Zamri bin Mohd Tahir v Public Prosecutor: Trafficking of Diamorphine & Application of Courier Exception under Misuse of Drugs Act
Zamri bin Mohd Tahir appealed to the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore against his conviction and sentence in the High Court for possessing not less than 40.37g of diamorphine for the purpose of trafficking. The High Court Judge held that the alternative sentencing regime under s 33B(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act was unavailable to the appellant. The Court of Appeal, comprising Sundaresh Menon CJ, Judith Prakash JA, and Tay Yong Kwang JA, dismissed the appeal against conviction and sentence, finding the conviction well-founded and no basis to interfere with the mandatory sentence, given the Public Prosecutor’s decision not to issue a certificate of substantive assistance. The court disagreed with the Judge’s finding that the appellant was not a courier.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The appeal concerned a conviction for possessing diamorphine for trafficking. The court addressed the application of the 'courier exception' under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zamri bin Mohd Tahir | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Eugene Thuraisingam, Ho Thiam Huat |
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | April Phang, Zhou Yihong |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Judith Prakash | Judge of Appeal | No |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Eugene Thuraisingam | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
| Ho Thiam Huat | T H Ho Law Chambers |
| April Phang | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Zhou Yihong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- The appellant was convicted of possessing not less than 40.37g of diamorphine for trafficking.
- The appellant was arrested on 14 October 2014 while exiting a carpark in a van after collecting five black bundles.
- Drug paraphernalia used for repacking drugs were seized from the appellant at the time of his arrest.
- The appellant stated he had dealt with three previous consignments for one “Abang” prior to his arrest.
- For the Third Consignment, Abang instructed the appellant to repack the drugs for distribution, and the appellant did so.
- At the point of the appellant’s arrest, he had done nothing more than collect and transport the drugs.
- The appellant's evidence was that he intended to do whatever he might have been instructed by Abang to do.
5. Formal Citations
- Zamri bin Mohd Tahir v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Appeal No 15 of 2017, [2019] SGCA 9
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant arrested after collecting five black bundles of granular substance. | |
| Criminal Appeal No 15 of 2017 filed. | |
| Hearing fixed. | |
| Appellant furnished further information in a statement. | |
| Public Prosecutor confirmed decision not to issue a certificate of substantive assistance. | |
| Hearing before the Court of Appeal. | |
| Grounds of Decision issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Whether the appellant's involvement in the offence was restricted to the acts of a courier under s 33B(2)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act
- Outcome: The court found that the Judge erred in finding that the accused was not a courier, but this did not affect the outcome of the appeal because the Public Prosecutor did not issue a certificate of substantive assistance.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2018] 1 SLR 449
- [2017] 3 SLR 66
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Possession of diamorphine for the purpose of trafficking
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zainudin bin Mohamed v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 449 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that division and packing of drugs, if not merely preparatory to delivery but an antecedent step to facilitating distribution to more than one recipient, does not fall within the scope of s 33B(2)(a)(iii) of the MDA. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ranjit Singh Gill Menjeet Singh and another | High Court | Yes | [2017] 3 SLR 66 | Singapore | Cited to distinguish the present case, noting that in Ranjit Singh, the court was able to conclude on the evidence that the accused had resolved to divide and repack the drugs. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 33B | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Trafficking
- Courier exception
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Certificate of substantive assistance
- Consignment
- Repacking
- Alternative sentencing regime
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Singapore
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Courier
- Diamorphine
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Sentencing
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Law
- Statutory Offences
- Misuse of Drugs Act