. The court found he had knowledge, or was wilfully blind, to the presence of the drug.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Prosecution | Government Agency | Conviction | Won | Andrew Tan of Attorney-General’s Chambers Michelle Lu of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Shah Putra bin Samsuddin | Defendant | Individual | Guilty | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Seng Onn | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Andrew Tan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Michelle Lu | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Lau Kah Hee | Derrick Wong & Lim BC LLP |
| Amolat Singh | Amolat & Partners |
4. Facts
- Shah, a Malaysian national, was offered RM1000 per delivery to Singapore by an unknown person.
- Shah was instructed to collect and deliver packages without knowing their exact contents.
- Shah admitted to possession and ownership of the drugs.
- Shah knew that one of the packages contained cannabis.
- Shah did not check the contents of the other package, which contained diamorphine.
- Shah had the opportunity to check the contents of the package containing diamorphine before entering Singapore.
- Shah felt uncomfortable about the legality of the items he had brought in on the first delivery.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Shah Putra bin Samsuddin, Criminal Case No 5 of 2018, [2018] SGHC 266
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Shah performed his first delivery. | |
| Shah performed his second delivery. | |
| Shah was arrested at Woodlands Checkpoint. | |
| Drug exhibits were sent to the Health Sciences Authority for analysis. | |
| Trial began. | |
| Trial continued. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Judgment delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Importation of Controlled Drugs
- Outcome: The court found the defendant guilty of importing diamorphine.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2018] SGHC 219
- [2013] 3 SLR 1052
- [2008] 1 SLR (R) 1
- [2018] SGCA 72
- Wilful Blindness
- Outcome: The court found that the defendant was wilfully blind to the fact that he was importing diamorphine.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2008] 1 SLR (R) 1
- Presumption of Knowledge
- Outcome: The court found that the presumption of knowledge under s 18(2) of the MDA applies and the defendant failed to rebut the presumption.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2018] SGCA 72
- [2017] 1 SLR 633
8. Remedies Sought
- Conviction
9. Cause of Actions
- Importation of Controlled Drugs
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
- Drug Offences
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Khor Chong Seng and another | High Court | Yes | [2018] SGHC 219 | Singapore | Cited for the elements of the offence of importing a controlled drug. |
| Public Prosecutor v Adnan Bin Kadir | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 1052 | Singapore | Cited to confirm that s 7 of the MDA did not require the Prosecution to prove that the importation of a controlled drug was for the purposes of trafficking. |
| Tan Kiam Peng v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR (R) 1 | Singapore | Extensively considered the concept of wilful blindness in the context of the criminal law. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ng Pen Tine and Another | High Court | Yes | [2009] SGHC 230 | Singapore | Cited regarding the element of possession. |
| Obeng Comfort v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 633 | Singapore | Cited in the context of rebutting the presumption of possession under s 18(1) of the MDA. |
| Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 850 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that parliament does not legislate in vain. |
| Public Prosecutor v Gobi a/l Avedian | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] SGCA 72 | Singapore | Reiterated key principles in relation to rebutting the presumption under s 18(2) 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 7 | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) s 2 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 22 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 18(2) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Wilful Blindness
- Presumption of Knowledge
- Importation
- Controlled Drugs
- Woodlands Checkpoint
15.2 Keywords
- Diamorphine
- Drugs
- Importation
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
- Shah Putra
- Misuse of Drugs Act
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Statutory Interpretation | 60 |
| Criminal Procedure | 50 |
| Evidence Law | 40 |
| Penal Code | 40 |
| Public Prosecutor | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Importation of Drugs