PP v Mohamed Ansari: Trafficking Diamorphine - Misuse of Drugs Act

In Public Prosecutor v Mohamed Ansari bin Mohamed Abdul Aziz, the High Court of Singapore convicted Mohamed Ansari of trafficking in diamorphine under section 5(1)(a) read with section 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. Ansari was found to be in possession of not less than 30.23g of diamorphine for the purpose of trafficking. The court rejected Ansari's defense that some of the drugs belonged to his girlfriend and found that he did not meet the requirements for alternative sentencing under section 33B of the MDA. Consequently, the court imposed the mandatory death penalty.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Accused convicted as charged; death penalty imposed.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Mohamed Ansari was convicted of trafficking diamorphine under the Misuse of Drugs Act and sentenced to death. The court found he possessed the drugs for trafficking purposes.

1.7 Decision Date

2 October 2022

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Public Prosecutor	Prosecution	Government Agency	Judgment for Prosecution	Won	Terence Chua, Regina Lim
Mohamed Ansari bin Mohamed Abdul Aziz	Defendant	Individual	Convicted as charged	Lost	Ramesh Chandr Tiwary, Chenthil Kumar Kumarasingam

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Valerie Thean	Judge of the High Court	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Terence Chua	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Regina Lim	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Ramesh Chandr Tiwary	Ramesh Tiwary
Chenthil Kumar Kumarasingam	Withers KhattarWong LLP

4. Facts

Accused was arrested on 24 March 2016.
Officers seized substances containing not less than 30.23g of diamorphine from the accused's apartment.
Accused claimed trial to a charge of trafficking in a Class A controlled drug.
Accused collected two batu of drugs from Murugesan a/l Arumugam.
Accused and Bella were escorted to their rental apartment where the drugs were seized.
Health Sciences Authority analysis revealed that the accused and Bella’s DNAs were present on numerous exhibits seized from the Unit.
The Prosecution sought to use ten statements from the accused.

5. Formal Citations

Public Prosecutor v Mohamed Ansari bin Mohamed Abdul Aziz, Criminal Case No 5 of 2022, [2022] SGHC 236

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2016-03-24	Accused arrested and apartment searched; drugs seized.
2016-03-31	Statement recorded from accused under s 22 of the CPC.
2016-04-04	Statement recorded from accused under s 22 of the CPC.
2016-12-09	Cautioned statement recorded from accused under s 23 of the CPC.
2017-01-23	Cautioned statement recorded from accused under s 23 of the CPC.
2020-07-24	Accused granted discharge amounting to acquittal on First Charge.
2022-01-13	Trial commenced.
2022-01-14	Trial commenced.
2022-01-18	Trial commenced.
2022-01-19	Trial commenced.
2022-01-20	Trial commenced.
2022-01-27	Trial commenced.
2022-01-28	Trial commenced.
2022-05-17	Trial commenced.
2022-05-18	Trial commenced.
2022-05-19	Trial commenced.
2022-05-20	Trial commenced.
2022-07-22	Accused convicted on the Charge.
2022-09-19	Submissions on sentence heard; accused did not meet requirements of s 33B(2)(a) of the MDA.
2022-10-03	Written grounds of decision issued; death penalty imposed.

7. Legal Issues

Possession of Controlled Drug
- Outcome: The court found that the Prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was in possession of the drugs.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Chain of custody
  - Actual possession
  - Knowledge of nature of drug
Purpose of Trafficking
- Outcome: The court found that the accused possessed the drugs for the purpose of trafficking and that the presumption under s 17 of the MDA had not been rebutted.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Presumption of trafficking
  - Rebuttal of presumption
Admissibility of Statements
- Outcome: The court admitted the challenged statements, finding that any prior inducement had dissipated.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Voluntariness of statements
  - Inducement
  - Dissipation of inducement
Alternative Sentencing Regime
- Outcome: The court found that the accused did not meet the requirements for alternative sentencing under s 33B of the MDA.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Restricted involvement
  - Transporting, sending, or delivering

8. Remedies Sought

Conviction
Death Penalty

9. Cause of Actions

Drug Trafficking

10. Practice Areas

Criminal Law
Drug Trafficking

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Public Prosecutor v Mohamed Ansari bin Mohamed Abdul Aziz and another	High Court	Yes	[2019] SGHC 268	Singapore	Cited for the accused's version of events and the court's findings on the voluntariness of statements in prior proceedings.
Beh Chew Boo v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2021] 2 SLR 180	Singapore	Cited for the court's inherent power to prevent abuse of process and manifest inconsistency in proceedings.
Chai Chien Wei Kelvin v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1998] 3 SLR(R) 619	Singapore	Cited for the burden on the Prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that statements were made voluntarily.
Sulaiman bin Jumari v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2021] 1 SLR 557	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the reliability of statements should be determined by examining the language and nature of the responses of the accused.
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 s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the MDA.
Affandi bin Rosli v Public Prosecutor and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2019] 1 SLR 440	Singapore	Cited for the requirement to prove the chain of custody of drugs and the rejection of speculative arguments about breaks in the chain.
Md Anverdeen Basheer Ahmed and others v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2004] SGHC 233	Singapore	Cited for the principle that minor inconsistencies in evidence are likely where there is a lapse of time between the incident and the hearing.
Chean Siong Guat v Public Prosecutor	N/A	Yes	[1969] 2 MLJ 63	N/A	Cited for the recognition of human fallibility in observation, retention, and recollection when weighing testimony.
Sharom bin Ahmad and another v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2000] 2 SLR(R) 541	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a close connection with the location where drugs are found is sufficient to infer possession.
Mui Jia Jun v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2018] 2 SLR 1087	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the absence of DNA is neither conclusive nor necessarily probative.
Govindaraj Perumalsamy and others v Public Prosecutor and other appeals	High Court	Yes	[2004] SGHC 16	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court can accept a witness's evidence on key facts despite inconsistencies.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap. 185, 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 2 of the Misuse of Drugs Act	Singapore
s 33(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act	Singapore
s 33B of the Misuse of Drugs Act	Singapore
s 17 of the Misuse of Drugs Act	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed)	Singapore
s 22 of the Criminal Procedure Code	Singapore
s 23 of the Criminal Procedure Code	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Diamorphine
Trafficking
Misuse of Drugs Act
Possession
Controlled drug
Chain of custody
Voluntariness of statements
Inducement
Narkoba
Certificate of Substantive Assistance

15.2 Keywords

Drug trafficking
Diamorphine
Misuse of Drugs Act
Singapore
Criminal Law
Death penalty

16. Subjects

Criminal Law
Drug Trafficking
Evidence
Sentencing

17. Areas of Law

Criminal Law
Statutory Offences
Misuse of Drugs Act