PP v Andi Ashwar & Ors: Drug Trafficking under Misuse of Drugs Act
In [2019] SGHC 44, the High Court of Singapore heard the case of Public Prosecutor v Andi Ashwar Bin Salihin, Mohd Akebal s/o Ghulam Jilani, and Mohammed Rusli Bin Abdul Rahman, involving charges of drug trafficking under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Andi and Akebal were convicted as charged. Rusli's charge was amended to instigating Andi to traffic in a reduced amount of diamorphine, and he was convicted on the amended charge.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Andi Ashwar and Mohd Akebal convicted as charged. Mohammed Rusli Bin Abdul Rahman convicted on amended charge.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Andi Ashwar, Akebal, and Rusli faced drug trafficking charges. Andi and Akebal were convicted as charged. Rusli's charge was amended, and he was convicted on the reduced charge.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Prosecution | Government Agency | Partial | Partial | Wong Woon Kwong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Desmond Chong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Michelle Lu of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Mohd Akebal s/o Ghulam Jilani | Defendant | Individual | Lost | Lost | |
| Mohammed Rusli Bin Abdul Rahman | Defendant | Individual | Partial | Partial | |
| Andi Ashwar Bin Salihin | Defendant | Individual | Lost | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Seng Onn | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Wong Woon Kwong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Desmond Chong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Michelle Lu | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Lee Yoon Tet Luke | Luke Lee & Co |
| Prasad s/o Karunakarn | K Prasad & Co |
| Suresh s/o Damodara | Damodara Hazra LLP |
| Rajan Sanjiv Kumar | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Josephine Iezu Costan | David Nayar and Vadan |
| Ramesh Chandr Tiwary | Ramesh Tiwary |
| Satwant Singh s/o Sarban Singh | Satwant & Associates |
4. Facts
- Andi, Akebal, and Rusli were involved in a drug transaction on 22 August 2014.
- Rusli instructed Andi to collect obat (street name for diamorphine) from Akebal.
- Akebal placed an orange plastic bag containing two bundles of granular/powdery substance in Andi's car.
- The bundles contained not less than 29.06g of diamorphine in total.
- Andi and Rusli were arrested by CNB officers shortly after the transaction.
- Akebal was arrested later that day.
- Andi admitted that he knew that the orange plastic bag contained diamorphine and that he intended to traffic in them by passing them to Rusli.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Andi Ashwar bin Salihin and others, Criminal Case No 28 of 2017, [2019] SGHC 44
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Rusli instructed Andi to collect obat from Bai/Bala. | |
| Rusli texted Akebal's phone number to Andi. | |
| Andi arranged to collect obat from Akebal at Block 716 Woodlands Avenue 7. | |
| Akebal placed an orange plastic bag containing two bundles of granular/powdery substance on the front passenger seat of Andi’s car. | |
| Andi and Rusli arrested by CNB officers. | |
| Akebal was arrested by CNB officers. | |
| Trial began. | |
| Trial continued. | |
| Trial continued. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Drug Trafficking
- Outcome: Andi and Akebal were convicted of drug trafficking. Rusli was convicted of abetting drug trafficking on an amended charge.
- Category: Substantive
- Identification Evidence
- Outcome: The court found the identification evidence of Senior Station Inspector David Ng and Andi to be of good quality and rejected Akebal's defence of misidentification.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [1998] 3 SLR(R) 142
- Presumption of Possession
- Outcome: The court found that Andi failed to rebut the s 18(1)(a) MDA presumption and was legally presumed to have had possession of both bundles of obat.
- Category: Substantive
- Wilful Blindness
- Outcome: The court found that the Prosecution failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Rusli had knowledge of both bundles of drugs by virtue of him being wilfully blind.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2008] 1 SLR(R) 1
8. Remedies Sought
- Punishment under the Misuse of Drugs Act
9. Cause of Actions
- Drug Trafficking
- Abetment by Instigation
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Muhammad Ridzuan bin Md Ali v Public Prosecutor and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 721 | Singapore | Cited for the elements required for a charge of trafficking under s 5(1)(a) of the MDA. |
| Fun Seong Cheng v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR(R) 796 | Singapore | Cited for the requirement that to prove possession of drugs, the Prosecution must prove that the accused had physical control over the drugs and knew of the existence of the thing itself. |
| Heng Aik Ren Thomas v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 142 | Singapore | Cited for the three-step test in dealing with identification evidence. |
| Ng Kwee Leong v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 281 | Singapore | Cited to allow for human fallibility in recollection. |
| Chan Heng Kong and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] SGCA 18 | Singapore | Cited for the actus reus of instigation, being active suggestion, support, stimulation or encouragement of Andi’s trafficking offence. |
| Public Prosecutor v Koh Peng Kiat | High Court | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 753 | Singapore | Cited for the mens rea of the instigation, being knowledge of all essential matters constituting the primary offence. |
| Ali bin Mohamad Bahashwan v Public Prosecutor and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 610 | Singapore | Cited for the requirement that Rusli, being the intended recipient of the drugs, intended to traffic in the drugs (as opposed to consuming it). |
| Public Prosecutor v Mohamad Yazid Bin Md Yusof and others | High Court | Yes | [2016] SGHC 102 | Singapore | Cited for the mens rea of the instigation, being knowledge of all essential matters constituting the primary offence. |
| Public Prosecutor v Zulkarnain bin Kemat | High Court | Yes | [2018] SGHC 161 | Singapore | Cited for the requirement that it must be shown that the abettor had knowledge of the nature of the drugs in question. |
| Tan Kiam Peng v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 1 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that wilful blindness was treated as the legal equivalent of actual knowledge. |
| Roper v Taylor’s Central Garages (Exeter) Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1951] 2 SLR 284 | Singapore | Cited to distinguish wilful blindness from constructive knowledge. |
| Mohamed Affandi bin Rosli v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] SGCA 87 | Singapore | Cited to show that without objective evidence of what was said during the calls, the phone records are plainly insufficient to show that Rusli was acting under Azman’s instructions. |
| Sakthivel Punithavathi v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 983 | Singapore | Cited to emphasize that the criterion of proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt prohibits the trial judge from filling in the gaps in the Prosecution’s case on her own initiative and through conjecture or supposition. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Obat
- Drug Trafficking
- CNB
- Bundle
- Wilful Blindness
- Presumption of Possession
- Identification Evidence
15.2 Keywords
- Drug Trafficking
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Diamorphine
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 100 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Evidence Law | 60 |
| Criminal Procedure | 40 |
| Contract Law | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Offences