Public Prosecutor v Sulaiman bin Jumari: Trafficking Diamorphine under the Misuse of Drugs Act
In Public Prosecutor v Sulaiman bin Jumari, the High Court of Singapore convicted Sulaiman bin Jumari on 9 September 2019 for possession of not less than 52.75 grams of diamorphine for the purpose of trafficking, an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The court found that Sulaiman knowingly possessed the drugs and intended to traffic them, leading to the imposition of the mandatory death sentence. The primary legal issue was whether the accused knowingly possessed the drugs in question.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Accused convicted and sentenced to death.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Sulaiman bin Jumari was convicted of possessing diamorphine for trafficking under the Misuse of Drugs Act, resulting in a mandatory death sentence. The key issue was whether he knowingly possessed the drugs.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Prosecution | Government Agency | Judgment for Prosecution | Won | |
| Sulaiman bin Jumari | Defendant | Individual | Conviction | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Aedit Abdullah | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| April Phang | Prosecution |
| Desmond Chong | Prosecution |
| Zulhafni Zulkeflee | Prosecution |
| Koh Weijin Leon | N S Kang |
| Lim Wei Ming Keith | Quahe Woo & Palmer LLC |
| Anand Nalachandran | TSMP Law Corporation |
4. Facts
- The Accused was arrested on 23 June 2016 in a rented room at Sunflower Grandeur.
- 22 packets of drugs were recovered from a wardrobe, bedside table, and bed in the room.
- The drugs in question consisted of 49.86 grams of diamorphine found in the wardrobe.
- The Accused's DNA was not found on the three packets containing the drugs in question.
- The Accused admitted in a contemporaneous statement that the drugs belonged to him and were for smoking and sale.
- The Accused had keys to the room where the drugs were found.
- The Accused was found in possession of drug trafficking paraphernalia.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Sulaiman bin Jumari, Criminal Case No 48 of 2018, [2019] SGHC 210
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Accused arrested at Sunflower Grandeur, Singapore | |
| Drugs recovered from the room | |
| Trial began | |
| Trial continues | |
| Trial continues | |
| Trial continues | |
| Trial continues | |
| Trial continues | |
| Trial continues | |
| Trial continues | |
| Trial continues | |
| Trial continues | |
| Trial continues | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Possession of Controlled Drugs
- Outcome: The court found that the accused had actual possession of the drugs and knew that the drugs were in his room.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Actual possession
- Knowledge of item held in possession
- Inadvertent possession
- Knowledge of Nature of Drugs
- Outcome: The court found that the accused knew that the drugs in question were diamorphine.
- Category: Substantive
- Possession for Trafficking
- Outcome: The court found that the accused possessed the drugs for the purpose of trafficking.
- Category: Substantive
- Admissibility of Contemporaneous Statement
- Outcome: The court admitted the contemporaneous statement, finding that it was given voluntarily and reliably.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Voluntariness of statement
- Inducement
- Drug withdrawal symptoms
- Presumption of Possession
- Outcome: The court found that the presumption under s 18(1)(c) of the MDA did not apply in this case.
- Category: Substantive
- Presumption of Knowledge
- Outcome: The court found that the presumption of knowledge under s 18(2) of the MDA would have operated against the Accused, and it would not have been tenable for him to rebut it.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Conviction
- Sentencing under the Misuse of Drugs Act
9. Cause of Actions
- Drug Trafficking
- Possession of Controlled Drugs
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poon Soh Har and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1977–1978] SLR(R) 97 | Singapore | Cited regarding the presumption of possession when the accused does not have all the keys to the premises where the controlled drugs were found. |
| Muhammad bin Kadar and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 1205 | Singapore | Cited for the common law discretion to exclude relevant evidence if its prejudicial effect exceeded the probative value. |
| Chai Chien Wei Kelvin v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 619 | Singapore | Cited for the test of voluntariness of a statement, involving both an objective and subjective element. |
| Poh Kay Keong v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR(R) 887 | Singapore | Cited regarding the interpretation of 'having reference to the charge against the accused' in relation to inducements. |
| Public Prosecutor v Dahalan bin Ladaewa | High Court | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR(R) 124 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that drug withdrawal could be a basis for finding that a statement was given involuntarily. |
| Adili Chibuike Ejike v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] SGCA 38 | Singapore | Cited for clarifying the law in relation to the element of possession for the purposes of offences under s 5 and s 7 of the MDA. |
| Zainal bin Hamad v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 1119 | Singapore | Cited in relation to knowledge of the existence of an item versus knowledge of the specific drug. |
| Obeng Comfort v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 633 | Singapore | Cited in relation to knowledge of the existence of an item versus knowledge of the specific drug. |
| Public Prosecutor v Tan Lye Heng | High Court | Yes | [2017] 5 SLR 564 | Singapore | Cited for the discussion on the scope of the decision in Poon Soh Har regarding the presumption of possession. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| section 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| section 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| section 33(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| section 33B of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| section 267 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| section 258 of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| section 18(1)(c) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| section 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Trafficking
- Possession
- Contemporaneous statement
- Withdrawal symptoms
- Presumption
- Inducement
- Voluntariness
- Drug withdrawal
- Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale
- COWS score
15.2 Keywords
- Drug trafficking
- Diamorphine
- Singapore
- Criminal law
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Possession
- Trafficking
- Death penalty
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Drug Crimes | 80 |
| Criminal Law | 70 |
| Criminal Procedure | 60 |
| Evidence | 50 |
| Admissibility of evidence | 50 |
| Sentencing | 40 |
| Adverse inferences | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Evidence
- Sentencing