Public Prosecutor v. Mustaqim bin Abdul Kadir: Trafficking of Diamorphine under the Misuse of Drugs Act
In Public Prosecutor v. Mustaqim bin Abdul Kadir, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore convicted Mustaqim bin Abdul Kadir on 16 May 2023, for trafficking in not less than 56.8g of diamorphine under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that Mustaqim possessed the drugs, knew their nature, and intended to traffic them, rejecting his defense that some drugs were meant to be returned to his supplier. The court sentenced Mustaqim to death.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Conviction for trafficking in diamorphine; sentenced to death.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Mustaqim bin Abdul Kadir was convicted of trafficking diamorphine under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The court found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Prosecution | Government Agency | Judgment for Prosecution | Won | Claire Poh of Attorney-General’s Chambers Chong Yong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Benedict Chan Wei Qi of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Mustaqim bin Abdul Kadir | Defendant | Individual | Conviction | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tan Siong Thye | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Claire Poh | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Chong Yong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Benedict Chan Wei Qi | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ramesh Chandr Tiwary | Ramesh Tiwary |
| Si Hoe Tat Chorng | Acacia Legal LLC |
4. Facts
- Mustaqim was arrested on 26 January 2018 for drug trafficking.
- A search of Mustaqim's car uncovered not less than 56.8g of diamorphine.
- Mustaqim was the driver and in charge of the car at the time of his arrest.
- Mustaqim admitted he knew the drugs in the car were diamorphine.
- Mustaqim claimed he intended to return a portion of the drugs to his supplier, Zack.
- Mobile phone evidence showed Mustaqim was actively selling diamorphine before his arrest.
- Urine samples revealed Mustaqim consumed methamphetamine but not diamorphine.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Mustaqim bin Abdul Kadir, Criminal Case No 44 of 2022, [2023] SGHC 142
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Mustaqim arrested for drug trafficking. | |
| First contemporaneous statement recorded from Mustaqim. | |
| Second contemporaneous statement recorded from Mustaqim. | |
| Cautioned statement recorded from Mustaqim. | |
| First long statement recorded from Mustaqim. | |
| Second long statement recorded from Mustaqim. | |
| Third long statement recorded from Mustaqim. | |
| Fourth long statement recorded from Mustaqim. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Judgment issued: Mustaqim convicted and sentenced to death. |
7. Legal Issues
- Admissibility of Accused's Statements
- Outcome: The court found that the statements were admissible as they were given voluntarily.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Voluntariness of statements
- Inducement, threat, or promise
- Application of s 258 of the Criminal Procedure Code
- Trafficking in Controlled Drugs
- Outcome: The court found that the Prosecution established all elements of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Possession of a controlled drug
- Knowledge of the nature of the drug
- Possession for the purpose of trafficking
- Presumption of Possession
- Outcome: The court found that it was unnecessary to invoke s 21 of the MDA to show that Mustaqim was in possession of the Drugs when he was arrested on 26 January 2018.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Controlled drug found in vehicle
- Person in charge of vehicle
- Presumption of Knowledge
- Outcome: The court found that it was not necessary to invoke the presumption under s 18(2) of the MDA that Mustaqim is presumed to have knowledge of the nature of the Drugs that he possessed.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Possession of controlled drug
- Knowledge of nature of drug
- Definition of Trafficking
- Outcome: The court rejected Mustaqim’s defence that he intended to return the Unwanted Drugs, finding that he possessed the Drugs for the purpose of trafficking.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Selling, giving, administering, transporting, sending, delivering, or distributing
- Intention to return drugs
8. Remedies Sought
- Conviction
- Capital Punishment
9. Cause of Actions
- Trafficking in a Controlled Drug
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sulaiman bin Jumari v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 557 | Singapore | Reaffirmed the two-stage inquiry to determine whether a statement was made voluntarily under s 258(3) of the CPC. |
| Rajendran s/o Nagarethinam v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | No | [2022] 3 SLR 689 | Singapore | Cited as an example where s 258(1) of the CPC was invoked to admit statements recorded by officers from institutions such as the Ministry of Manpower. |
| Public Prosecutor v Saridewi bte Djamani and another | High Court | No | [2018] SGHC 204 | Singapore | Cited as an example where s 258(1) of the CPC was invoked to admit statements made by an accused person that were recorded in a psychiatric report. |
| Public Prosecutor v Gunasilan Rajenthiran | High Court | No | [2022] 3 SLR 861 | Singapore | Statements contained in a psychiatric report are admissible for obtaining the psychiatrist’s medical opinion and can be admitted for use in cross-examination in assessing the accused’s credibility and to test the accused’s evidence. |
