Case Details
- Citation: [2025] SGCA 55
- Title: Muhammed Izwan Bin Borhan v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
- Court: Court of Appeal (Criminal Appeal)
- Case Numbers: Criminal Appeal Nos. 11 and 12 of 2022
- Related Proceedings: Criminal Case No. 32 of 2019
- Date of Judgment: 10 July 2025 (Judgment reserved); 3 December 2025 (Judgment delivered)
- Judges: Sundaresh Menon CJ, Tay Yong Kwang JCA and Belinda Ang Saw Ean JCA
- Appellant(s): Muhammed Izwan bin Borhan (CCA 11); Ahmad Suhaimi bin Ismail (CCA 12)
- Respondent: Public Prosecutor
- Legal Area: Criminal Law — Misuse of Drugs Act offences; statutory offences; conspiracy/abetment; admissibility of statements; chain of custody
- Statutes Referenced: Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”); Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) (“CPC”)
- Key MDA Provisions (as reflected in the charges): s 5(1)(a), s 5(2), s 12, s 33(1), s 33B
- Judgment Length: 82 pages; 23,826 words
- Lower Court Decision: Public Prosecutor v Muhammed Izwan bin Borhan and another [2022] SGHC 40 (“First Judgment”)
- Supplemental Judgment on Remittal Evidence: Public Prosecutor v Muhammed Izwan bin Borhan and another [2025] SGHC 15 (“Second Judgment”)
- Procedural Development on Appeal: Additional evidence admitted on Suhaimi’s Criminal Motion under s 392(1) CPC; matter remitted to the trial judge
Summary
This decision of the Singapore Court of Appeal concerned two related capital drug appeals arising from the same set of events on 29 September 2017. Muhammed Izwan bin Borhan (“Izwan”) was convicted of two charges of “trafficking” under the Misuse of Drugs Act (“MDA”): a heroin charge and an ice (methamphetamine) charge. Ahmad Suhaimi bin Ismail (“Suhaimi”) was convicted of two corresponding conspiracy/abetment charges relating to heroin and ice. Both appellants were sentenced to the mandatory death penalty, and both appealed against conviction and sentence.
The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals. It held 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 made out beyond reasonable doubt on the evidence. The Court also rejected various miscellaneous challenges, including arguments relating to the particulars of timing and location, the alleged defectiveness of an ice charge, and a complaint that the trial judge erred by not impeaching a prosecution witness’s credit.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The case arose from a drug transaction in which both appellants were linked to a common drug supply chain. As is common in drug cases, the parties used coded language. The judgment explains that “panas”, “ubat” and “heroin” referred to diamorphine; “sejuk”, “air batu” and “Ice” referred to methamphetamine; and “cook” or “cooking” referred to the packing of drugs. A “biji” or “batu” of heroin typically denoted a packet weighing about 450g (roughly one pound). For Ice, the terminology included “batang”, with half a “batang” approximating 500g of methamphetamine.
Izwan and Suhaimi had known each other since 2008 and later reconnected in 2014 while attending prison school. During their incarceration, each met a person who was later identified as Mohamed Yusof bin Kasim (“Yusof”), who was known by aliases such as “Kimo” or “Momo”. After release, Izwan (released in 2015) and Suhaimi (released in 2016) re-established contact with Yusof. Both knew that Yusof dealt in drugs, including heroin sourced from a Malaysian supplier referred to as “Arun” (which Izwan called “Mamak”).
Izwan admitted that he had previously purchased heroin from Yusof and that he had dealt in heroin and Ice. Suhaimi admitted that he dealt in Ice but denied dealing in heroin. Suhaimi’s defence was that he only referred customers who wanted heroin to Izwan. The evidence also showed that while both appellants sourced drugs from Arun, Suhaimi was the one who communicated with Arun, suggesting a role in procurement and coordination within the supply chain.
