Muhammad Nabill v Public Prosecutor: Misuse of Drugs Act & Prosecution's Duty to Disclose Material Witness Statements
Muhammad Nabill bin Mohd Fuad appealed against his conviction and sentence for two capital charges of drug trafficking under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The Court of Appeal of Singapore, with Sundaresh Menon CJ delivering the judgment, allowed the appeal in part. The court set aside the conviction for trafficking in diamorphine, substituting it with a conviction for possession, and also set aside the conviction for trafficking in cannabis. The court addressed the prosecution's duty to disclose statements from material witnesses and examined the issue of excessive judicial interference.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal allowed in part. Conviction for trafficking in diamorphine set aside, substituted with conviction for possession. Conviction for trafficking in cannabis set aside.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal concerning drug trafficking charges. The court examined the prosecution's duty to disclose material witness statements.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal partially lost | Partial | Chan Yi Cheng of Attorney-General’s Chambers Lau Wing Yum of Attorney-General’s Chambers Kow Keng Siong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Sarah Ong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Desmond Chong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Wu Yu Jie of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Muhammad Nabill bin Mohd Fuad | Appellant | Individual | Appeal allowed in part | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Judith Prakash | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Steven Chong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Chan Yi Cheng | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Lau Wing Yum | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Kow Keng Siong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Sarah Ong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Desmond Chong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Wu Yu Jie | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Andre Darius Jumabhoy | Peter Low & Choo LLC |
| Priscilla Chia Wen Qi | Peter Low & Choo LLC |
4. Facts
- Appellant claimed trial to two capital charges of trafficking in a controlled drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
- First charge: possession for trafficking 1,827.21g of granular/powdery substance containing not less than 63.41g of diamorphine.
- Second charge: possession for trafficking nine blocks containing not less than 2,251.90g of vegetable matter containing cannabis.
- Appellant disputed all elements for both charges at trial.
- High Court convicted Appellant of both charges and imposed the mandatory death sentence.
- On appeal, Appellant did not dispute possession and knowledge of diamorphine but disputed trafficking purpose.
- Appellant accepted possession of cannabis but contended lack of knowledge and trafficking purpose.
- Statements recorded from four witnesses were not disclosed to the Defence.
- Appellant claimed excessive judicial interference.
5. Formal Citations
- Muhammad Nabill bin Mohd Fuad v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Appeal No 40 of 2018, [2020] SGCA 25
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Faizal brought a trolley bag to the Flat. | |
| Appellant arrested. | |
| Criminal Case No 61 of 2018 commenced. | |
| Criminal Appeal No 40 of 2018 commenced. | |
| Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Nabill bin Mohd Fuad [2018] SGHC 268 issued. | |
| Hearing of appeal. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Judgment delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Prosecution's Duty of Disclosure
- Outcome: The Prosecution has an additional disclosure obligation to disclose a material witness’s statement to the Defence when it files and serves the Case for the Prosecution on the accused person (if the statutory disclosure procedure applies), or at the latest, before the trial begins (if the statutory disclosure procedure does not apply).
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2011] 3 SLR 1205
- Presumption of Trafficking
- Outcome: The Appellant rebutted the presumption of trafficking under s 17 of the MDA where the first charge of trafficking in the diamorphine is concerned.
- Category: Substantive
- Presumption of Knowledge
- Outcome: The Appellant rebutted the presumption of knowledge under s 18(2) of the MDA where the second charge is concerned.
- Category: Substantive
- Excessive Judicial Interference
- Outcome: The court found that there was no excessive judicial interference in this case.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Drug Trafficking
- Drug Possession
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Muhammad bin Kadar and another v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 1205 | Singapore | Cited for the Prosecution's disclosure obligations to the Defence. |
| Ramesh a/l Perumal v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 1003 | Singapore | Cited to define what constitutes trafficking. |
| Lim Young Sien v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 1 SLR(R) 920 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Prosecution has discretion whether or not to call a particular witness. |
| Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2012] 2 SLR 872 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Prosecution has discretion whether or not to call a particular witness. |
| Siew Yoke Keong v Public Prosecutor | Federal Court of Malaysia | No | [2013] 3 MLJ 630 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that the prosecution has a discretion as to what witnesses should be called by it. |
| Ghasem Hozouri Hassan v Public Prosecutor | High Court | No | [2019] 6 MLJ 231 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that the prosecution has a discretion as to what witnesses should be called by it. |
| Adel Muhammed El Dabbah v Attorney-General for Palestine | Privy Council | No | [1944] AC 156 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that the prosecutor has a discretion as to what witnesses should be called for the prosecution. |
| R v Russell-Jones | English Court of Appeal | No | [1995] 3 All ER 239 | England and Wales | Cited for the principles guiding the Prosecution’s discretion in calling witnesses. |
| R v Dania (Jordan) | English Court of Appeal | No | [2019] EWCA Crim 796 | England and Wales | Cited for the principles guiding the Prosecution’s discretion in calling witnesses. |
| Diehm and another v Director of Public Prosecutions (Nauru) | High Court of Australia | No | (2013) 303 ALR 42 | Australia | Cited for the principle that the prosecutor in a criminal trial must act with fairness and detachment. |
| Bianca Shandell Santo v R | New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal | No | [2009] NSWCCA 269 | Australia | Cited regarding the Prosecution's ability to cross-examine its own witness. |
