Public Prosecutor v Salzawiyah, Shisham, Jumadi: Trafficking Diamorphine under Misuse of Drugs Act
In [2021] SGHC 16, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore, Tan Siong Thye J, found Salzawiyah Binte Latib, Shisham Bin Abdul Rahman, and Jumadi Bin Abdullah guilty of trafficking diamorphine under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The case involved a joint trial where the accused persons initially faced capital charges, which were later amended. The court examined the evidence, including statements and HSA analysis, and concluded that all three accused persons possessed knowledge and intent to traffic the drugs.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Guilty verdict for all accused persons.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Salzawiyah, Shisham, and Jumadi faced charges for trafficking diamorphine. The court found all three guilty, proving possession, knowledge, and intent.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Prosecution | Government Agency | Judgment for the Prosecution | Won | Terence Chua of Attorney-General’s Chambers Samuel Yap of Attorney-General’s Chambers Lu Yiwei of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Jumadi bin Abdullah | Defendant | Individual | Guilty | Lost | |
| Shisham bin Abdul Rahman | Defendant | Individual | Guilty | Lost | |
| Salzawiyah Binte Latib | Defendant | Individual | Guilty | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tan Siong Thye | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Terence Chua | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Samuel Yap | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Lu Yiwei | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Cheong Jun Ming Mervyn | Advocatus Law LLP |
| Jerrie Tan Qiu Lin | K&L Gates Straits Law LLC |
| Teh Ee-Von | Infinitus Law Corporation |
| Dendroff Jason Peter | J P Dendroff & Co |
| Gill Amarick Singh | Amarick Gill LLC |
| Ng Huiling Cheryl | ZICO Insights Law LLC |
4. Facts
- CNB officers raided the Unit and arrested Salzawiyah, Shisham, and Jumadi.
- The CNB officers seized diamorphine, methamphetamine, cannabis, and other drugs from the Unit.
- Drug trafficking paraphernalia, including weighing scales and plastic sachets, were found in the Unit.
- Salzawiyah, Shisham, and Jumadi gave multiple statements to the CNB.
- HSA analysis confirmed the presence of diamorphine in the seized packets.
- Urine samples from the accused persons tested positive for drug consumption.
- Jumadi admitted to being in charge of the drug trafficking operation.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Salzawiyah bte Latib and others, Criminal Case No 19 of 2020, [2021] SGHC 16
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| CNB officers raided the Unit and arrested the accused persons | |
| SSSgt Norizan Binte Merabzul recorded a contemporaneous statement from Salzawiyah | |
| Sgt Muhammad Hidayat Bin Jasni recorded a contemporaneous statement from Shisham | |
| SSSgt Muhammad Fardlie Bin Ramlie recorded a contemporaneous statement from Jumadi | |
| IO Yip recorded the cautioned statement from Shisham | |
| IO Yip recorded the cautioned statement from Jumadi | |
| SSSgt Asilah Binte Rahman recorded the cautioned statement from Salzawiyah | |
| IO Yip recorded a long statement from Shisham | |
| SSSgt Asilah recorded a statement from Salzawiyah | |
| IO Yip recorded a long statement from Jumadi | |
| SSSgt Asilah recorded a statement from Salzawiyah | |
| IO Yip recorded a long statement from Shisham | |
| IO Yip recorded a long statement from Jumadi | |
| IO Yip recorded a long statement from Jumadi | |
| IO Yip recorded a long statement from Jumadi | |
| IO Yip recorded a long statement from Jumadi | |
| SSSgt Jennifer Lim recorded a long statement from Shisham | |
| IO Yip recorded a long statement from Shisham | |
| SSSgt Lim recorded a long statement from Jumadi | |
| IO Yip recorded a statement from Salzawiyah | |
| Charges against the accused persons were read and explained to them | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Trafficking in Controlled Drugs
- Outcome: The court found that the Prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused persons had possession of a controlled drug, knowledge of the nature of the drug, and possession for the purpose of trafficking.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Possession of controlled drug
- Knowledge of the nature of the drug
- Possession for the purpose of trafficking
- Related Cases:
- [2017] 1 SLR 257
- [2013] 3 SLR 734
- [2004] 1 SLR(R) 550
- Voluntariness of Statements
- Outcome: The court found that the Prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the statements were made voluntarily without inducement, threat, or promise.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Inducement
- Threat
- Promise
- Related Cases:
- [1998] 3 SLR(R) 619
- [2019] SGHC 268
- Joint Possession
- Outcome: The court found that the accused persons had knowledge and consented to the possession of the drugs, thus establishing joint possession.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Knowledge
- Consent
- Related Cases:
- [2020] 1 SLR 1374
- [2014] 3 SLR 721
- Common Intention
- Outcome: The court found that the accused persons intended to traffic in the Drugs in furtherance of the common intention of all of them.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Criminal act
- Common intention between the parties
- Participation in the criminal act
- Related Cases:
- [2020] 2 SLR 769
8. Remedies Sought
- Punishment under s 33(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act
- Alternative punishment under s 33B of the Misuse of Drugs Act
9. Cause of Actions
- Trafficking in a Class A controlled drug
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Drug Offences