On 29 September 2017, Izwan was residing in a flat on the 12th floor of Block 27 New Upper Changi Road. He left his residence at about 11.38am and travelled by taxi to Toh Guan East, arriving around 12.22pm. After a traffic jam, at about 12.46pm near 31 Toh Guan East, Izwan collected five “biji” of heroin and one packet of 500 grams of Ice. He exchanged cash placed in Arun’s runner’s motorcycle basket for the drugs. He then returned home by GrabCab. In his flat, he repackaged one “biji” of heroin (the judgment indicates that the repackaging and subsequent handling of the drugs were central to the trafficking analysis).
At trial, the prosecution’s case relied on the drug exhibits recovered, the manner in which the drugs were handled and packaged, and the evidential value of Izwan’s statements to CNB. The trial judge convicted both appellants. However, there were important charge amendments during the trial, including reductions in the heroin quantities attributable to the appellants after the judge excluded heroin found in an aluminium tray marked “A3” in Izwan’s home. The Court of Appeal later addressed whether those reductions affected the capital threshold and whether the prosecution’s proof remained sufficient.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The Court of Appeal had to determine several interlocking legal issues. First, it had to assess whether the chain of custody of the drug exhibits was intact. In capital drug prosecutions, any break in the chain of custody can undermine the reliability of the identification and quantification of the drugs, which are essential to proving the statutory thresholds for the MDA charges.
Second, the Court had to decide whether Izwan’s statements to CNB were admissible. Admissibility issues often turn on whether the statements were obtained in compliance with legal safeguards and whether any procedural irregularities affected the voluntariness or reliability of the statements. The judgment indicates that the admissibility of Izwan’s “Third, Fourth and Fifth Statements” and also “First Statement” were specifically contested.
Third, the Court had to evaluate whether the heroin and ice charges were made out beyond reasonable doubt. For heroin, the pivotal question included whether the “order” for heroin had been reduced from five “biji” to only one “biji” (as argued by the appellants) and whether the heroin possessed by Izwan was for the purposes of trafficking rather than mere possession or some other benign explanation. For ice, the Court had to decide whether Izwan intended to traffic in his portion of Ice and whether Suhaimi’s involvement amounted to conspiracy/abetment rather than a mere bailee arrangement.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The Court of Appeal began by addressing the procedural and evidential foundations of the prosecution case. A significant procedural feature was that, before the appeals were heard, Suhaimi applied for additional evidence under s 392(1) CPC. The Court granted the application and remitted the matter to the trial judge for the additional evidence to be taken. The additional evidence was heard in November 2024, and the trial judge concluded that even if the additional evidence had been available at trial, he would have arrived at the same verdict. The Court of Appeal accepted that conclusion and proceeded to analyse the substantive grounds.
On the chain of custody, the Court held that it was not broken. The judgment distinguishes between the overall drug exhibits and, in particular, the chain of custody of “F1B1”. While the extract provided does not reproduce the detailed evidential steps, the Court’s conclusion is clear: the prosecution’s handling, packaging, transfer, and documentation of the exhibits were sufficient to preserve the integrity of the drugs. This meant that the defence could not rely on alleged gaps to cast reasonable doubt on the identity or quantity of the drugs tested and presented at trial.
On admissibility of Izwan’s statements, the Court found that Izwan’s statements to CNB were admissible. The Court addressed the appellants’ arguments at trial and on appeal, including arguments that certain statements should not have been admitted or should not be relied upon. The Court’s analysis included a structured review of the “Third, Fourth and Fifth Statements” and also “the First Statement”. The Court ultimately rejected the defence challenge and treated the statements as part of the evidential matrix supporting the prosecution’s case.
The heroin charges turned on two related questions: (1) whether the heroin “order” had been reduced from five “biji” to one “biji”, and (2) whether Izwan possessed the relevant quantity of heroin for the purposes of trafficking. The Court rejected the argument that there was a reduction in the order for heroin to one “biji”. It emphasised that the trial judge’s charge amendments and the exclusion of heroin found in the aluminium tray “A3” were based on a reasonable doubt as to whether that heroin was solely from the drugs collected on 29 September 2017 or included heroin from a previous purchase. However, even after excluding the A3 drugs, the heroin charges remained capital charges. In other words, the reduction did not reduce the case below the statutory threshold for the mandatory death penalty.
