PP v Muhammad Hanafi & Mohamed Nagib: Trafficking Diamorphine & Cannabis
In [2024] SGHC 319, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore heard the case of Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Hanafi bin Abdul Talip and Mohamed Nagib bin Awang. Hanafi faced two charges under the Misuse of Drugs Act for possessing diamorphine and cannabis for trafficking purposes. Nagib faced two charges for delivering the same drugs to Hanafi. The court, presided over by Hoo Sheau Peng J, found both Hanafi and Nagib guilty of all charges. The judgment was delivered on 16 December 2024.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Muhammad Hanafi and Mohamed Nagib were convicted of trafficking diamorphine and cannabis.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Muhammad Hanafi and Mohamed Nagib were jointly tried for trafficking diamorphine and cannabis. Hanafi was found guilty on all charges.
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 | Marcus Foo of Attorney-General’s Chambers Benedict Teong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Natalie Chu of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Muhammad Hanafi bin Abdul Talip | Defendant | Individual | Convicted | Lost | |
| Mohamed Nagib bin Awang | Defendant | Individual | Convicted | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Hoo Sheau Peng | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Marcus Foo | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Benedict Teong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Natalie Chu | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| N K Rajarh | Damodara Ong LLC |
| Sureshan s/o T Kulasingam | Sureshan LLC |
| Boon Khoon Lim | Dora Boon & Company |
| Chua Siow Lee Dora | Dora Boon & Company |
4. Facts
- Hanafi and Nagib were arrested on 27 April 2021 for drug-related offences.
- Hanafi possessed 58.86g of diamorphine and 499.99g of cannabis.
- Nagib allegedly delivered the drugs to Hanafi.
- The drugs were found in Hanafi's Superdry bag.
- WhatsApp messages indicated a pre-arranged meeting between Hanafi and Nagib.
- Hanafi claimed the drugs were for personal consumption, but the court disbelieved him.
- Zaihidir, the driver, testified to seeing Nagib pass a bag to Hanafi.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Hanafi bin Abdul Talip and another, Criminal Case No 24 of 2023, [2024] SGHC 319
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Accused persons met to collect drugs | |
| Accused persons arrested | |
| Trial began | |
| Trial concluded | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment delivered |
7. Legal Issues
- Trafficking of Controlled Drugs
- Outcome: The court found that both accused persons were guilty of trafficking controlled drugs.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Possession of controlled drugs
- Knowledge of the nature of the drug
- Possession for the purpose of trafficking
- Presumption of Trafficking
- Outcome: The court found that Hanafi failed to rebut the presumption of trafficking.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Rebuttal of presumption
- Intention for personal consumption
- Chain of Custody
- Outcome: The court found that the prosecution had established an unbroken chain of custody for the drug exhibits.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Integrity of drug exhibits
- Tampering of evidence
- Admissibility of Confessions
- Outcome: The court admitted Hanafi's statements as confessions and considered them against Nagib.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Voluntariness of statements
- Self-incrimination
- Statements against interest
8. Remedies Sought
- Conviction
- Sentencing
9. Cause of Actions
- Drug Trafficking
- Possession of Controlled Drugs
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mohamed Affandi bin Rosli v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 440 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the burden of establishing the chain of custody lies on the Prosecution. |
| Public Prosecutor v Yogesswaran C Manogaran and another | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHC 170 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an accused person’s inability to observe the processing and/or sealing of a drug exhibit does not automatically break the chain of custody. |
| Chong Hoon Cheong v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 2 SLR 778 | Singapore | Cited for the elements in respect of a charge of trafficking under s 5(1) read with s 5(2) of the MDA. |
| Zainal bin Hamad v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 1119 | Singapore | Cited for the elements in respect of a charge of trafficking under s 5(1) read with s 5(2) of the MDA. |
| Muhammad bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 427 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the burden is on the accused to rebut the presumption of trafficking on a balance of probabilities. |
| A Steven s/o Paul Raj v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 2 SLR 538 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the key pillar and essential foundation of the consumption defence is an accused person’s rate of consumption. |
| Saridewi bte Djamani v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 2 SLR 1362 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the key pillar and essential foundation of the consumption defence is an accused person’s rate of consumption. |
| Adili Chibuike Ejike v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 254 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that to prove possession, the Prosecution need only prove that the accused person knew of the existence, within his possession, control or custody, of the thing which is later found to be a controlled drug. |
| Ong Ah Chuan and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1979–1980] SLR(R) 710 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where an accused is caught conveying controlled drugs from one place to another in a quantity much larger than that needed for his own consumption, there would be an irresistible inference that he was transporting them for the purpose of trafficking. |
| Chai Chien Wei Kelvin v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 619 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a statement amounts to a confession so long as it states or suggests the inference that the accused committed the offence. |
| Tong Chee Kong and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR(R) 591 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that for a statement to amount to a confession, it need not be of a plenary or unqualified nature, so long as it connects the accused to the offence in some way. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ramesh a/l Perumal and another | High Court | No | [2017] SGHC 290 | Singapore | Nagib relied on this case to argue that Nagib and Hanafi are facing distinct offences. |
| Ramesh a/l Perumal v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | No | [2019] 1 SLR 1003 | Singapore | Nagib relied on this case to argue that Nagib and Hanafi are facing distinct offences. |
| Abdul Aziz bin Mohamed Hanib v Public Prosecutor and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 5 SLR 640 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there are two additional grounds under ss 258(5)(b) and (c) under which an accused person’s confession may be used against a co-accused, both of which do not require accused persons to be charged for the same offence. |
| Shaikh Farid v Public Prosecutor and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 5 SLR 1081 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that illustrations may be helpful examples of how the law was anticipated to apply to a given factual scenario, they cannot be read so as to unduly circumscribe the plain meaning of a statutory provision. |
| Norasharee bin Gous v Public Prosecutor and another appeal and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 820 | Singapore | Cited for the caution that when an accused person is convicted solely on a co-accused confession, such a confession must be very compelling, and the court may consider the state of mind and the incentive of the confessor in giving evidence against the co-accused. |
| Imran bin Mohd Arip v Public Prosecutor and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 744 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that even though the Prosecution was not relying solely on Imran’s statements against Tamil, in light of the Prosecution’s heavy reliance on Imran’s statements, it was appropriate to examine whether there was any reason not to rely on Imran’s statements in the case against Tamil. |
| Gopu Jaya Raman v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 499 | Singapore | Cited for the observation that the absence of an accused person’s DNA on specific items is not conclusive, though it may supplement the evidence already before the court. |
| Public Prosecutor v GCK and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 486 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that when making allegations, the defence bears the burden of adducing sufficient evidence of a witness’s motive for making false allegations. |
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 17(c) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 23 of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 22 of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 267(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 267(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 258(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 258(7) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 8(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 8(b)(ii) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 8(b)(i) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 9 of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Cannabis
- Trafficking
- Possession
- Delivery
- Chain of Custody
- Confession
- Presumption of Trafficking
- Superdry Bag
- WhatsApp Messages
15.2 Keywords
- Drug Trafficking
- Diamorphine
- Cannabis
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 70 |
| Admissibility of evidence | 50 |
| Evidence Law | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Evidence
- Criminal Procedure