Mohammad Azli v PP: Trafficking, Misuse of Drugs Act & Abetment
In [2020] SGCA 39, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard appeals related to Criminal Case No 11 of 2018, involving Mohammad Azli bin Mohammad Salleh, Roszaidi bin Osman, and Aishamudin bin Jamaludin, who were charged under the Misuse of Drugs Act for trafficking diamorphine. Azli and Roszaidi appealed against their conviction and sentence, while the Prosecution appealed against the amendment of the charge against Aishamudin. The court dismissed Roszaidi's appeal against conviction but remitted the issue of alternative sentencing. The court allowed Azli's appeal, acquitting him of the charge, finding that the Prosecution failed to prove he knew the drugs were heroin.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore Court of Appeal judgment on drug trafficking charges under the Misuse of Drugs Act, addressing abetment and joint possession.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Partially Dismissed | Lost | Hay Hung Chun of Attorney-General’s Chambers Soh Weiqi of Attorney-General’s Chambers Yan Jiakang of Attorney-General’s Chambers Sarah Ong of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Roszaidi bin Osman | Appellant | Individual | Appeal against conviction dismissed; issue of sentence remitted | Partial | |
| Mohammad Azli bin Mohammad Salleh | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | |
| Aishamudin bin Jamaludin | Other | Individual | Outcome to be determined in a separate judgment | Reserved |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Judith Prakash | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Steven Chong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Hay Hung Chun | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Soh Weiqi | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Yan Jiakang | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Sarah Ong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Suang Wijaya | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
| Eugene Singarajah Thuraisingam | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
| Johannes Hadi | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
| Raheja Binte Jamaludin | Abdul Rahman Law Corporation |
| Abdul Rahman Bin Mohd Hanipah | Abdul Rahman Law Corporation |
| Cheong Jun Ming Mervyn | Advocatus Law LLP |
| Lau Kah Hee | Derrick Wong & Lim BC LLP |
| Melvin Loh | Continental Law LLP |
4. Facts
- Azli drove Roszaidi to Bulim Avenue to collect a red plastic bag.
- The red plastic bag contained diamorphine and methamphetamine.
- Roszaidi handed a bag containing diamorphine to his wife, Azidah.
- Azli claimed he thought Roszaidi was only collecting methamphetamine.
- Drug paraphernalia was found in Azli’s car.
- Roszaidi initially stated Azli was just a driver, then implicated him, then recanted.
- Azli stated he knew Roszaidi was collecting 'ice'.
5. Formal Citations
- Mohammad Azli bin Mohammad Salleh v Public Prosecutor and another appeal and other matters, , [2020] SGCA 39
- , Criminal Appeal No 1 of 2019, Criminal Appeal No 1 of 2019
- , Criminal Motion No 16 of 2019, Criminal Motion No 16 of 2019
- , Criminal Appeal No 2 of 2019, Criminal Appeal No 2 of 2019
- , Criminal Motion No 17 of 2019, Criminal Motion No 17 of 2019
- , Criminal Case No 11 of 2018, Criminal Case No 11 of 2018
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Mohammad Azli drove Roszaidi to Bulim Avenue. | |
| Roszaidi collected a red plastic bag from Aishamudin and Suhaizam. | |
| Azli drove Roszaidi to Jurong West, where Roszaidi handed drugs to Azidah. | |
| Azidah was arrested by CNB officers. | |
| Azli and Roszaidi were arrested at different locations. | |
| Criminal Appeal No 1 of 2019 filed. | |
| Criminal Appeal No 2 of 2019 filed. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Court of Appeal heard the appeals and applications. | |
| Judgment delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Abetment of Trafficking
- Outcome: The court found that the Prosecution failed to establish the element of knowledge against Azli, acquitting him of the charge.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Knowledge of the nature of the drug
- Intentional aiding of the primary offence
- Related Cases:
- [2016] 1 SLR 753
- [2012] SGCA 18
- Joint Possession of Controlled Drugs
- Outcome: The court found that Azli was in joint possession of the drugs but rebutted the presumption that he knew the drugs were heroin.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Knowledge and consent of possession
- Application of s 18(4) of the Misuse of Drugs Act
- Related Cases:
- [2019] 2 SLR 254
- [2014] 3 SLR 721
- [2019] SGCA 73
- Alternative Sentencing Regime
- Outcome: The court remitted the issue of whether Roszaidi qualified for alternative sentencing to the Judge for additional psychiatric evidence.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Eligibility for alternative sentencing under s 33B(3) of the MDA
- Abnormality of mind substantially impairing mental responsibility
- Related Cases:
- [2019] 2 SLR 216
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against Conviction
- Appeal against Sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Drug Trafficking
- Abetment
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
- Drug Offences
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ramesh a/l Perumal v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 1003 | Singapore | Cited to support the argument that an offender acting with the intent to return drugs to the trafficker might not fall within the scope of the offence of trafficking. |
