Mohammad Farid v Public Prosecutor: Trafficking Diamorphine & Courier Status under Misuse of Drugs Act

In 2020, the Singapore Court of Appeal heard the appeals of Mohammad Farid bin Batra and Ranjit Singh Gill Manjeet Singh against their convictions for trafficking diamorphine. Farid appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing he lacked intent and was merely a courier. Ranjit contested his knowledge of the drugs. The Court upheld Farid's conviction but found him to be a courier, though this did not affect his sentence due to lack of prosecutorial certificate. Ranjit's appeal and motion to adduce further evidence were dismissed, with the Court addressing principles for allegations against counsel.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Farid's appeal against conviction is dismissed, but the court finds he was a courier. Ranjit's appeal and motion are dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore Court of Appeal reviews conviction for trafficking diamorphine, addressing courier status and inadequate legal assistance claims.

1.7 Decision Date

25 March 2020

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Public Prosecutor	Respondent	Government Agency	Successful in defending the appeals	Won	Terence Chua of Attorney-General’s Chambers Chong Yong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Jason Chua of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Mohammad Farid bin Batra	Appellant, Applicant	Individual	Appeal against conviction dismissed	Lost	Eugene Thuraisingam of Eugene Thuraisingam LLP Thangavelu of Thangavelu LLC Syazana Yahya of Eugene Thuraisingam LLP
Ranjit Singh Gill Manjeet Singh	Appellant, Applicant	Individual	Appeal dismissed	Lost	Too Xing Ji of BMS Law LLC Bachoo Mohan Singh of BMS Law LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Sundaresh Menon	Chief Justice	No
Judith Prakash	Justice of the Court of Appeal	No
Tay Yong Kwang	Justice of the Court of Appeal	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Terence Chua	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Chong Yong	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Jason Chua	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Eugene Thuraisingam	Eugene Thuraisingam LLP
Thangavelu	Thangavelu LLC
Syazana Yahya	Eugene Thuraisingam LLP
Too Xing Ji	BMS Law LLC
Bachoo Mohan Singh	BMS Law LLC

4. Facts

Farid was arrested in possession of 35.21g of diamorphine.
Ranjit delivered a bag containing the drugs to Farid.
Farid admitted he knew the bag contained heroin and intended to distribute it.
Ranjit claimed he did not know the contents of the bag.
Farid had drug paraphernalia in his unit, including weighing scales and empty plastic bags.
Ranjit had previously delivered illegal items for Siva.
Farid stated he would wait for Abang to call him to give him instructions to deliver the drugs to Abang’s clients.

5. Formal Citations

Mohammad Farid bin Batra v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Appeal No 17 of 2016, [2020] SGCA 19
Ranjit Singh Gill Manjeet Singh v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Appeal No 19 of 2016, [2020] SGCA 19
Ranjit Singh Gill Manjeet Singh v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 5 of 2017, [2020] SGCA 19
Mohammad Farid bin Batra v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 4 of 2018, [2020] SGCA 19
Public Prosecutor v Ranjit Singh Gill Menjeet Singh and another, , [2016] SGHC 217
Ranjit Singh Gill Menjeet Singh v Public Prosecutor, , [2019] SGHC 75

