Muhammad Abdul Hadi bin Haron v Public Prosecutor: Review of Drug Trafficking Conviction Based on Wilful Blindness
Muhammad Abdul Hadi bin Haron applied for leave to review a prior Court of Appeal judgment (CA/CCA 36/2019) concerning his conviction for drug trafficking. The application was based on the argument that the court had improperly applied the presumption of knowledge under the Misuse of Drugs Act, allegedly relying on a theory of wilful blindness, which was subsequently clarified as impermissible by the Gobi a/l Avedian v Public Prosecutor decision. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that the original conviction was based on actual knowledge, not wilful blindness, and that the Gobi decision was therefore not relevant.
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 a drug trafficking conviction, arguing the court erred by presuming wilful blindness under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Application dismissed.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Muhammad Abdul Hadi bin Haron | Applicant | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost | |
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Application dismissed | Won | Marcus Foo, Rimplejit Kaur |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Steven Chong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Marcus Foo | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Rimplejit Kaur | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- The Applicant was instructed by Salleh to collect two black-taped bundles from “Kakak” in Johor Bahru.
- On 2015-07-22, the Applicant entered Johor Bahru and picked up two bundles wrapped in black tape.
- The Applicant sent Salleh messages stating: “total I have 2 pack only”; and “250 each”.
- The Applicant was arrested at his residence by CNB officers.
- The Applicant told a CNB officer that the two bundles were in his motorcycle.
- The Applicant claimed he thought the bundles contained “gold and cash”.
- The trial judge found that the Applicant had failed to rebut the s 18(2) presumption.
5. Formal Citations
- Muhammad Abdul Hadi bin Haron v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 27 of 2022, [2023] SGCA 4
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Applicant entered Johor Bahru, Malaysia and picked up two bundles wrapped in black tape from a woman known as “Kakak”. | |
| Applicant sent Salleh messages stating: “total I have 2 pack only”; and “250 each”. | |
| Applicant returned to Singapore. | |
| Officers from the Central Narcotics Bureau arrested the Applicant at his residence. | |
| Applicant was served a notice regarding s 33B of the MDA. | |
| Applicant’s cautioned statement was recorded. | |
| Applicant’s long statement was recorded. | |
| Trial judge found that the Applicant had failed to rebut the s 18(2) presumption. | |
| Court dismissed the Applicant’s appeal. | |
| Decision in Gobi a/l Avedian v Public Prosecutor was handed down. | |
| Applicant filed the present criminal motion. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Judgment issued. |
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
- [2020] 2 SLR 1175
- Wilful Blindness
- Outcome: The court held that the Prosecution's case was based on actual knowledge, not wilful blindness.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2021] 1 SLR 180
- Presumption of Knowledge
- Outcome: The court found that the applicant failed to rebut the presumption of knowledge.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Review of Conviction
- Setting aside of conviction
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Muhammad Abdul Hadi bin Haron v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 537 | Singapore | Cited as the earlier judgment of the Court of Appeal which the applicant sought to review. |
| Gobi a/l Avedian v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 180 | Singapore | Cited for the holding that the knowledge presumed under s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act is confined to actual knowledge, and the Prosecution is not permitted to invoke the s 18(2) presumption to presume wilful blindness. |
| Khartik Jasudass and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] SGCA 13 | Singapore | Cited as a prior application for leave to review a concluded criminal appeal inspired by the change of the law in Gobi, which failed because the Prosecution’s cases and the court’s decisions were based on actual knowledge and not wilful blindness. |
| 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 concluded criminal appeal inspired by the change of the law in Gobi, which failed because the Prosecution’s cases and the court’s decisions were based on actual knowledge and not wilful blindness. |
| Rahmat bin Karimon v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 2 SLR 860 | Singapore | Cited as a prior application for leave to review a concluded criminal appeal inspired by the change of the law in Gobi, which failed because the Prosecution’s cases and the court’s decisions were based on actual knowledge and not wilful blindness. |
| Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Abdul Hadi bin Haron and another | High Court | Yes | [2020] 5 SLR 710 | Singapore | Cited as the trial judge’s decision, which found that the Applicant had failed to rebut the s 18(2) presumption on a balance of probabilities and convicted the Applicant of the charge against him. |
| Kreetharan s/o Kathireson v Public Prosecutor and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 1175 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that only an application that discloses a “legitimate basis for the exercise of this court’s power of review” should be allowed to proceed. |
| Obeng Comfort v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 633 | Singapore | Cited for the principles regarding how the court assesses the veracity of an accused's assertion of what he thought he was carrying. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 | Singapore |
| s 394H(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 | 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 33B of the MDA | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Wilful Blindness
- Presumption of Knowledge
- Miscarriage of Justice
- Drug Trafficking
- Section 18(2) MDA
- Actual Knowledge
- Review Application
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Review Application
- Wilful Blindness
- Presumption of Knowledge
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Drug Trafficking
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Criminal Review
- Criminal Law
- Statutory Offences
- Misuse of Drugs Act