Case Details
- Citation: [2019] SGHC 17
- Case Number: Criminal Case No 65 of 2018
- Decision Date: 28 January 2019
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Judges: Chan Seng Onn J
- Coram: Chan Seng Onn J
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Public Prosecutor
- Defendant/Respondent: Muhammad Faizal Bin Mohd Shariff (“Faizal”)
- Counsel for the Public Prosecutor: Terence Chua, Dwayne Lum and Sia Jiazheng (Attorney-General’s Chambers)
- Counsel for the Accused: Eugene Thuraisingam and Chooi Jing Yen (Eugene Thuraisingam LLP)
- Legal Area: Criminal law — Statutory offences
- Statutes Referenced: Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”); Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed); First Schedule to the MDA
- Key MDA Provisions: s 5(1)(a), s 5(2), s 17(d), s 33(1), s 33B
- Charge: Trafficking in a Class A controlled drug (cannabis) under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2), punishable under s 33(1) or alternatively s 33B
- Drug Quantity (as charged): Six blocks containing not less than 3540.07g of vegetable matter, analysed to contain 1562.97g of cannabis
- Judgment Length: 14 pages, 7,041 words
- Procedural Note (Appeal): Faizal’s appeal in Criminal Appeal No 3 of 2019 was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 6 August 2019 with no written grounds
Summary
In Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Faizal Bin Mohd Shariff ([2019] SGHC 17), the High Court convicted the accused of trafficking in cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act (“MDA”). The case turned on whether the Prosecution proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Faizal had actual possession and knowledge of six blocks of cannabis (labelled E1 to E6) found in a condominium unit, and whether such possession was for the purpose of trafficking.
The court accepted the Prosecution’s narrative that Faizal collected four “storybooks” of cannabis from a roadside near Pasir Ris, repacked one storybook into three smaller blocks, and then stored all six blocks in the drawer of the television console in the master bedroom. Although Faizal admitted collecting the four storybooks, he denied possession and knowledge of E1, E2 and E3, and claimed that the remaining storybooks had disappeared and were replaced by other similar packages. The court rejected these assertions, finding that Faizal’s admissions were strongly corroborated by the physical evidence and the improbability of the defence scenario.
On the trafficking element, the court held that the Prosecution was entitled to rely on the statutory presumption in s 17(d) of the MDA (for cannabis exceeding 15g), which Faizal failed to rebut. The conviction therefore followed both on possession/knowledge and on trafficking purpose.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The condominium unit at 95 Pasir Ris Grove #06-41, NV Residences (“the Unit”) was owned by Ong Bee Leng (“Ong”), who used it for short-term rentals. On 1 February 2016, Ong rented the Unit to Kow Lee Ting Serena (“Serena”) for an initial period ending 8 February 2016. Serena informed Ong that she would stay in the Unit with two colleagues: Faizal and Muhammad Hizamudin Bin Sheik Allahudin (“Arab”). A further person, Leonard Cheng Lee Siang (“Leo”), would come to the Unit occasionally. Apart from Faizal, Serena, Arab and Leo, no one else had access to the Unit.
Serena extended the rental on 8 February 2016 so that it ran until 15 February 2016. On 14 February 2016, Faizal and Serena were arrested by the Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) in relation to another matter. When the rental period ended on 15 February 2016, Ong attempted to contact Serena to collect the door access cards but could not reach her. Ong and her husband then went to the Unit at about 10.00pm, found no one inside, and retrieved what they believed to be the tenants’ belongings, leaving them with the condominium security supervisor for safekeeping.
On 16 February 2016, Ong returned to clean the Unit and discovered six blocks of cannabis wrapped in cling wrap in the drawer of the television console in the master bedroom. She placed the six blocks in a red plastic bag and brought them to the security supervisor. Later that evening, the security supervisor noticed a strong smell and suspected illegal drugs. Police were called, and CNB officers seized the six blocks, labelling them E1 to E6. The Health Sciences Authority analysed the contents and found a total of 1562.97g of cannabis within 3540.07g of vegetable matter.
The Prosecution’s case was that Faizal had actual possession and knowledge of all six blocks. It alleged that on 9 February 2016 around midnight, Faizal drove to Pasir Ris Farmway and picked up four blocks of cannabis by the roadside near the fishing pond. Faizal referred to these blocks as “storybooks”. He then brought the four storybooks back to the Unit. The Prosecution further alleged that Faizal took one storybook and repacked it into three smaller blocks (E4, E5 and E6). He then kept these three smaller blocks together with the remaining three storybooks (E1, E2 and E3) in the drawer of the television console in the master bedroom, where the drugs were later found.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The first key issue was whether the Prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Faizal had actual possession and knowledge of the six blocks of cannabis, particularly E1, E2 and E3. While Faizal admitted collecting four storybooks and bringing them to the Unit, he claimed that he placed them in the chiller compartment of the refrigerator. He also admitted ownership and knowledge of E4, E5 and E6 (the three smaller blocks created by repacking one storybook), but denied possession and knowledge of E1, E2 and E3.
Faizal’s defence was that E1, E2 and E3 were not part of the storybooks he had collected. He claimed that around 12 February 2016, when he checked the chiller compartment again, he noticed the three remaining storybooks had disappeared and only E4, E5 and E6 remained. He further asserted that he did not know how E1 to E6 came to be in the drawer of the television console.
