PP v Mohamed Mubin: Misuse of Drugs Act & Abnormality of Mind
In Criminal Case 1 of 2019, Mohamed Mubin bin Abdul Rahman was convicted of abetting drug trafficking. Following an appeal, the case was remitted to the High Court to determine if Mubin's mental state at the time of the offense satisfied section 33B(3)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The court, after hearing expert testimony, determined that Mubin's Unspecified Stimulant-Related Disorder and Stimulant Withdrawal did not constitute an abnormality of mind that substantially impaired his mental responsibility. Therefore, section 33B(3)(b) of the MDA was not satisfied.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Section 33B(3)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act was not satisfied.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Findings on Remittal
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court reviews Mohamed Mubin's MDA conviction, focusing on whether his mental state met the criteria for alternative sentencing.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Prosecution | Government Agency | Successful in opposing the application of s 33B(3)(b) of the MDA | Won | April Phang of Attorney-General’s Chambers Kenny Yang of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Mohamed Mubin bin Abdul Rahman | Accused | Individual | Unsuccessful in seeking alternative sentencing under s 33B(3)(b) of the MDA | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Valerie Thean | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| April Phang | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Kenny Yang | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Eugene Thuraisingam | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
| Johannes Hadi | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
| Mohamed Fazal bin Abdul Hamid | I.R.B Law LLP |
4. Facts
- Mubin was jointly tried with his brother, Lokman, for drug-related offenses.
- Lokman was arrested with 39.28g of diamorphine in his possession.
- Lokman claimed Mubin instructed him to deliver the drugs.
- Mubin denied knowledge of the drugs.
- Mubin was initially charged for abetting Lokman to traffic drugs.
- Mubin raised abnormality of mind for the first time on appeal.
- Mubin consumed methamphetamine daily from February to October 2015.
- Mubin testified to stress from aplastic anemia, reintegration to society, and relationship quarrels.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Mohamed Mubin bin Abdul Rahman, Criminal Case No 1 of 2019, [2023] SGHC 60
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Lokman arrested with diamorphine | |
| Mubin arrested | |
| Criminal Case 1 of 2019 initiated | |
| Mubin raises abnormality of mind in Petition of Appeal | |
| Counsel requests psychiatric assessment for Mubin | |
| Approval granted to engage Dr Ken Ung | |
| Dr Ung's psychiatric report completed | |
| Dr Ung's psychiatric report submitted | |
| Court of Appeal directs remittal | |
| Remittal hearing begins | |
| Judgment reserved pending Roszaidi decision | |
| Court determines s 33B(3)(b) of the MDA was not satisfied | |
| Full grounds of decision furnished |
7. Legal Issues
- Whether the accused suffered from an abnormality of mind at the time of the offence
- Outcome: The court determined that the accused's Unspecified Stimulant-Related Disorder and Stimulant Withdrawal did not constitute an abnormality of mind.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Impact of Unspecified Stimulant-Related Disorder
- Impact of Stimulant Withdrawal
- Impact of Adjustment Disorder
- Whether the abnormality of mind arose from a condition of arrested or retarded development of mind, or arose from any inherent causes, or was induced by disease or injury
- Outcome: The court found that the medical conditions were self-induced and Stimulant Withdrawal was transient.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Whether stimulant disorder is a disease
- Whether continual consumption permanently altered the mind
- Whether the abnormality of mind substantially impaired the accused's mental responsibility for his acts and omissions in relation to his offence
- Outcome: The court found no functional impairment and that the issue of mental responsibility did not arise.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Impact on ability to exercise control over actions
- Functional impairment
8. Remedies Sought
- Alternative Sentencing under s 33B(3)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act
9. Cause of Actions
- Drug Trafficking
- Abetment of Drug Trafficking
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
- Drug Offences
- Appeals
- Mental Health Law
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Lokman bin Abdul Rahman and another | High Court | Yes | [2020] SGHC 48 | Singapore | Cited for the factual background of the case and the initial findings regarding Mubin's involvement. |
| Ramesh a/l Perumal v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 1003 | Singapore | Cited as the basis for amending Lokman's original trafficking charge. |
| Mohammad Azli bin Mohammad Salleh v Public Prosecutor and another appeal and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 1374 | Singapore | Cited for observations regarding alternative sentencing regime and the need for psychiatric reports. |
| Roszaidi bin Osman v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] SGCA 75 | Singapore | Cited for its relevance to arguments on Substance Use Disorder and its impact on the present case. |
| Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 216 | Singapore | Cited for establishing the cumulative requirements under s 33B(3)(b) of the MDA. |
| Wong Tian Jun De Beers v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2022] 4 SLR 805 | Singapore | Cited regarding the weight to be placed on expert reports predicated on the truthfulness of the accused's information. |
| Regina v Byrne | English Court of Criminal Appeal | Yes | [1960] 2 QB 396 | England and Wales | Cited for the definition of 'abnormality of mind'. |
| Iskandar bin Rahmat v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 505 | Singapore | Cited for factors to consider when examining whether the accused was suffering from an abnormality of mind. |
| Public Prosecutor v Roszaidi bin Osman | High Court | Yes | [2021] SGHC 22 | Singapore | Cited to distinguish the facts of the case from the present case. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 5(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 5(2) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 12 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 8(a) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 33B(2)(a) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 33B(2)(b) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 33B(2) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 33B(3)(b) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Methamphetamine
- Abnormality of Mind
- Substantial Impairment
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Stimulant-Related Disorder
- Stimulant Withdrawal
- Adjustment Disorder
- Alternative Sentencing Regime
- Remittal Hearing
15.2 Keywords
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Abnormality of Mind
- Drug Trafficking
- Singapore Law
- Criminal Law
- Mental Disorder
- Sentencing
- Remittal
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 75 |
| Sentencing | 60 |
| Evidence | 50 |
| Abetting | 40 |
| Stimulant-Related Disorder | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Offences
- Mental Health Law
- Sentencing
- Criminal Procedure