Further, the Court held that the order for heroin was not for Izwan alone. This finding supported the inference that Izwan’s possession was not merely for personal consumption or for some non-trafficking purpose. The Court also found that Izwan possessed the five “biji” of heroin for the purposes of trafficking. That conclusion was reinforced by the surrounding circumstances, including the way the drugs were collected, exchanged for cash, and repackaged after arrival at his home.
For Suhaimi’s heroin charge, the Court found that Suhaimi knew of Izwan’s intention to traffic in the heroin. This knowledge element was crucial to establishing conspiracy and abetment under the MDA framework. The Court also considered whether the additional evidence obtained at the remittal hearing assisted the appellants. It held that the further evidence did not assist them on the key issues, including the reduction argument and the trafficking/conspiracy analysis.
The ice charges were analysed in a similarly structured manner. The Court rejected the contention that Izwan did not intend to consume part of his 125g portion of Ice. Instead, it held that Izwan trafficked in the Ice and was not a mere bailee for Suhaimi’s share. This meant that Izwan’s possession and handling of the Ice were consistent with distribution for profit or onward supply rather than a custodial or intermediary role without trafficking intent.
For Suhaimi’s ice charge, the Court found that Suhaimi conspired with Izwan for Izwan to possess 375g of Ice. Again, the knowledge element was central: the Court held that Suhaimi knew that Izwan intended to traffic in the 125g of Ice. The Court’s reasoning indicates that it relied on the totality of the evidence, including the appellants’ roles in communication and procurement, and the practical realities of how the transaction unfolded on 29 September 2017.
Finally, the Court 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 rejected an argument that Izwan’s ice charge was defective. The Court further found that the trial judge did not err in not impeaching ASP Bong’s credit. These rulings reflect the Court’s view that the appellants’ procedural or technical objections did not undermine the core evidential proof beyond reasonable doubt.
What Was the Outcome?
The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals. In CCA 11, Izwan’s convictions for trafficking in heroin and trafficking in methamphetamine (ice) were upheld. In CCA 12, Suhaimi’s convictions for conspiracy/abetment relating to heroin and ice were also upheld. The mandatory death sentences imposed by the trial judge therefore stood.
Practically, the decision confirms that where the prosecution proves an unbroken chain of custody, admissible statements support the trafficking narrative, and the statutory thresholds remain satisfied even after certain exclusions (such as the A3 aluminium tray drugs), the capital charges will remain viable and conviction will be sustained on appeal.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case is significant for practitioners because it illustrates the Court of Appeal’s approach to three recurring themes in capital MDA appeals: (1) the integrity of the chain of custody, (2) the admissibility and evidential weight of CNB statements, and (3) the inference of trafficking intent and conspiracy knowledge from the surrounding circumstances. Even where charge amendments reduce quantities by excluding drugs associated with a reasonable doubt, the Court will still uphold convictions if the remaining quantities continue to meet the capital thresholds.
From a doctrinal perspective, the decision reinforces that trafficking intent can be inferred from conduct and context, including how drugs are collected, exchanged, repackaged, and possessed for onward dealings. It also demonstrates that conspiracy/abetment analysis under the MDA framework is not limited to direct participation; knowledge of the trafficking intention and coordination within the supply chain can be sufficient to establish criminal liability.
For defence counsel, the judgment underscores the importance of targeting the evidential core rather than relying on technical objections. The Court rejected challenges to charge particulars, alleged defects, and witness-credit impeachment decisions where those issues did not create reasonable doubt on the elements of the offences. For prosecutors, the case provides reassurance that careful handling of exhibits and a coherent evidential narrative grounded in admissible statements can withstand appellate scrutiny even in complex, multi-stage trial proceedings.
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 [CDN] [SSO]
- Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) — s 392(1)
Cases Cited
- 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”)
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.