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2014-02-06	CNB officers conduct surveillance on Farid.
2014-02-06	Ranjit alights from bus and places plastic bag on Farid's car seat.
2014-02-06	CNB officers intercept Farid's car and arrest him.
2014-02-06	CNB officers intercept the bus and arrest Ranjit.
2014-02-07	Cautioned statement recorded from Farid.
2014-02-07	Cautioned statement recorded from Ranjit.
2014-02-09	Long statements recorded from Farid.
2014-02-09	Long statements recorded from Ranjit.
2014-02-14	Long statements recorded from Farid.
2014-02-14	Long statements recorded from Ranjit.
2016-07-01	Farid files notice of appeal against conviction and sentence.
2016-07-05	Ranjit files his appeal.
2016-11-16	Farid files his petition of appeal.
2017-04-17	Ranjit files Criminal Motion No 5 of 2017.
2017-08-18	Criminal Motion No 5 of 2017 first heard.
2018-01-19	Farid filed Criminal Motion No 4 of 2018.
2018-02-12	Court grants Farid’s application to amend his petition of appeal.
2018-02-12	CCA 17/2016 and CCA 19/2016 came before the court for hearing.
2018-03-12	Ranjit files an affidavit.
2018-03-20	Mr Retnam files an affidavit.
2018-03-26	The matter returned before the court for hearing.
2018-03-26	Court remitted the case to the Judge to take further evidence on Ranjit’s allegations against his trial counsel.
2018-09-25	Remittal hearing heard by the Judge.
2019-03-19	The Judge gave her decision on the remittal hearing.
2019-10-17	Court reserved judgment in Farid’s appeal and dismissed Ranjit’s appeal.
2020-03-26	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Trafficking of Controlled Drugs
- Outcome: Farid's conviction for drug trafficking was upheld.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Possession of controlled drugs for the purpose of trafficking
  - Presumption of trafficking
Courier Status under Misuse of Drugs Act
- Outcome: The court found Farid to be a courier, but this did not affect his sentence.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Definition of courier
  - Role in drug transaction
- Related Cases:
  - [2015] SGHC 193
  - [2019] 1 SLR 724
Knowledge of Nature of Drugs
- Outcome: The court found that Ranjit failed to rebut the presumption that he knew the nature of the drugs.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Presumption of knowledge
  - Rebutting the presumption
- Related Cases:
  - [2017] 1 SLR 633
Admissibility of Evidence
- Outcome: The court found that the relevant Disputed Evidence was admissible.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Relevance of evidence
  - Cogency of evidence
- Related Cases:
  - [1996] 2 SLR(R) 178
Inadequate Legal Assistance
- Outcome: The court found that Ranjit's assertions about inadequate legal assistance from trial counsel have no merit.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Competence of counsel
  - Impact on outcome
- Related Cases:
  - [1993] 2 SLR(R) 327
  - [2010] 4 SLR 534
  - [1993] 1 WLR 1181
  - [2011] 1 MLJ 471
  - (1990) 19 NSWLR 677
  - (2002) 212 CLR 124
  - (2006) 225 ALR 161
  - [2006] 1 NZLR 730
  - 466 US 668 (1984)
  - [2000] 1 SCR 520
  - [1988] OJ No 35

