Mohamed Shalleh v Public Prosecutor: Misuse of Drugs Act & Presumption of Knowledge
The Court of Appeal of Singapore heard the appeal of Mohamed Shalleh bin Abdul Latiff against his conviction and sentence of death for possession of diamorphine for the purpose of trafficking under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The sole issue was whether the presumption of knowledge under s 18(2) of the MDA had been rebutted. The Court of Appeal, comprising Sundaresh Menon CJ, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JCA, and Judith Prakash JCA, dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to rebut the presumption of knowledge.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore Court of Appeal affirms Mohamed Shalleh's conviction for drug trafficking, holding he failed to rebut the presumption of knowledge.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Judgment Upheld | Won | Anandan Bala of Attorney-General’s Chambers Claire Poh of Attorney-General’s Chambers Theong Li Han of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Mohamed Shalleh Bin Abdul Latiff | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Judith Prakash | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Anandan Bala | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Claire Poh | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Theong Li Han | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ramesh Chandr Tiwary | Ramesh Tiwary |
| Ranadhir Gupta | A Zamzam & Co |
4. Facts
- Appellant was arrested for possession of not less than 54.04g of diamorphine.
- Appellant claimed he believed the package contained uncustomed cigarettes.
- Appellant received $7,000 in an envelope the day before his arrest.
- Appellant handed Khairul an envelope containing $7,000.
- Three bundles containing diamorphine were found in the appellant's car.
- Appellant claimed he trusted Bai, who told him the package contained cigarettes.
- The three bundles were exposed on the floorboard of the car.
5. Formal Citations
- Mohamed Shalleh bin Abdul Latiff v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Appeal No 9 of 2019, [2022] SGCA 23
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant arrested by Central Narcotics Bureau officers | |
| Appeal first fixed for hearing | |
| Matter remitted to Judge to take further evidence | |
| Court of Appeal heard the appeal | |
| Appeal dismissed with brief grounds |
7. Legal Issues
- Rebuttal of Presumption of Knowledge
- Outcome: The court held that the appellant failed to rebut the presumption of knowledge under s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2019] 2 SLR 254
- [2021] 1 SLR 180
- Wilful Blindness
- Outcome: The court clarified the distinction between actual knowledge and wilful blindness in the context of drug offences.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2019] 2 SLR 254
- [2021] 1 SLR 180
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction and sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Possession of controlled drug for the purpose of trafficking
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adili Chibuike Ejike v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 254 | Singapore | Cited to explain the relevance of trust or suspicion in assessing whether the s 18(2) presumption has been rebutted and to distinguish it from wilful blindness. |
| Gobi a/l Avedian v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 180 | Singapore | Cited to explain the relevance of trust or suspicion in assessing whether the s 18(2) presumption has been rebutted and to distinguish it from wilful blindness. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mohamed Shalleh bin Abdul Latiff | High Court | Yes | [2019] SGHC 93 | Singapore | This is the first instance decision being appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed the Judge's decision. |
| Mohamed Shalleh bin Abdul Latiff v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2020] SGHC 283 | Singapore | This is the decision on remittal. The Court of Appeal affirmed the Judge's decision. |
| Muhammad Nabill bin Mohd Fuad v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 984 | Singapore | Cited in relation to whether Khairul could be considered a 'material witness'. |
| Masoud Rahimi bin Mehrzad v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 257 | Singapore | Cited for the elements that must be proved by the Prosecution to make out the offence of possession of a controlled drug for the purpose of trafficking under s 5(1) read with s 5(2) of the MDA. |
| Obeng Comfort v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 633 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court will assess the veracity of an accused person’s assertion as to his subjective state of mind against the objective facts. |
| Khor Soon Lee v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 201 | Singapore | Cited in the context of considering whether an accused person was wilfully blind. |
| Harven a/l Segar v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 771 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case where the inquiry was directed at the overall credibility of the narrative presented to the court. |
| Public Prosecutor v Khor Chong Seng and another | High Court | Yes | [2018] SGHC 219 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case where the inquiry was directed at the overall credibility of the narrative presented to the court. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Trafficking
- Presumption of knowledge
- Wilful blindness
- Uncustomed cigarettes
- Courier
15.2 Keywords
- Drug trafficking
- Singapore
- Criminal law
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Presumption of knowledge
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 100 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Evidence Law | 60 |
| Evidence | 50 |
| Criminal Procedure | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Statutory Interpretation