PP v Ong Seow Ping & Abdul Rahim: Trafficking of Diamorphine under Misuse of Drugs Act

In [2018] SGHC 82, the High Court of Singapore convicted Ong Seow Ping and Abdul Rahim Bin Shapiee on separate charges of possessing diamorphine for the purpose of trafficking under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Ong was found in possession of 1284.05 grams of granular/powdery substance containing 51.69 grams of diamorphine, while Abdul was found in possession of 928.1 grams of granular/powdery substance containing 39.87 grams of diamorphine. Both were sentenced to death, as Section 33B of the MDA was not applicable.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Both accused persons were convicted on separate charges of possessing a Class A controlled drug for the purpose of trafficking under s 5(1)(a), read with s 5(2), of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“the MDA”) and sentenced to death.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Ong Seow Ping and Abdul Rahim were convicted of possessing diamorphine for trafficking under the Misuse of Drugs Act and sentenced to death.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorProsecutionGovernment AgencyJudgment for ProsecutionWon
Chin Jincheng of Prosecution
John Lu Zhuoren of Prosecution
Shenna Tjoa Kai-En of Prosecution
Abdul Rahim Bin ShapieeDefendantIndividualConvictedLost
Ong Seow PingDefendantIndividualConvictedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Valerie TheanJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Chin JinchengProsecution
John Lu ZhuorenProsecution
Shenna Tjoa Kai-EnProsecution
Luo Ling LingAequitas Law LLP
Jeeva Arul JoethyRegent Law LLC
Nadwani Manoj PrakashGabriel Law Corporation
Chung Ting FaiChung Ting Fai & Co
Prasad s/o KarunakarnK Prasad & Co

4. Facts

  1. Ong and Abdul were arrested for possessing diamorphine.
  2. Ong possessed 1284.05 grams of granular/powdery substance containing 51.69 grams of diamorphine.
  3. Abdul possessed 928.1 grams of granular/powdery substance containing 39.87 grams of diamorphine.
  4. Both Ong and Abdul admitted to possessing the drugs.
  5. The Prosecution amended the charges to reflect the drugs intended for personal consumption.
  6. Ong claimed the drugs were for his own consumption, to avoid interacting with suppliers.
  7. Abdul claimed some of the drugs were for his own consumption and some for delivery to others.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Public Prosecutor v Ong Seow Ping and another, Criminal Case No 64 of 2017, [2018] SGHC 82

6. Timeline

DateEvent
CNB officers raided unit #06-45 of Block 175C, Yung Kuang Road, Singapore.
Abdul and Nuraiin Binte Rosman were arrested.
Ong called Abdul.
Abdul informed the CNB officers that Ong would like to collect one pound of heroin.
Abdul called Ong informing Ong that he had arrived at the carpark of Block 725 Jurong West Ave 5.
Ong was seen leaving the unit at about 10.15pm.
Ong was arrested at about 10.20pm.
Trial began.
Trial continued.
Trial continued.
Trial continued.
Trial continued.
Trial continued.
Trial continued.
Trial continued.
Trial continued.
Trial continued.
Trial continued.
Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Possession of Controlled Drug for Trafficking
    • Outcome: The court found both accused guilty of possessing diamorphine for the purpose of trafficking.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2014] 3 SLR 721
  2. Rebutting Presumption of Trafficking
    • Outcome: The court found that both accused failed to rebut the presumption of trafficking.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2017] 1 SLR 427
  3. Applicability of Section 33B of the Misuse of Drugs Act
    • Outcome: The court found that Section 33B of the Misuse of Drugs Act was not applicable to either accused.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2018] SGCA 8

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Conviction
  2. Mandatory Death Penalty

9. Cause of Actions

  • Possession of Controlled Drug for the Purpose of Trafficking

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Law
  • Drug Trafficking

11. Industries

  • Law Enforcement

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Muhammad Ridzuan bin Md Ali v Public Prosecutor and other mattersCourt of AppealYes[2014] 3 SLR 721SingaporeSet out the elements of a charge for possessing a controlled drug for the purpose of trafficking under s 5(1) read with s 5(2) of the MDA.
Muhammad bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2017] 1 SLR 427SingaporeHighlighted the factors which are relevant when examining the defence of consumption.
Lee Yuan Kwang & anor v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[1995] 1 SLR(R) 778SingaporeAddressed the definition of trafficking under s 2 of the MDA.
Jusri bin Mohamed Hussain v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[1996] 2 SLR(R) 706SingaporeAn accused person seeking to establish a defence of consumption must at the very least be able to give a coherent account of his rate of consumption to discharge his legal burden of rebutting the presumption of trafficking.
Poh Kay Keong v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[1995] 3 SLR(R) 887SingaporeAddressed the requirements under s 258(3) of the CPC.
Lu Lai Heng v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[1994] 1 SLR(R) 1037SingaporeThe existence of a threat, inducement or promise from a person in authority must be established to render a statement involuntary.
Sharom bin Ahmad and another v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2000] 2 SLR(R) 541SingaporeAddressed the admissibility of a long statement in a similar vein.
Zainudin bin Mohamed v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2018] SGCA 8SingaporeProvided guidance on the scope of s 33B of the MDA.
Public Prosecutor v Christeen d/o Jayamany and anotherHigh CourtYes[2015] SGHC 126SingaporeDistilled the factors which inform the analysis of whether an accused was a mere “courier”.
Public Prosecutor v Tan Kah Ho and anotherHigh CourtYes[2017] SGHC 61SingaporeAn accused who “separated the bundles for delivery” could nevertheless be considered a courier.
Rosman bin Abdullah v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2017] 1 SLR 10SingaporeAddressed the fact-sensitive inquiry in each case.
Public Prosecutor v Rosman bin AbdullahHigh CourtYes[2015] SGHC 287SingaporeTay J referred to his earlier Christeen guidelines and distinguished Rosman’s role on the footing that he helped to source for heroin and to broker the deal.
Public Prosecutor v Chum Tat SuanCourt of AppealYes[2015] 1 SLR 834SingaporePersons intending to sell controlled drugs would not be characterised as couriers.

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 33(1) of the Misuse of Drugs ActSingapore
s 33B of the Misuse of Drugs ActSingapore
s 17 of the Misuse of Drugs ActSingapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 128(1) of the Criminal Procedure CodeSingapore
s 144 of the Criminal Procedure CodeSingapore
s 267(1) of the Criminal Procedure CodeSingapore
s 258(3) of the Criminal Procedure CodeSingapore
s 390(4) of the Criminal Procedure CodeSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Diamorphine
  • Trafficking
  • Misuse of Drugs Act
  • Consumption
  • Presumption of Trafficking
  • Courier
  • Section 33B
  • Controlled Drug

15.2 Keywords

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

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Misuse of Drugs Act95
Criminal Law90
Criminal Procedure70
Sentencing60
Evidence60
Statutory Interpretation50
Penal Code40

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Drug Trafficking
  • Statutory Interpretation