Mohammad Rizwan v Public Prosecutor: Drug Trafficking, Abetment, Adducing Fresh Evidence
Mohammad Rizwan bin Akbar Husain and Saminathan Selvaraju were convicted in the High Court with Zulkarnain bin Kemat for drug trafficking offenses under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Rizwan was convicted of abetting Zulkarnain to possess diamorphine for trafficking, while Saminathan was convicted of trafficking diamorphine by delivering it to Zulkarnain. The Court of Appeal dismissed their appeals, upholding the convictions and the mandatory death sentences imposed due to the absence of certificates of substantive assistance from the Public Prosecutor.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeals dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Rizwan and Saminathan appeal drug trafficking convictions. The court considers abetment, identification evidence, and admissibility of fresh evidence, ultimately dismissing the appeals.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Teo Siu Ming of Attorney-General’s Chambers Chan Yi Cheng of Attorney-General’s Chambers Mohamed Faizal SC of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Mohammad Rizwan bin Akbar Husain | Appellant, Applicant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Saminathan Selvaraju | Appellant, Applicant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Zulkarnain bin Kemat | Other | Individual | Convicted | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Judith Prakash | Judge of Appeal | No |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge of Appeal | Yes |
| Woo Bih Li | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Teo Siu Ming | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Chan Yi Cheng | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Mohamed Faizal SC | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Chia Soo Michael | MSC Law Corporation |
| Hany Soh Hui Bin | MSC Law Corporation |
| Wang Shi Mei | MSC Law Corporation |
| Rakesh s/o Pokkan Vasu | Gomez & Vasu LLC |
| Nevinjit Singh J | Gomez & Vasu LLC |
| Winnifred Gomez | Gomez & Vasu |
| Thangavelu | Thangavelu LLC |
| Yeo Ying Hao | Gomez & Vasu LLC |
4. Facts
- Rizwan instructed Zulkarnain to collect and transport 35 bundles of granular substance.
- The 35 bundles contained not less than 301.6 grammes of diamorphine.
- Saminathan delivered the 35 bundles of granular substance to Zulkarnain.
- Zulkarnain was arrested with the 35 bundles of drugs.
- Rizwan fled Singapore illegally in the boot of a car.
- Saminathan's DNA was found on two of the 35 bundles of drugs.
- Zulkarnain identified Rizwan as 'Boss' from a set of photographs.
5. Formal Citations
- Mohammad Rizwan bin Akbar Husain v Public Prosecutor and another appeal and other matters, , [2020] SGCA 45
- Mohammad Rizwan bin Akbar Husain v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Appeal No 9 of 2018, Criminal Appeal No 9 of 2018
- Saminathan Selvaraju v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Appeal No 13 of 2018, Criminal Appeal No 13 of 2018
- Saminathan Selvaraju v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 4 of 2019, Criminal Motion No 4 of 2019
- Mohammad Rizwan bin Akbar Husain v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 11 of 2019, Criminal Motion No 11 of 2019
- Public Prosecutor v Zulkarnain bin Kemat, Criminal Case 43 of 2016, Criminal Case 43 of 2016
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Rizwan abetted Zulkarnain to possess diamorphine for trafficking. | |
| Saminathan delivered diamorphine to Zulkarnain. | |
| Zulkarnain was arrested. | |
| Rizwan left Singapore for Malaysia. | |
| Rizwan was apprehended by Malaysian authorities. | |
| Rizwan was arrested at Woodlands Checkpoint. | |
| Saminathan was arrested at Woodlands Checkpoint. | |
| High Court issued its decision. | |
| Court of Appeal heard criminal motions and substantive appeals. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Court of Appeal delivered its judgment. |
7. Legal Issues
- Abetment
- Outcome: The court found Rizwan guilty of abetting Zulkarnain by instigating him to possess drugs for trafficking.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Instigation
- Intention to traffic
- Related Cases:
- [2012] SGCA 18
- [2018] 1 SLR 610
- Admissibility of Fresh Evidence
- Outcome: The court dismissed the applications to adduce fresh evidence, finding that the evidence did not meet the requirements of reliability and relevance.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Non-availability at trial
- Relevance
- Reliability
- Related Cases:
- [2018] 1 SLR 544
- [1954] 1 WLR 1489
- [2017] 1 SLR 505
- Identification Evidence
- Outcome: The court accepted Zulkarnain's identification of Rizwan as 'Boss' as cogent, coherent, and consistent, supported by extrinsic evidence.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Reliability of witness testimony
- Corroboration of evidence
- Related Cases:
