Jumadi Bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor: Misuse of Drugs Act & Voluntariness of Statements
In Jumadi bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor, the Singapore Court of Appeal heard appeals against convictions for drug trafficking under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Jumadi bin Abdullah and Shisham Bin Abdul Rahman appealed against their death sentences, while Salzawiyah Binte Latib appealed against her 29-year imprisonment sentence. The court, comprising Andrew Phang Boon Leong JCA, Judith Prakash JCA, and Steven Chong JCA, dismissed all appeals, affirming the trial judge's findings on the voluntariness of statements and the sentences imposed.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed; the Judge’s decisions in the First and Second Judgments and his finding that the amended charges against the accused persons were proven beyond a reasonable doubt are fully affirmed. Their sentences (the death penalty for Jumadi and Shisham, and 29 years’ imprisonment for Salzawiyah) are accordingly affirmed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore Court of Appeal reviews convictions for drug trafficking, focusing on the voluntariness of statements and sentencing under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Terence Chua of Attorney-General’s Chambers Samuel Yap of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Jumadi bin Abdullah | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Shisham bin Abdul Rahman | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Salzawiyah Binte Latib | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Judith Prakash | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Steven Chong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Terence Chua | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Samuel Yap | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Cheong Jun Ming Mervyn | Advocatus Law LLP |
| Subir Singh Grewal | Aequitas Law LLP |
| Kishan Pratap | Kishan Law Chambers LLC |
| Nirmal Singh s/o Fauja Singh | CrossBorders LLC |
4. Facts
- Jumadi, Shisham, and Salzawiyah were arrested on 22 June 2017 at Leville iSuites for drug trafficking.
- The charges against the accused persons were amended at the end of the trial to reflect a lower gross weight and analysed weight of diamorphine.
- Jumadi claimed that his statements were made pursuant to a promise by SSSgt Fardlie that he would not receive the death penalty if he cooperated.
- Shisham's defence was that he was a mere addict who stayed with Jumadi and Salzawiyah.
- Salzawiyah was found guilty and sentenced to 29 years’ imprisonment.
- A haul of drugs and drug trafficking paraphernalia were found in the unit.
5. Formal Citations
- Jumadi bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor and other appeals, Criminal Appeals Nos 1, 2 and 3 of 2021, [2021] SGCA 113
- Public Prosecutor v Salzawiyah bte Latib and others, , [2021] SGHC 16
- Public Prosecutor v Salzawiyah bte Latib and others, , [2021] SGHC 17
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Jumadi, Shisham, and Salzawiyah arrested at Leville iSuites for drug trafficking. | |
| SSSgt Muhammad Fardlie Bin Ramlie recorded a statement from Jumadi. | |
| Court of Appeal heard Criminal Appeals Nos 1, 2 and 3 of 2021. | |
| Judgment delivered by Steven Chong JCA. |
7. Legal Issues
- Voluntariness of Statements
- Outcome: The court held that the statements made by Jumadi were voluntary and admissible as evidence.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1998] 3 SLR(R) 619
- [2002] SGCA 20
- Misuse of Drugs Act - Section 33B
- Outcome: The court considered the application of section 33B of the Misuse of Drugs Act, which allows for life imprisonment in lieu of the death penalty under certain conditions.
- Category: Substantive
- Rejection of Defences at Trial
- Outcome: The court upheld the trial judge's rejection of Jumadi's and Shisham's defenses, finding them to be without merit.
- Category: Substantive
- Manifestly Excessive Sentence
- Outcome: The court affirmed the sentence imposed on Salzawiyah, finding that it was not manifestly excessive.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2015] 5 SLR 122
8. Remedies Sought
- Acquittal
- Reduction of Sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Drug Trafficking
- Possession of Controlled Drugs
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
- Drug Offences
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chai Chien Wei Kelvin v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 619 | Singapore | Cited for the test of voluntariness, requiring involuntariness to be established on both an objective and a subjective basis. |
| Public Prosecutor v Sibeko Lindiwe Mary-Jane | High Court | No | [2016] SGHC 199 | Singapore | Cited in relation to the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA) Notice and whether it constitutes a promise, threat, or inducement. |
| Vasentha d/o Joseph v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 122 | Singapore | Cited for the framework used to determine the appropriate sentence for drug trafficking offences. |
| ADF v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 874 | Singapore | Cited for the high threshold for appellate intervention where findings of fact are based on a trial judge’s assessment of the witnesses’ credibility and demeanour at trial. |
| Amran Bin Eusuff and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2002] SGCA 20 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that self-induced notions of the existence of a promise do not render statements inadmissible. |
| Muhammad bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 427 | Singapore | Cited for the practice of administering notices shortly after an accused person’s arrest if the offence that he is alleged to have committed carries the death penalty under the MDA. |
| Gopu Jaya Raman v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 499 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the absence of the accused person’s DNA on an object is not, in itself, evidence that the accused person did not come into contact with, or handle, that object. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Drug Trafficking
- Voluntariness of Statements
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Substantive Assistance
- MDP Notice
- Explanation 2(aa)
- Common Intention
- Mistake Defence
- Ownership Defence
15.2 Keywords
- Drug Trafficking
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Voluntariness
- Statements
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Sentencing | 85 |
| Criminal Procedure | 80 |
| Evidence | 70 |
| Statutory Interpretation | 60 |
| Civil Procedure | 10 |
| Contract Law | 5 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Offences
- Evidence
- Sentencing