Case Details
- Citation: [2025] SGCA 55
- Title: Muhammad Izwan bin Borhan v Public Prosecutor and another appeal
- Court: Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore
- Date of Judgment: 3 December 2025
- Judgment Reserved: 10 July 2025
- Appeal Numbers: Criminal Appeal Nos. 11 and 12 of 2022
- CCA 11 (Izwan’s appeal): Court of Appeal / Criminal Appeal No 11 of 2022
- CCA 12 (Suhaimi’s appeal): Court of Appeal / Criminal Appeal No 12 of 2022
- Originating Trial: Criminal Case No 32 of 2019
- Appellant (CCA 11): Muhammad Izwan bin Borhan
- Appellant (CCA 12): Ahmad Suhaimi bin Ismail
- Respondent: Public Prosecutor
- Judges: Sundaresh Menon CJ, Tay Yong Kwang JCA and Belinda Ang Saw Ean JCA
- Legal Area: Criminal Law — Statutory offences
- Statutes Referenced (as provided): B of the said Act; B of the said Act; Class A of the First Schedule of the Misuse of Drugs Act; Criminal Procedure Code; First Schedule of the Misuse of Drugs Act
- Key Statutory Provisions (as reflected in charges): Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed): s 5(1)(a), s 5(2), s 12, s 33(1), s 33B; Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed): s 392(1)
- Trial Court Decision (First Judgment): Public Prosecutor v Muhammed Izwan bin Borhan and another [2022] SGHC 40
- Supplemental Decision on Additional Evidence (Second Judgment): Public Prosecutor v Muhammed Izwan bin Borhan and another [2025] SGHC 15
- Length of Judgment: 82 pages; 23,826 words
- Cases Cited (as provided): [2022] SGHC 40; [2022] SGHC 5; [2025] SGCA 55; [2025] SGHC 15
Summary
In Muhammad Izwan bin Borhan v Public Prosecutor and another appeal ([2025] SGCA 55), the Court of Appeal dismissed two related appeals arising from capital drug charges under the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA). The appellants, Muhammad Izwan bin Borhan (“Izwan”) and Ahmad Suhaimi bin Ismail (“Suhaimi”), were convicted and sentenced to the mandatory death penalty at first instance. Both appealed against conviction and sentence, challenging, among other things, the integrity of the drug exhibits, the admissibility and effect of Izwan’s statements to the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB), and whether the prosecution proved the requisite intent and quantities beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions. It found that the chain of custody for the heroin exhibits was not broken, that Izwan’s statements to CNB were admissible and, in substance, did not raise reasonable doubt on the critical issue of whether the heroin order had been reduced from five “biji” to only one “biji”. The court further held that the heroin and ice charges were made out beyond reasonable doubt, including findings that Izwan possessed the relevant heroin packets for the purpose of trafficking and that Suhaimi knew of Izwan’s intention to traffic. For the ice charges, the court accepted that the evidence supported trafficking rather than mere bailment and that Suhaimi conspired with Izwan to traffic in the relevant methamphetamine quantities.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The appeals concerned events on 29 September 2017 in the vicinity of 31 Toh Guan East, Singapore. The prosecution’s case was that, in the course of a coordinated drug transaction, Izwan collected heroin and methamphetamine (“Ice”) from a supplier and then repackaged and distributed the drugs in a manner consistent with trafficking. The case also involved Suhaimi, who was alleged to have conspired with Izwan to traffic in both heroin and Ice, and who played a role in communicating with the supplier and arranging the transaction.
Drug jargon featured prominently at trial. The judgment explains that “panas”, “ubat” and “heroin” referred to diamorphine; “sejuk”, “air batu” and “Ice” referred to methamphetamine; and “cook” or “cooking” described the packing of drugs. A “biji” (or “batu”) of heroin typically referred to a packet weighing about 450g (approximately one pound). For Ice, the evidence used the concept of half a “batang” as roughly 500g of methamphetamine. The appellants and key persons also used aliases: Izwan was known as “Neo” or “Prapa”, and Suhaimi as “Hustler”. The supplier, a Malaysian source referred to as “Arun”, was known to Izwan by that name.
Izwan and Suhaimi had known each other since 2008 and reconnected in 2014 while attending prison school. During their incarceration, each met a person named Yusof separately. After release—Izwan in 2015 and Suhaimi in 2016—they re-established contact with Yusof. The evidence showed that both appellants were aware that Yusof dealt in drugs, including heroin sourced from Arun. Izwan admitted to having previously purchased heroin from Yusof and to dealing in heroin and Ice. Suhaimi admitted to dealing in Ice but denied dealing in heroin, claiming instead that he referred customers who wanted heroin to Izwan. The prosecution’s narrative, however, was that both were involved in the trafficking operation and that Suhaimi’s role extended beyond mere referral.
