PP v Lokman & Mubin: Drug Trafficking, Misuse of Drugs Act, Abetment by Instigation
In Public Prosecutor v Lokman bin Abdul Rahman and Mohamed Mubin bin Abdul Rahman, the High Court of Singapore heard a case against two brothers charged under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Lokman was accused of drug trafficking, while Mubin was accused of abetting the trafficking. The court found Lokman to be a courier acting under Mubin's instructions. Lokman was convicted on amended charges and sentenced to life imprisonment. Mubin was convicted of abetment and trafficking and sentenced to death.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Lokman was sentenced to life imprisonment and Mubin was sentenced to death.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Lokman and Mubin were charged under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Lokman was found to be a courier, while Mubin was the instigator of drug trafficking.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Plaintiff | Government Agency | Conviction of Lokman and Mubin | Won | April Phang of Attorney-General’s Chambers Soh Weiqi of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Mohamed Mubin bin Abdul Rahman | Defendant | Individual | Convicted of abetment and drug trafficking | Lost | |
| Lokman bin Abdul Rahman | Defendant | Individual | Convicted of drug trafficking and possession | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Valerie Thean | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| April Phang | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Soh Weiqi | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ram Goswami | Ram Goswami |
| Cheng Kim Kuan | K K Cheng & Co |
| Mohamed Muzammil Bin Mohamed | Muzammil & Company |
| Lam Wai Seng | Lam WS & Co |
4. Facts
- Lokman was arrested with two bundles of diamorphine at Katong Park Towers.
- The bundles contained not less than 39.28 grams of diamorphine.
- Mubin was arrested with methamphetamine and diamorphine at Rivervale Crescent.
- The KPT Unit was rented to Mubin and Siti Rohani binte Mohamed Ali.
- Lokman claimed he was a courier working for Mubin.
- Mubin denied knowledge of the drugs and claimed he only consumed methamphetamine.
- Zaini and Noor supplied the diamorphine to Mubin.
- Lokman was instructed to deliver one bundle to Edy and return the other to Mubin.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Lokman bin Abdul Rahman and another, Criminal Case No 1 of 2019, [2020] SGHC 48
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Lokman arrested at Katong Park Towers | |
| Mubin arrested at M28 Minimart, Rivervale Crescent | |
| Zaini and Noor entered Singapore | |
| Zaini and Noor entered Singapore | |
| Zaini and Noor entered Singapore | |
| Lokman convicted of drug possession | |
| Trial began | |
| Charges read and explained to Lokman and Mubin | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Drug Trafficking
- Outcome: Lokman was found guilty of trafficking diamorphine to Edy. Mubin was found guilty of trafficking diamorphine by giving it to Lokman to return to him.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Possession of controlled drug
- Knowledge of the nature of the controlled drug
- Possession for the purpose of trafficking
- Abetment by Instigation
- Outcome: Mubin was found guilty of abetting Lokman to traffic diamorphine to Edy.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Actus reus of instigation
- Mens rea of instigation
- Intention to abet
- Knowledge of circumstances constituting the offence
- Definition of Trafficking
- Outcome: The court clarified that returning drugs to the original possessor does not constitute trafficking, but giving drugs to another to return to the giver does constitute trafficking.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Returning drugs to the original possessor
- Entrustment of drugs
- Bailment
8. Remedies Sought
- Conviction of the Defendants
- Sentencing under the Misuse of Drugs Act
9. Cause of Actions
- Drug Trafficking
- Abetment by Instigation
- Possession of Controlled Drugs
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
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 of a charge under section 5(1)(a) read with section 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. |
| Iwuchukwu Amara Tochi and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 2 SLR(R) 503 | Singapore | Cited for the meaning of 'abets' under section 12 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. |
| Chan Heng Kong and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] SGCA 18 | Singapore | Cited for the actus reus of instigation. |
| Balakrishnan S and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 4 SLR(R) 249 | Singapore | Cited for the mens rea of instigation. |
| Public Prosecutor v Koh Peng Kiat | High Court | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 753 | Singapore | Cited for the mens rea of instigation. |
| Ramesh a/l Perumal v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 1003 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of 'trafficking' and the act of returning drugs to the original possessor. |
| Tan Ah Tee and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1979-1980] SLR(R) 311 | Singapore | Cited for the concept of possession in the context of drug offences. |
| Warner v Metropolitan Police Commissioner | House of Lords | Yes | [1969] 2 AC 256 | United Kingdom | Cited for the concept of possession, including physical possession or control. |
| R v Maginnis | House of Lords | Yes | [1987] 2 WLR 765 | United Kingdom | Cited to show that there is no legal right to ownership of illegal subject matter. |
| Moad Fadzir bin Mustaffa v Public Prosecutor and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] SGCA 73 | Singapore | Cited for cautioning against an overly restrictive view of the concept of bailment. |
| Norasharee bin Gous v Public Prosecutor and another appeal and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 820 | Singapore | Cited for the possibility of avoiding the mandatory death penalty through s 33B(2) of the MDA might motivate a co-accused to falsely implicate another. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mohd Zaini bin Zainutdin and others | High Court | Yes | [2019] SGHC 162 | Singapore | Cited for the testimony of a co-accused is consistent and corroborated by objective evidence, the court is entitled to give even full weight to that co-accused’s testimony. |
| R v Lucas (Ruth) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1981] 1 QB 720 | England and Wales | Cited for the conditions to be met for a lie to be corroborative of guilt. |
| Public Prosecutor v Yeo Choon Poh | High Court | Yes | [1993] 3 SLR(R) 302 | Singapore | Cited for the conditions to be met for a lie to be corroborative of guilt. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ilechukwu Uchechukwu Chukwudi | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] SGCA 33 | Singapore | Cited for the conditions to be met for a lie to be corroborative of guilt. |
| Public Prosecutor v Abdul Haleem bin Abdul Karim | High Court | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 734 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of a courier. |
| Zainudin bin Mohamed v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 449 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of a courier. |
| Zamri bin Mohd Tahir v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 724 | Singapore | Cited for the focus of the inquiry was on the accused’s acts in relation to the particular consignment of drugs which form the subject matter of the charge against him. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 5(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 5(2) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 12 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 33(1) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 33B | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 8(a) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 107 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 263 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 258(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 258(3) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) s 161 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act s 147(4) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act s 147(5) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 128(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 128(2) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 129(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 131 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 129(3) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Trafficking
- Abetment
- Instigation
- Courier
- Bailment
- MDA
- KPT Unit
- Holland Close Flat
- Batu
15.2 Keywords
- Drug Trafficking
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Abetment
- Diamorphine
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 75 |
| Sentencing | 60 |
| Criminal Procedure | 60 |
| Statutory Interpretation | 50 |
| Evidence | 50 |
| Criminal Revision | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Offences
- Abetment