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
- Reserved: 10 July 2025
- Appeal Numbers: Criminal Appeal Nos. 11 and 12 of 2022
- Lower Court: High Court (General Division), Criminal Case No 32 of 2019
- Judges: Sundaresh Menon CJ, Tay Yong Kwang JCA and Belinda Ang Saw Ean JCA
- Appellant (CCA 11): Muhammad Izwan bin Borhan
- Appellant (CCA 12): Ahmad Suhaimi bin Ismail
- Respondent: Public Prosecutor
- Legal Area: Criminal Law — Statutory offences
- Statutory Framework (as referenced in metadata): Misuse of Drugs Act (including Class A of the First Schedule; ss 5(1)(a), 5(2), 12, 33(1), 33B referenced in the charges)
- Procedure: Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) (including s 392(1) for taking additional evidence on appeal)
- Related High Court Decisions: Public Prosecutor v Muhammed Izwan bin Borhan and another [2022] SGHC 40 (First Judgment); Public Prosecutor v Muhammed Izwan bin Borhan and another [2025] SGHC 15 (Second Judgment)
- Cases Cited (as provided): [2022] SGHC 40; [2022] SGHC 5; [2025] SGCA 55; [2025] SGHC 15
- Judgment Length: 82 pages, 23,826 words
Summary
This Court of Appeal decision concerns two related capital drug appeals arising from Criminal Case No 32 of 2019. The appellants, Muhammad Izwan bin Borhan (“Izwan”) and Ahmad Suhaimi bin Ismail (“Suhaimi”), were convicted of trafficking in diamorphine (heroin) and methamphetamine (Ice) under the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) (“MDA”), and Suhaimi was additionally convicted of abetting the trafficking offences via conspiracy. The trial judge imposed the mandatory death penalty on both appellants after rejecting their characterisation as mere couriers.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals. It upheld the trial judge’s findings that the chain of custody of the drug exhibits was not broken, that Izwan’s statements to the Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) were admissible, and that the heroin and Ice charges were proved beyond reasonable doubt. A key appellate focus was whether the heroin quantity in the charges had been properly reduced from five “biji” to one “biji” (or otherwise), and whether any reasonable doubt arose from the exclusion of heroin found in an aluminium tray (“A3”) at Izwan’s home. The Court of Appeal concluded that the prosecution’s case remained sufficient even after the remittal for additional evidence.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The factual matrix is rooted in a drug transaction on 29 September 2017 in Singapore, involving heroin (diamorphine) and Ice (methamphetamine). The judgment explains that, as is common in the drug trade, participants used coded terms. “Panas”, “ubat” and “heroin” referred to diamorphine; “sejuk”, “air batu” and “Ice” referred to methamphetamine; and “cook” or “cooking” referred to packing. A “biji” (or “batu”) of heroin typically meant a packet weighing about 450g (roughly one pound). For Ice, half a “batang” meant approximately 500g of methamphetamine.
Izwan and Suhaimi were known by aliases: Izwan was also known as “Neo” or “Prapa”, while Suhaimi was known as “Hustler”. Their drug supplier was Mohamed Yusof bin Kasim (“Yusof”), who was also known as “Kimo” or “Momo”. Yusof sourced drugs from a Malaysian supplier named “Arun”, whom Izwan referred to as “Mamak”. The appellants had known each other since 2008 and reconnected in 2014 while attending prison school. After release, they re-established contact with Yusof, who dealt in drugs including heroin sourced from Arun.
At the material time, Izwan resided in a flat on the 12th floor of Block 27 New Upper Changi Road (“Block 27”). On 29 September 2017, Izwan left his residence at about 11.38am and arrived at Toh Guan East by taxi around 12.22pm, with a traffic jam along the way. Around 12.46pm, near 31 Toh Guan East, Izwan collected five “biji” of heroin and one packet of Ice weighing about 500g. The exchange involved cash placed in Arun’s runner’s motorcycle basket in return for the drugs. Izwan then went home by GrabCab.