On the day in question, Izwan was residing in a flat at Block 27 New Upper Changi Road. He left his residence at about 11.38am and arrived in the Toh Guan East area by taxi around 12.22pm, with a traffic jam affecting his journey. At about 12.46pm, near 31 Toh Guan East, Izwan collected five “biji” of heroin and one packet of 500 grams of Ice. He placed cash in Arun’s runner’s motorcycle basket in exchange for the drugs. After the collection, Izwan returned home using a GrabCab. The prosecution evidence further indicated that Izwan repackaged one “biji” of heroin in his flat, consistent with the operational pattern of dividing and preparing drugs for onward trafficking.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The first major issue was whether the prosecution proved the heroin charges beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in relation to the quantity and the “order reduction” argument. The appellants sought to cast doubt on whether the heroin order had been reduced from five “biji” to only one “biji”. This issue was pivotal because the charges were capital charges dependent on the statutory thresholds for diamorphine and methamphetamine quantities. The trial judge had allowed amendments to the heroin charges during the trial, first changing Suhaimi’s heroin charge from one packet to five packets, and later excluding heroin found in an aluminium tray (“A3”) in Izwan’s home, on the basis that there was a reasonable doubt whether the heroin in A3 was solely from the 29 September 2017 collection or included heroin from a previous purchase.
A second key issue concerned the admissibility and effect of Izwan’s statements to CNB. The appellants argued that the statements should not be relied upon, or that they should be treated as raising reasonable doubt on the critical factual matters. The Court of Appeal had to consider whether the statements were admissible and, if so, whether their content supported the prosecution’s version of events, including the quantity and purpose of possession.
Third, for the Ice charges, the court had to determine whether the evidence established trafficking and conspiracy rather than mere bailment or a limited role. For Izwan, the question was whether he possessed and trafficked the methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, and whether he intended to consume part of his 125g portion (a defence raised to undermine the trafficking element). For Suhaimi, the question was whether he conspired with Izwan to traffic in the relevant Ice quantities and whether he knew of Izwan’s intention to traffic.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The Court of Appeal approached the appeals by examining the trial judge’s findings and the evidential basis for those findings, including the chain of custody for the drug exhibits and the internal consistency of the prosecution’s narrative. A central theme was whether the appellants’ arguments created a reasonable doubt that would undermine the prosecution’s proof beyond reasonable doubt. The court emphasised that, in capital drug cases, the legal and factual thresholds are exacting, but the appellate task is not to re-run the trial; rather, it is to assess whether the trial judge’s conclusions were supported by the evidence and whether any alleged errors were material.
On the chain of custody, the court held that the chain for the heroin exhibits was not broken. The judgment indicates that the trial judge had considered the overall drug exhibits and the specific chain of custody for “F1B1” (a heroin exhibit). The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge that there was no break that would render the exhibits unreliable. This finding was important because the appellants’ case depended on undermining the reliability of the heroin evidence, particularly given the quantity thresholds for diamorphine that determine whether the charges are capital.
On Izwan’s statements to CNB, the Court of Appeal found that the statements were admissible. The court then considered the appellants’ arguments at trial and on appeal, including how the statements related to the “order reduction” issue. The court’s analysis reflects that the “order reduction” argument was not merely a technical dispute about weights; it went to the heart of whether the prosecution could prove that Izwan possessed the requisite number of heroin packets for trafficking on 29 September 2017. The trial judge had earlier excluded heroin in A3 due to a reasonable doubt about its source, but that exclusion did not translate into a reasonable doubt about the heroin collected on 29 September 2017 and the number of “biji” relevant to the charges.
The Court of Appeal also addressed the procedural history involving additional evidence. Before the appeals were heard, Suhaimi applied under s 392(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code for additional evidence from Eddie Lee Zhengda (“Eddie”) and Sumardi bin Sjahril Habibie (“Sumardi”). The Court of Appeal granted the application and remitted the matter for the additional evidence to be taken. After the additional evidence was heard, the trial judge concluded that even if it had been available during the trial, he would have arrived at the same verdict. In particular, the trial judge found no reasonable doubt raised by the additional evidence on whether the heroin order had been reduced from five “biji” to only one “biji”. The Court of Appeal accepted that conclusion and treated the further evidence as not assisting the appellants on the pivotal issue.