| Public Prosecutor v Aishamudin bin Jamaludin and others | High Court | Yes | [2019] SGHC 8 | Singapore | Cited for the Judge’s finding that the red plastic bag contained the Drugs. |
| Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 216 | Singapore | Cited for the three cumulative requirements under s 33B(3)(b) of the MDA. |
| Zainudin bin Mohamed v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 449 | Singapore | Cited to support the interpretation of actions that fall within the ambit of s 33B(3)(a) of the MDA. |
| Phua Han Chuan Jeffery v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 706 | Singapore | Cited to support the possibility that someone mentally impaired may seem normal and lack the will to resist committing the offence. |
| Rosman bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 10 | Singapore | Cited to contrast with cases where the offender simply made a conscious and informed decision to commit the offence. |
| Public Prosecutor v Koh Peng Kiat | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 753 | Singapore | Cited for the elements of abetment by intentionally aiding under s 107 of the Penal Code. |
| Chan Heng Kong and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] SGCA 18 | Singapore | Cited to establish that abetment under s 12 of the MDA carries the same meaning as in s 107 of the Penal Code. |
| Adili Chibuike Ejike v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 254 | Singapore | Cited for the element of possession requiring knowledge of physical possession of the thing that turned out to be a drug. |
| Obeng Comfort v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 633 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of secondary possession. |
| Muhammad Ridzuan bin Md Ali v Public Prosecutor and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 721 | Singapore | Cited for the requirement of 'power or authority' for consent under s 18(4) of the MDA. |
| Moad Fadzir bin Mustaffa v Public Prosecutor and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] SGCA 73 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a minimal or distant role in the drug transaction would not amount to 'consent' under s 18(4). |
| Tan Kiam Peng v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 1 | Singapore | Cited for the purpose of presumptions of possession and knowledge under ss 18(1) and 18(2) of the MDA. |
| Public Prosecutor v Zulkarnain bin Kemat and others | High Court | Yes | [2018] SGHC 161 | Singapore | Cited as a case where the High Court applied the s 18(2) presumption after finding joint possession under s 18(4). |
| Public Prosecutor v Suthakar J Raman and another | High Court | Yes | [2017] SGHC 142 | Singapore | Cited as a case where the High Court applied the s 18(2) presumption after finding joint possession under s 18(4). |
| Public Prosecutor v Abdul Haleem bin Abdul Karim and another | High Court | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 734 | Singapore | Cited as a case where the High Court applied the s 18(2) presumption after finding joint possession under s 18(4). |
| Public Prosecutor v Mas Swan bin Adnan and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 3 SLR 527 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it remains incumbent upon the court to consider any available defence that could reasonably be made out on the evidence. |
| Mohd Suief bin Ismail v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 2 SLR 893 | Singapore | Cited for the need to qualify the seeming breadth of the holding in Mas Swan. |
| Browne v Dunn | N/A | Yes | (1893) 6 R 67 | N/A | Cited for the rule in Browne v Dunn. |
| Criminal Code of Canada | N/A | Yes | RSC 1985, c C–46 (Can) | Canada | Cited for comparison with s 18(4) of the MDA. |
| R v Thompson | N/A | Yes | [2010] OJ No 2266 | Canada | Cited for the principle that all forms of possession require knowledge of the nature of the thing. |
| R v Morelli | N/A | Yes | [2010] 1 SCR 253 | Canada | Cited for the principle that all forms of possession require knowledge of the nature of the thing. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lim Ah Poh | N/A | Yes | [1991] 2 SLR(R) 307 | Singapore | Cited for the requirement of 'some dealing between the parties in relation to the drug' for consent under s 18(4) 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 5(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 12 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 34 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 107 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 22 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 23 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 392(1) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 18 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 33B(3) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Methamphetamine
- Abetment
- Joint Possession
- Trafficking
- Wilful Blindness
- Alternative Sentencing
- Mere Courier
- Knowledge
- Consent
15.2 Keywords
- Drug Trafficking
- Abetment
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Joint Possession
- Criminal Law
- Singapore
- Appeal
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 70 |
| Appeal | 60 |
| Statutory Interpretation | 50 |
| Evidence Law | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Abetment
- Criminal Procedure