Once at his flat, Izwan repackaged one “biji” of heroin and, as the trial evidence later showed, the drugs were ultimately seized and processed into exhibits for the purpose of prosecution. The case also turned on how the heroin was handled and accounted for, including whether heroin found in an aluminium tray marked “A3” should be excluded from the heroin quantity attributed to the appellants. The trial judge excluded the A3 heroin on the basis that there was a reasonable doubt whether it was solely from the drugs collected on 29 September 2017 or whether it included heroin from a previous purchase. This exclusion reduced the heroin quantities in the charges, but the charges remained capital charges.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
First, the Court of Appeal had to determine whether the prosecution proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt, focusing on evidential reliability. This included whether the chain of custody of the drug exhibits was intact. In drug cases, the integrity of the exhibits is crucial because any break in custody can undermine the inference that the accused possessed the specific controlled drugs charged.
Second, the Court of Appeal addressed the admissibility and use of Izwan’s statements to the CNB. The judgment indicates that the appellants challenged whether those statements could be relied upon, and the Court of Appeal had to decide whether the statements were properly admitted and, if so, what weight they should carry in establishing the elements of trafficking and conspiracy/abetment.
Third, and most prominently, the Court of Appeal considered whether the heroin charges were properly made out in light of the trial judge’s reduction from five “biji” to a smaller quantity (including the exclusion of A3). The issue was not merely arithmetic; it concerned whether the prosecution’s case on the “order” or quantity of heroin to be trafficked remained consistent and whether any reasonable doubt arose from the trial judge’s exclusion. Relatedly, the Court of Appeal also examined whether the appellants’ conduct and knowledge established trafficking (as opposed to mere possession for consumption or a bailee arrangement) and, for Suhaimi, whether conspiracy and abetment were proved.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The Court of Appeal began by confirming the framework for assessing whether the prosecution had proved the elements of the offences. For trafficking charges under the MDA, the prosecution must establish possession of the controlled drug for the purpose of trafficking, and the statutory provisions governing punishment and capital thresholds depend on the quantity and classification of the drug. The Court of Appeal’s analysis therefore required careful scrutiny of the evidence linking the appellants to the specific quantities of diamorphine and methamphetamine charged.
On the chain of custody, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s conclusion that the chain was not broken. The judgment distinguishes between alleged gaps that might create reasonable doubt and the actual evidential continuity shown by the prosecution’s handling of the exhibits. The Court of Appeal accepted that, taken as a whole, the evidence established that the drug exhibits tested and presented in court were the same drugs seized from the relevant locations. In particular, the Court of Appeal addressed the chain of custody of “F1B1” (a specific exhibit), concluding that it was not broken. This meant that the chemical analysis and the quantified findings could be relied upon without the inference being undermined.
On admissibility of Izwan’s statements, the Court of Appeal held that Izwan’s third, fourth and fifth statements to the CNB were admissible, and it also considered the first statement separately. While the extract provided does not reproduce the detailed voir dire reasoning, the Court of Appeal’s conclusion indicates that the trial judge did not err in admitting the statements and that any challenge to their admissibility did not succeed on appeal. The practical effect is that the statements could be used to support the prosecution’s narrative about the transaction, the appellants’ roles, and the intended purpose of possession.
The Court of Appeal then turned to the heroin charges and the pivotal “biji” issue. The trial judge had excluded heroin found in A3 because of a reasonable doubt about whether that heroin was solely from the 29 September 2017 collection or whether it included heroin from a previous purchase. This exclusion reduced the heroin quantities in the charges to not less than 26.19g of diamorphine (and corresponding granular/powdery substance weight). On appeal, the appellants argued that the heroin “order” should have been reduced further, potentially to one “biji”, and that the prosecution’s case did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants possessed the full reduced quantity for trafficking.
The Court of Appeal rejected these arguments. It found that there was no reduction in the order for heroin to one “biji” in the manner contended by the appellants. The Court of Appeal also accepted that the order for heroin was not for Izwan alone, which supported the inference that the heroin in Izwan’s possession was part of a trafficking arrangement involving more than Izwan’s personal dealings. Crucially, the Court of Appeal held that Izwan possessed the five “biji” of heroin for the purposes of trafficking, notwithstanding the exclusion of A3 for the purpose of reducing the charged quantities. In other words, the exclusion affected the evidential basis for attributing certain heroin to the charged transaction, but it did not create a reasonable doubt about the overall trafficking intent and the possession element as charged.