Turning to the heroin charges, the Court of Appeal held that they were made out beyond reasonable doubt. It rejected the argument that there was a reduction in the order for heroin to one “biji”. The court also found that the order for heroin was not for Izwan alone, which supported the inference that Izwan’s possession was for trafficking rather than personal consumption or a limited custodial arrangement. The court further held that Izwan possessed the five “biji” of heroin for the purposes of trafficking, notwithstanding the trial judge’s exclusion of the A3 heroin for sentencing charge calculations. In other words, the exclusion affected the quantified exhibits relevant to the charges after amendment, but did not create a reasonable doubt about the core trafficking possession and the prosecution’s proof of the relevant heroin packets collected on the day.
For Suhaimi’s heroin charge (conspiracy/abetment), the Court of Appeal found that Suhaimi knew of Izwan’s intention to traffic in the heroin. This knowledge element is crucial for conspiracy and abetment theories because it links the accused’s participation to the unlawful objective. The court’s reasoning indicates that Suhaimi’s role in the transaction, including his communications with the supplier and his involvement in the arrangement, supported the inference of knowledge and participation rather than mere passive association.
On the Ice charges, the Court of Appeal similarly found that the charges were proved beyond reasonable doubt. For Izwan, the court rejected the contention that he did not intend to traffic and that he intended to consume part of his 125g portion. The court held that Izwan trafficked in the Ice and was not a mere bailee for Suhaimi’s share. This distinction matters because, under Singapore’s MDA framework, liability for trafficking depends on the purpose of possession and the accused’s role in the distribution chain. The court’s reasoning indicates that Izwan’s conduct and the surrounding circumstances supported an inference of trafficking intent.
For Suhaimi’s Ice charge, the court held that Suhaimi conspired with Izwan for Izwan to possess 375g of Ice. It also found that Suhaimi knew that Izwan intended to traffic in the 125g of Ice. The court’s analysis thus supported both the conspiracy element (agreement and participation in the unlawful objective) and the knowledge element (awareness of the trafficking intention). The court’s approach reflects a consistent evidential theme: the appellants’ roles and communications were not consistent with a limited custodial arrangement or a purely referral-based involvement.
Finally, the Court of Appeal dealt with miscellaneous issues. It held that the particulars of timing and location stated in Izwan’s charges did not raise reasonable doubt. It also found that Izwan’s Ice charge was not defective. On a credibility-related point, the court held that the trial judge did not err in not impeaching ASP Bong’s credit. These issues, while not the primary drivers of the outcome, demonstrate the court’s view that the trial process did not contain material errors affecting the fairness of the convictions.
What Was the Outcome?
The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals. It affirmed the convictions of Izwan and Suhaimi on their respective heroin and Ice charges and upheld the mandatory death penalty imposed at first instance. The practical effect is that the appellate court did not disturb the trial judge’s findings on chain of custody, admissibility and impact of statements, and the trafficking and conspiracy elements required under the MDA.
In addition, the court’s treatment of the remittal and additional evidence application meant that the further evidence did not alter the evidential landscape in a way that could create reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the convictions and sentences stood.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This decision is significant for practitioners because it reinforces several recurring appellate themes in Singapore capital drug jurisprudence: (1) the importance of chain of custody integrity for drug exhibits; (2) the admissibility and evidential weight of accused persons’ statements to CNB; and (3) the evidential basis for inferring trafficking intent and conspiracy knowledge from the accused’s role in the transaction. Even where certain drug quantities are excluded due to reasonable doubt (as occurred with the A3 aluminium tray), the court’s reasoning shows that such exclusions do not automatically undermine the prosecution’s proof of the core trafficking possession if the remaining evidence still satisfies the statutory thresholds.
For defence counsel, the case illustrates the high bar for overturning convictions in capital cases. Arguments framed around “order reduction” or alternative sourcing of drugs must be supported by evidence that creates a genuine reasonable doubt on the key elements, not merely by speculative inconsistencies. The court’s acceptance that additional evidence obtained on remittal did not assist the appellants underscores that appellate relief will not follow unless the new evidence meaningfully affects the pivotal factual issues.
For prosecutors, the judgment provides a clear endorsement of the trial judge’s approach to amendments of charges, evidential evaluation, and the inference of trafficking and conspiracy from the totality of circumstances. The court’s findings on knowledge—particularly Suhaimi’s knowledge of Izwan’s trafficking intention—are also instructive for how conspiracy and abetment theories are supported in practice.
Legislation Referenced
- Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed): s 5(1)(a), s 5(2), s 12, s 33(1), s 33B; Class A of the First Schedule
- Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed): s 392(1)
- First Schedule of the Misuse of Drugs Act
Cases Cited
- [2022] SGHC 40
- [2022] SGHC 5
- [2025] SGCA 55
- [2025] SGHC 15
Source Documents
This article analyses [2025] SGCA 55 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.