The second key issue concerned the trafficking element. Under the MDA, trafficking under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) requires proof that the accused possessed the controlled drug for the purpose of trafficking. The court had to consider whether the Prosecution proved this element through evidence of trafficking purpose, and in particular whether the statutory presumption in s 17(d) (for cannabis exceeding 15g) applied and was not rebutted.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
Chan Seng Onn J began by setting out the legal framework for the offence. The court referred to the Court of Appeal’s articulation of the elements for a charge under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the MDA: (a) possession of a controlled drug (which may be proved or presumed); (b) knowledge of the nature of the drug (which may be proved or presumed); and (c) proof that the possession was for the purpose of trafficking. The court also noted s 17(d) of the MDA, which provides a presumption that a person proved to have had more than 15g of cannabis shall be presumed to have had it for the purpose of trafficking unless proven otherwise.
On the possession and knowledge issue, the court addressed Faizal’s attempt to reframe the narrative by arguing that the four storybooks were jointly owned by Serena, Arab and Leo, and not solely by him. The judge rejected this contention. First, the defence had not put to Serena that she jointly owned the storybooks, nor had it requested that Arab and Leo be called to give evidence on that assertion. The judge treated the claim as a bare assertion rather than a properly tested evidential position. Second, the judge found it surprising that if the storybooks were jointly owned by Arab and Leo, they would have left their share in the Unit, given the estimated value of the six blocks (around $35,000). Even accepting the defence’s highest version that E1 to E3 were not part of the original four storybooks collected, the court found it undisputed that E4 to E6 came from the repacked storybook Faizal admitted collecting and repacking.
Having dealt with the joint ownership argument, the court then focused on whether Faizal had actual possession and knowledge of E1, E2 and E3. The judgment emphasised that Faizal’s admissions were central. Although the extract provided is truncated, the court’s reasoning (as reflected in the LawNet editorial note and the judge’s approach) relied heavily on the accused’s statement and the corroborative physical circumstances. The court found that the bundles Faizal identified as the ones he picked up from Pasir Ris were precisely the ones later found at the Unit. This alignment undermined the defence theory that E1 to E3 had disappeared and were replaced by other similar packages.
Further, the court considered the internal logic and plausibility of the defence scenario. The judge found it “wholly improbable” that the three packages Faizal admitted he had picked up would inexplicably go missing, only for three other similar packages to be inexplicably placed in their stead. In drug cases, courts often scrutinise whether an accused’s explanation accounts for the physical evidence in a coherent and non-speculative way. Here, the court treated the defence as failing to provide a credible mechanism for how E1 to E3 could have been replaced without any evidential support.
Finally, the court relied on packaging evidence to corroborate possession and knowledge. The judge noted that the packaging on a small bundle labelled E4, which Faizal admitted was his, matched the blue packaging used for the other three large bundles labelled E1 to E3. This matching packaging supported the inference that all six blocks originated from the same source and were handled by the same person, consistent with Faizal’s own admissions about collecting and repacking the storybooks.
On trafficking purpose, the court held that the Prosecution had proven the element beyond a reasonable doubt. The court accepted that the quantity of cannabis exceeded the statutory threshold in s 17(d). Accordingly, the presumption of trafficking applied. The court further held that Faizal was unable to rebut the presumption. While Faizal claimed the drugs were for his own consumption with only a small portion meant for sale, the court’s findings on possession and knowledge, coupled with the quantity and the circumstances of repacking and storage, meant that the defence did not raise a reasonable doubt as to trafficking purpose.
What Was the Outcome?
Chan Seng Onn J found that the Prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Faizal had actual possession and knowledge of all six blocks of cannabis, and that such possession was for the purpose of trafficking. The court therefore convicted Faizal of the charge under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the MDA, punishable under s 33(1) (with the alternative sentencing provision under s 33B also referenced in the charge).
The LawNet editorial note further indicates that Faizal’s appeal to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Appeal No 3 of 2019) was dismissed on 6 August 2019 without written grounds. The sole question on appeal was whether Faizal had admitted in his statement of 21 February 2016 that he was in possession of the three large bundles labelled E1 to E3. The Court of Appeal was satisfied that Faizal was in possession of these bundles and knew they contained cannabis, and that the statutory presumption on trafficking was not rebutted.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case is significant for practitioners because it illustrates how Singapore courts evaluate possession and knowledge in drug trafficking prosecutions, particularly where an accused admits part of the narrative but denies possession of specific items. The court’s approach shows that admissions—when corroborated by objective physical evidence—can be decisive. Even where fingerprints are absent on particular exhibits, the court may still find possession and knowledge proved through a combination of admissions, consistency of the accused’s account with the evidence, and improbability of alternative explanations.
From a trafficking perspective, the decision reinforces the practical operation of the statutory presumption in s 17(d) of the MDA. Once the Prosecution proves possession of more than 15g of cannabis, the burden shifts to the accused to rebut the presumption. The case demonstrates that bare assertions of personal consumption, without credible evidential support, may be insufficient—especially where the accused’s conduct (collecting, repacking, and storing multiple blocks) is consistent with trafficking rather than mere personal use.
For law students and defence counsel, the case also highlights the importance of properly putting defence theories to witnesses and considering whether to call relevant persons. The judge rejected Faizal’s joint ownership argument in part because it was not put to Serena and Arab/Leo were not called to address it. This underscores a procedural and evidential lesson: unsupported assertions are unlikely to create reasonable doubt where the Prosecution’s case is corroborated by physical and documentary evidence.
Legislation Referenced
- Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed): s 5(1)(a), s 5(2), s 17(d), s 33(1), s 33B
- Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed): First Schedule (Class A controlled drug listing)
- Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed): s 128
Cases Cited
- Masoud Rahimi bin Mehrzad v Public Prosecutor and another appeal [2017] 1 SLR 257
- Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Faizal Bin Mohd Shariff [2019] SGHC 17 (Court of Appeal dismissal noted in editorial note: Criminal Appeal No 3 of 2019, dismissed on 6 August 2019)
Source Documents
This article analyses [2019] SGHC 17 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.