Case Details
- Citation: [2019] SGHC 17
- Title: Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Faizal Bin Mohd Shariff
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Date of Decision: 28 January 2019
- Criminal Case No: Criminal Case No 65 of 2018
- Judge: Chan Seng Onn J
- Parties: Public Prosecutor (Prosecution) v Muhammad Faizal Bin Mohd Shariff (Accused)
- Procedural Posture: Accused claimed trial; court reserved judgment after trial and convicted
- Legal Area: Criminal law; Misuse of Drugs Act offences
- Statutory Provisions Charged: Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap. 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”), s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2); punishable under s 33(1); alternative liability under s 33B
- Key Evidential/Legal Provisions Considered: MDA s 17(d) (presumption of trafficking for cannabis above threshold); Criminal Procedure Code (Cap. 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 128 (amendment of charge)
- Hearing Dates: 11–13, 18–19 September 2018; 15 November 2018
- Judgment Length: 27 pages; 7,254 words
- Cases Cited (as provided): [2019] SGHC 17 (self-citation in metadata); Masoud Rahimi bin Mehrzad v Public Prosecutor and another appeal [2017] 1 SLR 257
Summary
In Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Faizal Bin Mohd Shariff, the High Court convicted the accused of trafficking in a Class A controlled drug (cannabis) under the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA). The charge alleged that, on or before 14 February 2016 at a condominium unit in NV Residences, the accused had in his possession for the purpose of trafficking six blocks of cannabis containing not less than 3540.07 grams of vegetable matter, analysed to contain 1562.97 grams of cannabis.
The court’s decision turned on whether the Prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt (i) possession and knowledge of the cannabis, and (ii) that such possession was for the purpose of trafficking. Although the accused admitted collecting four “storybooks” and repacking one into smaller blocks, he denied possession and knowledge of three blocks (E1, E2 and E3). The court rejected that denial, finding that the accused had actual possession and knowledge of all six blocks and that the circumstances supported trafficking rather than personal consumption.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The factual background began with the rental of a condominium unit at 95 Pasir Ris Grove, #06-41, NV Residences (“the Unit”). The owner, Ong Bee Leng (“Ong”), used the Unit for short-term rentals. On 1 February 2016, Ong rented the Unit to Kow Lee Ting Serena (“Serena”) for an initial period from 1 to 8 February 2016. Serena informed Ong that she would stay in the Unit with two colleagues: the accused, Muhammad Faizal Bin Mohd Shariff (“Faizal”), and another person known as “Abang Arab” or “Arab”. A further person, Leonard Cheng Lee Siang (“Leo”), would come to the Unit on occasion. Apart from Faizal, Serena, Arab and Leo, no one else had access to the Unit.
On 8 February 2016, Serena requested an extension of the rental period to 15 February 2016, which Ong granted. On 14 February 2016, Faizal and Serena were arrested by the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) in relation to another matter. When the rental 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 for safekeeping with the condominium security supervisor.
On 16 February 2016, around 8.00am, Ong returned to clean the Unit and discovered six blocks of cannabis—three large blocks and three smaller blocks—wrapped in cling wrap and stored in a drawer of the television console in the master bedroom. Ong placed the six blocks in a red plastic bag and handed them to the security supervisor. Later that evening, the security supervisor reported a strong smell and suspected illegal drugs. Police were called, and CNB seized the six blocks, marked E1 to E6. The Health Sciences Authority analysis found not less than 3540.07g of vegetable matter, containing 1562.97g of cannabis. The court recorded the cannabis and mixture weights for each exhibit, totalling 1562.97g of cannabis across E1–E6.
The Prosecution’s narrative focused on how Faizal came to possess the cannabis and how it was stored. The Prosecution alleged that on 9 February 2016, around midnight, Faizal collected four blocks of cannabis by driving to Pasir Ris Farmway and picking them up near the fishing pond. Faizal referred to these four blocks as “storybooks”. He then brought the four storybooks back to the Unit. The Prosecution further alleged that Faizal repacked one storybook into three smaller blocks (E4, E5 and E6), and kept those 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 six blocks were later discovered.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The High Court had to determine whether the Prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of trafficking under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the MDA. As summarised in the Court of Appeal’s decision in Masoud Rahimi bin Mehrzad v Public Prosecutor and another appeal [2017] 1 SLR 257, the Prosecution must establish three elements: (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.
A central sub-issue was whether Faizal had actual possession and knowledge of all six blocks (E1–E6). Faizal admitted collecting the four storybooks and admitted ownership and knowledge of E4, E5 and E6, but denied possession and knowledge of E1, E2 and E3. This denial raised questions about the reliability of the inference that the three remaining blocks were part of the storybooks Faizal collected.
In addition, the court had to consider the statutory presumption in s 17(d) of the MDA. That provision provides that any person proved to have had in his possession more than 15g of cannabis shall be presumed to have had that drug for the purpose of trafficking unless proven otherwise. The court therefore needed to decide whether Faizal could rebut the presumption, either by undermining possession/knowledge or by showing that the drugs were not for trafficking.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court began by addressing Faizal’s contention that the storybooks were jointly owned by Serena, Arab and Leo, before turning to whether Faizal had actual possession and knowledge of E1, E2 and E3. This sequencing mattered because joint ownership, if accepted, could have supported an argument that Faizal did not have possession or knowledge of the entire set of cannabis blocks. The court rejected the joint ownership claim, finding that the storybooks were not jointly owned by Serena, Arab or Leo.
