Rahmat Bin Karimon v Public Prosecutor: Review of Conviction under Misuse of Drugs Act after Gobi Decision
Rahmat bin Karimon applied for leave to review a prior Court of Appeal judgment (CA/CCA 49/2017) following the decision in Gobi a/l Avedian v Public Prosecutor, which altered the interpretation of wilful blindness under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Rahmat argued that his conviction was based on wilful blindness, which Gobi now precludes from being presumed under s 18(2) of the MDA. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that the original conviction was based on actual knowledge, not wilful blindness, and that Rahmat failed to rebut the presumption of knowledge. The court held that the change in law brought about by Gobi was not relevant to the facts of this case.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Application for review of conviction under Misuse of Drugs Act after Gobi decision, focusing on wilful blindness and presumption of knowledge.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Application dismissed | Won | Muhamad Imaduddien of Attorney-General’s Chambers Chin Jincheng of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Rahmat Bin Karimon | Applicant | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Steven Chong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Muhamad Imaduddien | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Chin Jincheng | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Leong Yi-Ming | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Chan Tai-Hui Jason SC | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Tan Xue Yang | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Zeslene Mao Huijing | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
4. Facts
- Rahmat was employed as a runner for Kanna Gila, who was in the business of illegal money-lending.
- Rahmat entered Singapore from Malaysia on 27 May 2015.
- Rahmat met Zainal at IKEA and received S$8,000.
- Rahmat placed a green bag in front of Zainal before leaving IKEA.
- CNB officers arrested Zainal and found the bag containing not less than 53.64g of diamorphine.
- Rahmat and his wife were arrested at Woodlands Checkpoint, and S$8,000 was found concealed in her brassiere.
5. Formal Citations
- Rahmat bin Karimon v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 17 of 2021, [2021] SGCA 74
- Zainal bin Hamad v Public Prosecutor and another appeal, , [2018] 2 SLR 1119
- Unknown, , CA/CCA 49/2017
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Rahmat entered Singapore from Malaysia. | |
| Court of Appeal judgment in CA/CCA 49/2017. | |
| Trial judge's decision reported in [2018] 5 SLR 641. | |
| Court of Appeal dismissed Zainal’s and Rahmat’s appeals against conviction. | |
| Court of Appeal delivered grounds of decision in Rahmat (CA). | |
| Order issued for Rahmat's death sentence to be carried out. | |
| Scheduled date for Rahmat's death sentence execution. | |
| President ordered a respite of the execution. | |
| Court of Appeal granted leave to applicant in Gobi to make a criminal review application. | |
| Court of Appeal’s decision on the criminal review application in Gobi was delivered. | |
| Attorney-General’s Chambers wrote to Rahmat’s counsel regarding Gobi decision. | |
| Rahmat filed the present criminal motion. | |
| Hearing in the Court of Appeal. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Miscarriage of Justice
- Outcome: The court found that there was no miscarriage of justice.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2021] 1 SLR 180
- [2021] SGCA 30
- [2021] SGCA 13
- [2020] 2 SLR 1175
- Wilful Blindness
- Outcome: The court held that the original conviction was based on actual knowledge, not wilful blindness.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2021] 1 SLR 180
- [2019] 2 SLR 254
- Presumption of Knowledge
- Outcome: The court found that Rahmat failed to rebut the presumption of knowledge.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Review of conviction
- Setting aside the sentence of death
9. Cause of Actions
- Trafficking in controlled drugs under s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zainal bin Hamad v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 1119 | Singapore | Cited as the earlier judgment of the Court of Appeal involving Rahmat, which the current application seeks to review. |
| Gobi a/l Avedian v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 180 | Singapore | Cited for the change in law regarding the treatment of wilful blindness in the context of the presumption under s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. |
| Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] SGCA 30 | Singapore | Cited as a prior application for leave to review a criminal appeal based on the change of law in Gobi, which was unsuccessful because the court found the case was based on actual knowledge, not wilful blindness. |
| Khartik Jasudass and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] SGCA 13 | Singapore | Cited as another prior application for leave to review a criminal appeal based on the change of law in Gobi, which was unsuccessful because the court found the case was based on actual knowledge, not wilful blindness. |
| Kreetharan s/o Kathireson v Public Prosecutor and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 1175 | Singapore | Cited for establishing that an application for leave to commence a review application must disclose a “legitimate basis” for the exercise of the court’s power of review. |
| Adili Chibuike Ejike v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 254 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of wilful blindness in the context of s 18(1) of the MDA, which was subsequently applied to s 18(2) of the MDA in Gobi. |
| Public Prosecutor v Rahmat bin Karimon and another | High Court | Yes | [2018] 5 SLR 641 | Singapore | Cited as the trial judge’s decision in the case. |
| Ramesh a/l Perumal v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 1003 | Singapore | Cited to illustrate that a change of law would have no prima facie relevance to the leave application if the facts of the cited case are not relevant to the current case. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 394H(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 5(l)(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 313(f) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 313(g) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 313(h) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| Art 22P(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Wilful blindness
- Presumption of knowledge
- Miscarriage of justice
- Criminal review
- Diamorphine
- Trafficking
- Sufficiency requirement
- Legitimate basis
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Wilful Blindness
- Presumption of Knowledge
- Gobi
- MDA
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 90 |
| Criminal Review | 90 |
| Sentencing | 80 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Drug Trafficking
- Review of Criminal Cases