For Suhaimi’s heroin charge, the Court of Appeal analysed whether Suhaimi knew of Izwan’s intention to traffic in the heroin. It concluded that Suhaimi did know of Izwan’s intention to traffic. This knowledge, together with the conspiracy/abetment charge structure, allowed the Court of Appeal to uphold the conviction for abetting trafficking in diamorphine. The judgment also dealt with the effect of additional evidence taken at a remittal hearing. The Court of Appeal noted that the further evidence did not assist the appellants, and it affirmed the trial judge’s view that even if the additional evidence had been available at trial, the verdict would have remained the same.
On the Ice charges, the Court of Appeal addressed two main contentions. First, Izwan argued that he did not intend to consume part of his 125g portion of Ice. The Court of Appeal rejected this, finding that the evidence supported an inference of trafficking rather than consumption. Second, the Court of Appeal held that Izwan trafficked in the Ice and was not merely a bailee for Suhaimi’s share. This distinction mattered because a bailee arrangement may, depending on the facts, affect whether the accused had the requisite purpose of trafficking.
Regarding Suhaimi’s Ice conspiracy/abetment charge, the Court of Appeal found that Suhaimi conspired with Izwan for Izwan to possess 375g of Ice. It further held that Suhaimi knew that Izwan intended to traffic in the 125g of Ice. These findings supported the conclusion that the conspiracy elements and the knowledge component for abetment were proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Finally, the Court of Appeal dealt with miscellaneous procedural and pleading issues. It held that the particulars of timing and location stated in Izwan’s charges did not raise reasonable doubt. It also rejected an argument that Izwan’s Ice charge was defective. On credibility, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge did not err in not impeaching ASP Bong’s credit. Collectively, these rulings reinforced that the convictions were not undermined by technical defects or evidential credibility errors.
What Was the Outcome?
The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals (CCA 11 and CCA 12). It upheld Izwan’s convictions for trafficking in heroin and Ice, and it upheld Suhaimi’s convictions for conspiracy/abetment relating to trafficking in both drugs. The mandatory death sentences imposed by the trial judge therefore stood.
In practical terms, the decision confirms that, even where the trial judge excludes certain drug quantities (such as those found in A3) to address reasonable doubt, the prosecution may still prove the remaining charged quantities and the trafficking purpose beyond reasonable doubt. It also affirms that remittal for additional evidence under s 392(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code does not automatically warrant a different outcome where the additional evidence does not create a new reasonable doubt.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case is significant for practitioners because it illustrates how appellate courts approach the intersection of (i) chain of custody challenges, (ii) admissibility and use of CNB statements, and (iii) the evidential consequences of excluding certain drug quantities due to reasonable doubt. In capital drug cases, these issues often determine whether the prosecution can sustain the statutory thresholds for conviction and punishment.
From a doctrinal perspective, the decision reinforces that the exclusion of some exhibits or quantities (for example, heroin in A3) does not necessarily unravel the prosecution’s entire case. Courts may still infer possession for the purpose of trafficking from the totality of evidence, including the accused’s statements and the circumstances of collection, repackaging, and intended distribution. The Court of Appeal’s reasoning on the “biji” issue is particularly instructive: it shows that the “order” and the trafficking arrangement may be established beyond reasonable doubt even if certain portions are excluded to address evidential uncertainty.
For conspiracy and abetment charges, the decision underscores the importance of proving knowledge and intention. Suhaimi’s convictions were upheld because the Court of Appeal found that he knew of Izwan’s intention to traffic and that the conspiracy for trafficking Ice was established. Defence counsel in future cases will therefore need to engage directly with the evidential basis for knowledge and purpose, rather than relying solely on alternative characterisations such as bailee arrangements or consumption intent.
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 (classification of controlled drugs)
Cases Cited
- Public Prosecutor v Muhammed Izwan bin Borhan and another [2022] SGHC 40
- [2022] SGHC 5
- Public Prosecutor v Muhammed Izwan bin Borhan and another [2025] SGHC 15
- [2025] SGCA 55
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.