First, the court noted that the Defence had never put to Serena that she jointly owned the storybooks, nor had it requested that Arab and Leo be called to support that assertion. The court treated the joint ownership claim as a bare assertion rather than a position supported by cross-examination or evidence. Second, the court found it implausible that if Arab and Leo jointly owned the storybooks, they would have left their share in the Unit, given the estimated value of the six blocks (around $35,000). The court also observed that even on Faizal’s alternative case—that E1, E2 and E3 were not part of the original four storybooks collected—E4, E5 and E6 were undisputedly linked to the storybooks Faizal admitted collecting. This undermined the suggestion that the cannabis in the drawer could be explained by others’ ownership.
Having rejected the joint ownership narrative, the court then focused on whether Faizal had actual possession and knowledge of all six blocks. The court’s reasoning relied on admissions and circumstantial evidence. Faizal’s admission in his statement recorded on 21 February 2016 was treated as significant. The court found that Faizal had actual possession and knowledge of all six blocks of cannabis, including E1, E2 and E3. The court also relied on the internal consistency between what Faizal described as the four storybooks and the physical characteristics of the exhibits discovered.
Several evidential strands supported the court’s finding. The number and weights of the blocks of cannabis discovered matched the number and weights of the storybooks as described by Faizal. The court also found that the blue foil used to wrap E4 was similar to that used to wrap E1, E2 and E3, suggesting that the blocks were part of the same set and were handled in a consistent manner. Further, the court noted that all six blocks were found together in the drawer of the television console in the master bedroom, reinforcing the inference that they were kept as a single cache rather than being unrelated items placed there by different persons at different times.
In addition, the court considered Faizal’s explanation about storage. Faizal’s defence was that he had placed the storybooks in the chiller compartment of the refrigerator and later retrieved one storybook and divided it into smaller blocks, which he then wrapped and placed back into the chiller compartment. The court found that the storybooks were not stored in the refrigerator, which was inconsistent with Faizal’s account. This inconsistency, coupled with the location of the six blocks in the drawer, supported the court’s conclusion that Faizal’s denial of possession and knowledge of E1–E3 was not credible.
On the trafficking element, the court found that Faizal possessed the six blocks for the purpose of trafficking. The court again relied on admissions and conduct. Faizal’s admission in his 21 February statement was treated as relevant to his intent. The court also found that Faizal had dealt with the storybooks in a manner indicating an intention to traffic, including repacking one storybook into smaller blocks and keeping the blocks together in a manner consistent with distribution rather than personal consumption.
Finally, the court addressed the presumption of trafficking under s 17(d) of the MDA. Given the quantity of cannabis involved, the presumption would apply unless Faizal proved otherwise. The court’s findings on actual possession and knowledge, together with the repacking and storage circumstances, meant that Faizal was unable to rebut the presumption. The court therefore concluded that the Prosecution had proven the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.
What Was the Outcome?
The High Court convicted Faizal of trafficking in a Class A controlled drug under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the MDA, punishable under s 33(1) (with the charge also referencing alternative liability under s 33B). The court’s conviction followed its determination that the Prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Faizal had actual possession and knowledge of all six blocks of cannabis and that the possession was for the purpose of trafficking.
Practically, the decision meant that Faizal could not rely on his partial denial (E1–E3) or his explanation of storage in the refrigerator. The court’s rejection of joint ownership and its acceptance of the evidential links between the “storybooks” and the exhibits E1–E6 resulted in the full trafficking charge being upheld.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case is significant for practitioners because it illustrates how Singapore courts evaluate possession and knowledge in drug trafficking cases, particularly where the accused admits some aspects of handling the drugs but denies possession of part of the quantity. The court’s approach demonstrates that admissions, physical matching of quantities and packaging, and the location and manner of storage can collectively establish actual possession and knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt.
From a doctrinal perspective, the judgment reinforces the evidential framework for trafficking under the MDA: possession, knowledge, and trafficking purpose. It also shows how the s 17(d) presumption operates in practice. Once the court is satisfied that the accused had possession and knowledge of the cannabis, the presumption of trafficking for cannabis above the statutory threshold becomes a powerful prosecutorial tool, and the accused must provide credible evidence to rebut it.
For defence counsel, the case underscores the importance of evidential consistency and procedural diligence. The court treated the joint ownership claim as unsupported because it was not put to key witnesses and was not supported by calling relevant persons. For prosecutors, the case highlights the value of linking admissions to objective evidence such as weights, packaging materials, and the discovery location of the drugs.
Legislation Referenced
- Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap. 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”), s 5(1)(a) [CDN] [SSO]
- Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap. 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”), s 5(2) [CDN] [SSO]
- Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap. 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”), s 17(d) [CDN] [SSO]
- Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap. 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”), s 33(1) [CDN] [SSO]
- Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap. 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”), s 33B [CDN] [SSO]
- Criminal Procedure Code (Cap. 68, 2012 Rev Ed), s 128 [CDN] [SSO]
Cases Cited
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.