8. Remedies Sought

Appeal against conviction
Appeal against sentence

9. Cause of Actions

Drug Trafficking

10. Practice Areas

Criminal Appeals
Drug Trafficking

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Public Prosecutor v Yogaras Poongavanam	High Court	Yes	[2015] SGHC 193	Singapore	Cited to define the role of a courier under s 33B(2)(a) of the MDA.
Tan Meng Jee v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1996] 2 SLR(R) 178	Singapore	Cited for the approach to determine whether evidence is sufficiently probative to be admitted.
Muhammad bin Kadar and another v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2011] 3 SLR 1205	Singapore	Cited regarding the Prosecution's obligations to disclose information.
Ladd v Marshall	Not Available	Yes	[1954] 1 WLR 1489	United Kingdom	Cited for the criteria for the admission of new evidence at the hearing of the appeal.
Zamri bin Mohd Tahir v Public Prosecutor	Not Available	Yes	[2019] 1 SLR 724	Singapore	Cited to determine whether the accused’s acts in relation to the particular consignment of drugs which form the subject matter of the charge against him.
Ranjit Singh Gill Menjeet Singh v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2019] SGHC 75	Singapore	Cited for the Judge’s grounds of decision on remittal.
Juma’at bin Samad v Public Prosecutor	Not Available	Yes	[1993] 2 SLR(R) 327	Singapore	Cited for the possibility that inadequate legal assistance of counsel could be used as a ground of appeal in criminal appeals.
Zhou Tong and others v Public Prosecutor	Not Available	Yes	[2010] 4 SLR 534	Singapore	Cited for inadequate legal assistance of counsel as a ground of appeal.
Regina v Clinton	Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)	Yes	[1993] 1 WLR 1181	United Kingdom	Cited for the position that it may be open to an appellate court to set aside the verdict by reason of the terms of section 2(1)(a) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (c 19) (UK).
Anderson v HM Advocate	High Court of Justiciary	Yes	1996 SLT 155	Scotland	Cited for the general rule that counsel have to follow their clients’ instructions and opined that when counsel’s conduct of the trial is raised as a ground of appeal, the conduct must be such as to have resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
Shamim Reza bin Abdul Samad v Public Prosecutor	Not Available	Yes	[2011] 1 MLJ 471	Malaysia	Cited for the position of whether counsel’s conduct of the case was flagrantly incompetent given the circumstances of the case and whether such conduct deprived the accused person of a fair trial, thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice.
R v Ho Ling & Anor	Not Available	Yes	[1996] 1 HKC 733	Hong Kong	Cited for the position in Clinton but with a focus on how decisive the effect of counsel’s error on the trial was and whether the appellant had a fair trial.
R v Cheung Wai Kwong & Anor	Not Available	Yes	[1997] 3 HKC 496	Hong Kong	Cited for the position in Clinton but with a focus on how decisive the effect of counsel’s error on the trial was and whether the appellant had a fair trial.
Chong Ching Yuen v HKSAR	Not Available	Yes	[2004] HKCU 464	Hong Kong	Cited for the position in Clinton but with a focus on how decisive the effect of counsel’s error on the trial was and whether the appellant had a fair trial.
R v Birks	New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal	Yes	(1990) 19 NSWLR 677	Australia	Cited for the relevant principles for appeals based on inadequate assistance of counsel.
TKWJ v R	High Court of Australia	Yes	(2002) 212 CLR 124	Australia	Cited for the descriptions of counsel’s conduct of a trial must not distract attention from the question whether there has been a miscarriage of justice, taking into consideration the totality of the evidence at the trial.
Nudd v R	High Court of Australia	Yes	(2006) 225 ALR 161	Australia	Cited for the descriptions of counsel’s conduct of a trial must not distract attention from the question whether there has been a miscarriage of justice, taking into consideration the totality of the evidence at the trial.
R v Sungsuwan	Supreme Court of New Zealand	Yes	[2006] 1 NZLR 730	New Zealand	Cited for the approach to appeals on the basis of inadequate assistance of counsel.
McMann v Richardson	Supreme Court	Yes	90 SCt 1441 (1970)	United States	Cited for the assistance of counsel must be effective for this right to serve any purpose.
Strickland v Washington	Supreme Court	Yes	466 US 668 (1984)	United States	Cited for the standard for determining claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.
R v GDB	Supreme Court of Canada	Yes	[2000] 1 SCR 520	Canada	Cited for the Canadian courts follow the United States’ two-pronged Strickland test.
R v Garofoli	Ontario Court of Appeal	Yes	[1988] OJ No 35	Canada	Cited for the Canadian courts follow the United States’ two-pronged Strickland test.
Obeng Comfort v Public Prosecutor	Not Available	Yes	[2017] 1 SLR 633	Singapore	Cited for the principles to rebut the presumption of knowledge under s 18(2) of the MDA.

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(2)	Singapore
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 33(1)	Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 17	Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 18(2)	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 392	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Diamorphine
Trafficking
Courier
Misuse of Drugs Act
Presumption of Knowledge
Inadequate Legal Assistance
Statement of Agreed Facts
Remittal Hearing

15.2 Keywords

Diamorphine
Drug Trafficking
Courier
Singapore
Criminal Appeal
Misuse of Drugs Act

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Misuse of Drugs Act	95
Criminal Law	90
Criminal Procedure	70
Courier	60
Evidence Law	60
Statutory Interpretation	50
Inadequate Legal Assistance	40
Administrative Law	30

16. Subjects

Criminal Law
Drug Trafficking
Criminal Procedure