| Jumadi bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 1 SLR 814 | Singapore | The administering of a mandatory death penalty notice does not, in and of itself, constitute a threat, inducement or promise. |
| Muhammad Ridzuan bin Md Ali v Public Prosecutor and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 721 | Singapore | Outlines the three elements that the Prosecution must prove to make out an offence of trafficking in a controlled drug under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the MDA. |
| Gopu Jaya Raman v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 499 | Singapore | The burden of proof is on the accused person to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that he has no knowledge of the controlled drugs. |
| Mohammad Reduan bin Mustaffar v Public Prosecutor and another appeal and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] SGCA 64 | Singapore | Affirmed that the burden of proof is on the accused person to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that he has no knowledge of the controlled drugs. |
| Obeng Comfort v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 633 | Singapore | Explained the presumption under s 18(2) of the MDA. |
| Dinesh Pillai a/l K Raja Retnam v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 2 SLR 903 | Singapore | To rebut the presumption in s 18(2), the accused must prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he did not have knowledge of the nature of the controlled drug. |
| Gobi a/l Avedian v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 180 | Singapore | The accused person must adduce sufficient evidence which discloses the basis upon which he arrived at that subjective state of mind. |
| Zainal bin Hamad v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 1119 | Singapore | The presumptions under ss 17 and 18(1) of the MDA cannot possibly operate together in the same case. |
| Public Prosecutor v Goh Hock Huat | Court of Appeal | No | [1994] 3 SLR(R) 375 | Singapore | Authority suggesting that the act of returning drugs that were in an accused person’s custody amounts to the trafficking of such drugs. |
| Lee Yuan Kwang v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | No | [1995] 1 SLR(R) 778 | Singapore | Authority suggesting that the act of returning drugs that were in an accused person’s custody amounts to the trafficking of such drugs. |
| Jingga bin Md Selamat alias Kwan Ah Chiam v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | No | [2001] SGCA 32 | Singapore | Authority suggesting that the act of returning drugs that were in an accused person’s custody amounts to the trafficking of such drugs. |
| Ramesh a/l Perumal v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 1003 | Singapore | A person who intended to and in fact returned the drugs to the person who initially entrusted him with the drugs could not be said to be trafficking in such drugs. |
| Ong Ah Chuan v Public Prosecutor | Privy Council | Yes | [1979–1980] SLR(R) 710 | Singapore | Construed the word “transport” in s 3 of the 1973 MDA to mean moving drugs from one person to another. |
| Yeo Choon Huat v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR(R) 450 | Singapore | In a case where the quantity of diamorphine found in an accused’s possession is much larger than what he needs for his own consumption and there is a lack of plausible explanation for him being in possession of a large quantity, the court may draw an irresistible inference that the accused intended to traffic in all the diamorphine that was found in his possession. |
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 |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 22 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 22(3) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 22(4) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 23 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 258 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 258(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 258(3) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 5 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 5(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 5(2) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 8(a) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 17(c) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 18(2) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 21 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 33(1) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 33B(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 33B(2) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 33B(2)(a) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 33B(2)(b) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 2 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Trafficking
- Courier
- Possession
- Knowledge
- MDA
- Contemporaneous Statement
- Cautioned Statement
- Long Statement
- Hari Raya Bag
- Panas
- Methamphetamine
15.2 Keywords
- Drug Trafficking
- Diamorphine
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Criminal Law
- Singapore
- High Court
- Conviction
- Death Penalty
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 75 |
| Criminal Procedure | 60 |
| Evidence Law | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Evidence
- Criminal Procedure