Mohd Akebal v Public Prosecutor: Drug Trafficking under Misuse of Drugs Act

Mohd Akebal and Mohammed Rusli appealed against their convictions and sentences related to drug trafficking. Akebal was convicted of trafficking diamorphine under the Misuse of Drugs Act and sentenced to death. Rusli was convicted of instigating drug collection, possession of methamphetamine, and consumption of morphine. The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding sufficient evidence against Akebal and no manifest excessiveness in Rusli's sentence.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeals Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Ex Tempore Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Akebal appeals against his conviction and sentence for drug trafficking. The court dismissed the appeal, finding sufficient evidence linking him to the crime.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorRespondentGovernment AgencyAppeal DismissedWon
Chong Yong of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Chin Jincheng of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Mark Jayaratnam of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Mohd Akebal s/o Ghulam JilaniAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
Mohammed Rusli Bin Abdul RahmanAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
Andi Ashwar Bin SalihinOtherIndividualConvictedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Sundaresh MenonChief JusticeYes
Tay Yong KwangJudge of AppealNo
Steven ChongJudge of AppealNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Chong YongAttorney-General’s Chambers
Chin JinchengAttorney-General’s Chambers
Mark JayaratnamAttorney-General’s Chambers
B UthayachanranEssex LLC
Rupert SeahRupert Seah & Co.

4. Facts

  1. Akebal was convicted of trafficking not less than 29.06g of diamorphine.
  2. Rusli was convicted of instigating Andi to collect not less than 14.46g of diamorphine.
  3. Andi was a regular drug courier for Rusli.
  4. Andi identified Akebal as the person who handed him the drugs in his contemporaneous statement.
  5. Akebal's mobile phone was linked to the text messages and phone calls related to the drug transaction.
  6. Akebal lived near the location where the drug transaction took place.
  7. Akebal went for a urine test at Jurong police station at 12.22pm on the day of the transaction.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Mohd Akebal s/o Ghulam Jilani v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Appeal No 17 of 2019, [2019] SGCA 81
  2. Mohammed Rusli Bin Abdul Rahman v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Appeal No 20 of 2019, [2019] SGCA 81

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Andi agreed to collect drugs on behalf of Rusli.
Rusli instructed Andi to arrange drug collection.
Andi met a male Indian near Block 716, Woodlands Avenue 7, who handed him an orange plastic bag.
Andi and Rusli were arrested.
Akebal was arrested on suspicion of being the male Indian who handed the drugs to Andi.
Judgment delivered.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Identification Evidence
    • Outcome: The court found the identification evidence to be of good quality and rejected the defense of incorrect identification.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Incorrect Identification
      • Conspiracy to Frame
  2. Sentencing for Drug Trafficking
    • Outcome: The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, considering the quantity of drugs, the appellant's involvement as a business, and other aggravating factors.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Manifestly Excessive Sentence
      • Concurrent vs Consecutive Sentences
      • Aggravating Factors
    • Related Cases:
      • [2015] 5 SLR 122
      • [2017] 2 SLR 115
      • [2019] SGHC 225

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Appeal against Conviction
  2. Appeal against Sentence

9. Cause of Actions

  • Drug Trafficking
  • Instigation of Drug Trafficking
  • Possession of Methamphetamine
  • Consumption of Morphine

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Appeals
  • Drug Offences

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Vasentha d/o Joseph v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2015] 5 SLR 122SingaporeCited for the principle that the quantity of drugs is a weighty consideration in sentencing as a proxy indicator of harm.
Suventher Shanmugam v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2017] 2 SLR 115SingaporeCited for the principle that the quantity of drugs is a weighty consideration in sentencing as a proxy indicator of harm.
Soh Qiu Xia Katty v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2019] 3 SLR 568SingaporeDiscussed in relation to sentencing guidelines and seeming gaps and discrepancies.
Public Prosecutor v Lai Teck GuanHigh CourtYes[2018] 5 SLR 852SingaporeDiscussed in relation to sentencing guidelines and seeming gaps and discrepancies.
Re Salwant Singh s/o Amer SinghHigh CourtYes[2019] SGHC 225SingaporeCited for the principle that the court may have regard to other charges that the accused consented to being taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing in enhancing the sentence.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
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 (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 12Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 8(a)Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 8(b)(ii)Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 18(1)(a)Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 18(2)Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 33(1)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Diamorphine
  • Trafficking
  • Instigation
  • Identification Evidence
  • Sentencing Guidelines
  • Mobile Phone Evidence
  • Presumption of Knowledge
  • Aggravating Factors

15.2 Keywords

  • Drug Trafficking
  • Misuse of Drugs Act
  • Criminal Appeal
  • Singapore Court of Appeal
  • Identification Evidence
  • Sentencing

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Misuse of Drugs Act95
Criminal Law75
Sentencing60
Appeal50
Penal Code40

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Drug Offences
  • Appeals