| Public Prosecutor v BAU | High Court | No | [2016] 5 SLR 146 | Singapore | Cited regarding the court's discretion to permit a party to cross-examine his own witness. |
| Public Prosecutor v GCK and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] SGCA 2 | Singapore | Cited for the principles relating to the Prosecution’s burden of proof. |
| Britestone Pte Ltd v Smith & Associates Far East, Ltd | High Court | No | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 855 | Singapore | Cited for the explanation of the evidential burden. |
| Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Farid bin Mohd Yusop | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 3 SLR 16 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where the Prosecution fails to call a material and essential witness, the court has the discretion to draw an adverse presumption against it. |
| Mohamed Abdullah s/o Abdul Razak v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR(R) 922 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where the Prosecution fails to call a material and essential witness, the court has the discretion to draw an adverse presumption against it. |
| Sudha Natrajan v The Bank of East Asia Ltd | High Court | No | [2017] 1 SLR 141 | Singapore | Cited for the principles governing the drawing of an adverse inference. |
| Yoganathan R v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | High Court | No | [1999] 3 SLR(R) 346 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court should not draw an adverse inference against it for failing to call a material witness where the witness has been offered to the Defence or where the Defence is able on its own to trace the witness to testify. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ilechukwu Uchechukwu Chukwudi | Court of Appeal | No | [2015] SGCA 33 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an accused person’s lies can only amount to corroboration of guilt under carefully prescribed conditions. |
| Public Prosecutor v Chee Cheong Hin Constance | High Court | No | [2006] 2 SLR(R) 24 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that lies can only be employed to support other evidence adduced by the Prosecution and cannot by themselves make out the Prosecution’s case. |
| Gopu Jaya Raman v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 499 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the burden on an accused person to rebut a presumption which operates against him should not be so onerous that it becomes virtually impossible to discharge. |
| Adili Chibuike Ejike v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | No | [2019] 2 SLR 254 | Singapore | Cited for the elements of possession. |
| Obeng Comfort v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | No | [2017] 1 SLR 633 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where an accused person denies knowledge of the nature of drugs, it is incumbent on him to state what he thought was in his possession. |
| Browne v Dunn | House of Lords | No | [1893] 6 R 67 | United Kingdom | Cited for the rule that a point should be put to a witness to give him the opportunity to address it before it is made as a submission by the opposing party. |
| BOI v BOJ | Court of Appeal | No | [2018] 2 SLR 1156 | Singapore | Cited for the distinction between a complaint of excessive judicial interference and a complaint of apparent bias. |
| Mohammed Ali bin Johari v Public Prosecutor | High Court | No | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 1058 | Singapore | Cited for the principles regarding a judge's ability to pose questions to witnesses and counsel. |
| Yuill v Yuill | English Court of Appeal | No | [1945] P 15 | England and Wales | Cited for the expression that her vision had been “clouded by the dust of the conflict”. |
| Mohamed Affandi bin Rosli v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | No | [2019] 1 SLR 440 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it is the Prosecution’s burden to prove its case against the accused person beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Mui Jia Jun v Public Prosecutor | High Court | No | [2018] 2 SLR 1087 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Ng Chee Tiong Tony v Public Prosecutor | High Court | No | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 900 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it is the duty of the Prosecution to bring out the evidence to prove its case; it is not the judge’s duty to do so. |
| R v Kolliari Mehmet Hulusi | English Court of Appeal | No | (1973) 58 Cr App R 378 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that an accused must be allowed to give evidence without being badgered and interrupted. |
| Regina v Gavin Inns, Emma Inns | English Court of Appeal | No | [2018] EWCA Crim 1081 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that it is not a judge’s role to cross-examine an accused person. |
| Ahmad Norizan bin Mohamad v Public Prosecutor | Malaysian Court of Appeal | No | [2017] 6 MLJ 326 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that there will always be huge pressure on a witness, and especially more so in the case where the witness is the accused person, when questioned by a judge. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 33(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 17 of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 18(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 6 of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 259(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 259(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 259(1)(e) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 217 of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 230(1)(t) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 390 of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 390(1)(b)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 116 of the Evidence Act | Singapore |
| s 156 of the Evidence Act | Singapore |
| s 8(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| Australian Evidence Act 1995 (Act No 2 of 1995) (Cth) | Australia |
| s 38 of the Australian Evidence Act 1995 (Act No 2 of 1995) (Cth) | Australia |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Material witness
- Disclosure obligations
- Evidential burden
- Adverse inference
- Presumption of trafficking
- Presumption of knowledge
- Excessive judicial interference
- Wilful blindness
15.2 Keywords
- Drug trafficking
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Disclosure
- Material witness
- Presumption of trafficking
- Presumption of knowledge
- Excessive judicial interference
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 90 |
| Sentencing | 80 |
| Evidence | 70 |
| Administrative Law | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Offences
- Evidence
- Criminal Procedure