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chai Chien Wei Kelvin v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 619 | Singapore | Cited for the test of voluntariness of statements and the burden on the Prosecution to prove voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mohamed Ansari bin Mohamed Abdul Aziz and another | High Court | Yes | [2019] SGHC 268 | Singapore | Cited for reiterating the burden on the prosecution to prove the voluntariness of a statement beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Sulaiman bin Jumari v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] SGCA 116 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court is entitled to examine the contents of an impugned statement in its determination of whether it should be excluded or not. |
| Lu Lai Heng v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 1 SLR(R) 1037 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a self-perceived promise or inducement does not render a statement involuntary. |
| Public Prosecutor v Sibeko Lindiwe Mary-Jane | High Court | Yes | [2016] SGHC 199 | Singapore | Cited for the interpretation of Explanation 2(aa) to s 258(3) of the CPC regarding the administration of the MDA Notification. |
| Masoud Rahimi bin Mehrzad v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 257 | Singapore | Cited for the elements required to prove the offence of trafficking in a controlled drug under s 5(1)(a) of the MDA. |
| Public Prosecutor v Abdul Haleem bin Abdul Karim and another | High Court | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 734 | Singapore | Cited for the elements required to prove the offence of trafficking in a controlled drug under s 5(1)(a) of the MDA. |
| Raman Selvam s/o Renganathan v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2004] 1 SLR(R) 550 | Singapore | Cited for the elements required to prove the offence of trafficking in a controlled drug under s 5(1)(a) of the MDA. |
| Obeng Comfort v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 633 | Singapore | Cited for the explanation of the presumption in s 18(1) of the MDA and the requirements to rebut it. |
| Mohammad Azli bin Mohammad Salleh v Public Prosecutor and another appeal and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 1374 | Singapore | Cited for the clarification of the elements of joint possession under s 18(4) of the MDA, specifically knowledge and consent. |
| Muhammad Ridzuan bin Md Ali v Public Prosecutor and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 721 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of 'consent' under s 18(4) of the MDA, requiring a degree of 'power or authority' over the object in question. |
| Ramesh a/l Perumal v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 1003 | Singapore | Cited for the explanation of the element of trafficking under s 2 of the MDA. |
| Public Prosecutor v Aishamudin bin Jamaludin | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 769 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements for liability under s 34 of the Penal Code and the approach to determine whether the Prosecution is running inconsistent cases in respect of any series of charges. |
| Gopu Jaya Raman v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 499 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the absence of a DNA trace does not prove that the accused did not in fact touch the relevant materials. |
| Muhammad Nabill bin Mohd Fuad v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 984 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that DNA evidence has to be considered as a whole in the context of the coherence of the case advanced by the accused. |
| Mohammad Rizwan bin Akbar Husain v Public Prosecutor and another appeal and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] SGCA 45 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the accused’s explanation for the DNA evidence should not be considered in isolation as a theoretical possibility. |
| Took Leng How v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 2 SLR(R) 70 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where evidence which has been given calls for an explanation which the accused alone can give, then silence on his part may lead to an inference that none is available and that the evidence is probably true. |
| Murray v Director of Public Prosecutions | Unknown | Yes | [1994] 1 WLR 1 | Unknown | Cited for the principle that a failure to give any explanation may as a matter of common sense allow the drawing of an inference that there is no explanation and that the accused is guilty. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 34 of the Penal Code | Singapore |
| s 33(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 33B of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 18(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 18(4) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 2 of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 258(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 279(7) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 279(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 283 of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 261 of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 291(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 116 of the Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Trafficking
- Common intention
- Possession
- Knowledge
- Controlled drug
- CNB
- HSA
- Statements
- Batu
- MDA
- CPC
- Penal Code
15.2 Keywords
- Diamorphine
- Drug trafficking
- Singapore
- Criminal law
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- High Court
- Guilty verdict
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 75 |
| Sentencing | 70 |
| Criminal Procedure | 70 |
| Statutory Interpretation | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Criminal Procedure
- Evidence
- Sentencing