- [2008] 1 SLR(R) 601
- Drug Trafficking
- Outcome: The court upheld Saminathan's conviction for drug trafficking, finding that he was the driver of the Trailer who delivered the drugs to Zulkarnain.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Possession of controlled drugs
- Delivery of controlled drugs
- Presumption of knowledge
- Presumption of trafficking
- Mens Rea
- Outcome: The court found that Rizwan had the necessary mens rea, knowing the drugs were diamorphine and intending to traffic them.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Knowledge of the nature of drugs
- Intention to traffic
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Drug Trafficking
- Abetment by Instigation
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Drug Offences
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chan Heng Kong and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] SGCA 18 | Singapore | Cited to define the meaning of 'abet' in s 12 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, aligning it with s 107 of the Penal Code. |
| Ali bin Mohamad Bahashwan v Public Prosecutor and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 610 | Singapore | Cited to establish that for abetment by instigation, the prosecution must prove the abettor intended the instigated person to carry out the conduct abetted. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mohammed Liton Mohammed Syeed Mallik | Unknown | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 601 | Singapore | Cited for the approach to corroborative evidence, stating that the Baskerville test does not apply in its strict form. |
| R v Baskerville | Court of Criminal Appeal | No | [1916] 2 KB 658 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that corroborative evidence must be independent and implicate the accused, but the court clarifies that the test does not apply in its strict form in Singapore. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mohd Ariffan bin Mohd Hassan | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 544 | Singapore | Cited for the law on adducing fresh evidence under s 392(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, outlining the conditions of non-availability, relevance, and reliability. |
| Ladd v Marshall | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1954] 1 WLR 1489 | England and Wales | Cited for the three conditions for adducing fresh evidence: non-availability at trial, relevance, and reliability. |
| Iskandar bin Rahmat v Public Prosecutor and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 505 | Singapore | Cited for the assessment of the reliability of new evidence, requiring it to be 'presumably to be believed, ie, apparently credible, although it need not be incontrovertible'. |
| Mohammad Azli bin Mohammad Salleh v Public Prosecutor and another appeal and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] SGCA 39 | Singapore | Cited to support the position that ss 18(2) and 18(4) of the MDA could be applied simultaneously. |
| Zainal bin Hamad v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | No | [2018] 2 SLR 1119 | Singapore | Cited to clarify that the presumptions in s 18(2) and s 17(c) of the MDA could not run together and that s 17 could be invoked only if both physical possession and knowledge of what was possessed had been proved. |
| Public Prosecutor v Zulkarnain bin Kemat and others | High Court | Yes | [2018] SGHC 161 | Singapore | The judgment under appeal. The Court of Appeal reviews and affirms the High Court's decision. |
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 5(2) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 12 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 33(1) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 33B | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 22 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 23 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) s 32(1)(k) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 18(4) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 18(2) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 17(c) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 392(1) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 107 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Drug trafficking
- Abetment
- Instigation
- Courier
- Certificate of substantive assistance
- Alibi evidence
- Impersonation
- DNA evidence
- Circumstantial evidence
15.2 Keywords
- Drug trafficking
- Abetment
- Diamorphine
- Singapore
- Criminal appeal
- Evidence
- Misuse of Drugs Act
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Drug Trafficking | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 90 |
| Appeal | 70 |
| Sentencing | 70 |
| Evidence | 60 |
| Abetment | 60 |
| Identification Evidence | 40 |
| Statutory Interpretation | 30 |
| Cheating | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Criminal Procedure
- Evidence