Mohamed Faizel Ahmed v Public Prosecutor: Drug Consumption, Possession, and Appeal
Mohamed Faizel Ahmed appealed to the General Division of the High Court of Singapore against his conviction for drug consumption and possession under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The High Court, presided over by See Kee Oon J, dismissed both the appeal and a related criminal motion on 31 July 2023, with grounds of decision issued on 3 October 2023. The court found that Mohamed Faizel Ahmed had failed to rebut the statutory presumptions regarding his knowledge and consumption of controlled drugs.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal against conviction for drug consumption and possession. The court dismissed the appeal, finding the statutory presumptions unrebutted.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mohamed Faizel Ahmed | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | A Revi Shanker s/o K Annamalai |
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | R Arvindren |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| See Kee Oon | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| A Revi Shanker s/o K Annamalai | ARShanker Law Chambers |
| R Arvindren | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- Appellant was arrested on suspicion of drug consumption and possession.
- Urine samples tested positive for Class A drugs.
- Appellant claimed he unknowingly consumed drugs given to him by four individuals.
- Appellant claimed he was unaware that a packet in his possession contained controlled drugs.
- The District Judge found the appellant's account of the four individuals to be untrue.
- The appellant did not disclose the involvement of the four individuals in his initial statements.
5. Formal Citations
- Mohamed Faizel Ahmed v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 52 of 2023Magistrate’s Appeal No 9214 of 2022, [2023] SGHC 278
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant arrested for suspected drug consumption and possession | |
| Appellant provided urine samples | |
| Appellant convicted on three charges | |
| Appellant sentenced to imprisonment | |
| Notice of Appeal filed | |
| Petition of Appeal filed | |
| Motion filed to adduce further evidence | |
| Motion and Appeal dismissed | |
| Grounds of Decision issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Drug Consumption
- Outcome: The court found that the appellant failed to rebut the presumption of drug consumption under s 22 of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
- Category: Substantive
- Drug Possession
- Outcome: The court found that the appellant failed to rebut the presumption of knowledge of the nature of the drug under s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
- Category: Substantive
- Adducing Fresh Evidence
- Outcome: The court denied the motion to adduce further evidence.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [1954] 1 WLR 1489
- [2018] 1 SLR 544
- [2022] 2 SLR 49
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against Conviction
9. Cause of Actions
- Consumption of Controlled Drugs
- Possession of Controlled Drugs
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ladd v Marshall | N/A | Yes | [1954] 1 WLR 1489 | N/A | Cited for the test to adduce fresh evidence |
| Public Prosecutor v Mohd Ariffan bin Mohd Hassan | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 544 | Singapore | Cited for adopting the test in Ladd v Marshall |
| Sanjay Krishnan v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [2022] 2 SLR 49 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements to adduce fresh evidence |
| Cheng Siah Johnson v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR(R) 839 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a bare assertion is insufficient to rebut the presumption under s 22 of the MDA |
| Public Prosecutor v Kenneth Choo Chee Fye | N/A | Yes | [2017] SGDC 207 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a bare assertion is insufficient to rebut the presumption under s 22 of the MDA |
| Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Shafiq bin Shariff | High Court | Yes | [2021] 5 SLR 1317 | Singapore | Distinguished regarding the element of knowledge in drug 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 |
| s 8(b)(i) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 33(3A) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 8(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 33(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 9 of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 22 of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 392 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act 1893 (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Controlled Drugs
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Presumption
- Rebuttal
- Four Individuals
- PINACA
- Fresh Evidence
15.2 Keywords
- Drug Consumption
- Drug Possession
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Appeal
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Offences
- Appeals
- Evidence
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Law
- Statutory Offences
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Criminal Procedure
- Sentencing
- Appeal