Case Details
- Citation: [2025] SGHC 15
- Title: Public Prosecutor v Muhammed Izwan bin Borhan and another
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore (General Division)
- Date of Decision: 23 January 2025
- Judgment Reserved: 26–27 November 2024 (additional evidence taken); submissions heard on 29 November 2024
- Judge: Chua Lee Ming J
- Criminal Case No: Criminal Case No 32 of 2019
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Public Prosecutor
- Defendant/Respondent: (1) Muhammed Izwan bin Borhan; (2) Ahmad Suhaimi bin Ismail
- Procedural Posture: Findings on remittal following Court of Appeal direction to take additional evidence under s 392(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code
- Legal Area: Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Taking additional evidence
- Statutes Referenced: Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) (“CPC”)
- Key Provision: s 392(1) CPC (taking additional evidence on remittal)
- Prior Trial Outcome: 25 February 2022 conviction of Izwan for trafficking diamorphine and methamphetamine; conviction of Suhaimi for abetting trafficking; mandatory death sentence imposed on 21 March 2022
- Prior Appellate Context: Appeals filed against convictions and sentences in CA/CCA 11/2023 and CA/CCA 12/2023
- Court of Appeal Direction (28 June 2024): Remit to trial judge for additional evidence of Eddie and Sumardi; parties may call any further witnesses as trial judge deems necessary
- Judgment Length: 16 pages, 3,783 words
- Cases Cited (as provided): [2022] SGHC 40; [2025] SGHC 15
Summary
This remittal judgment concerns the effect of additional evidence on an earlier conviction and mandatory sentence in a capital drug trafficking case. The High Court (Chua Lee Ming J) had previously convicted the first accused, Muhammed Izwan bin Borhan (“Izwan”), for trafficking diamorphine and methamphetamine, and convicted the second accused, Ahmad Suhaimi bin Ismail (“Suhaimi”), for abetting those trafficking offences. The mandatory death sentences were imposed on 21 March 2022. The convictions and sentences were appealed, and the Court of Appeal subsequently directed that the matter be remitted to the trial judge to take additional evidence from two witnesses, Mr Eddie Lee Zhengda (“Eddie”) and Mr Sumardi bin Sjahril Habibie (“Sumardi”), pursuant to s 392(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
After the additional evidence was taken on 26–27 November 2024, the trial judge delivered supplemental findings on whether, and to what extent, the new evidence affected the earlier verdict. The judgment focuses on credibility and evidential coherence: how the additional testimony about a Malaysian drug supplier (“Arun/Arvin/Kelvin/Mama” depending on the witness) and the alleged “photo” of Suhaimi interacted with the prosecution’s theory of joint procurement and with the defence narrative that there had been a reduction and misdelivery of heroin “biji” (packets). The court’s task was not to retry the case from scratch, but to assess whether the additional evidence undermined the earlier findings or materially supported them.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The underlying offences arose from events in September 2017. On 29 September 2017, Izwan collected five “biji” (packets) of heroin, each weighing about 450g, and one packet of “Ice” (methamphetamine) weighing about 500g at approximately 12.46pm. Izwan then repacked one heroin “biji” into several smaller packets and placed the balance in an aluminium tray. Following instructions from Suhaimi, Izwan repacked the Ice into four packets of about 125g each.
As part of the distribution plan, Suhaimi requested that Izwan place one of the 125g packets of Ice at the electrical box on the 11th floor of Block 27 New Upper Changi Road (“Block 27”) for one of Suhaimi’s customers. Izwan also repacked one 125g packet of Ice meant for himself into several smaller packets. Importantly, the 125g packet placed at the electrical box was not recovered and did not form part of the charges. The charges against Izwan and Suhaimi involved five heroin “biji” and three 125g packets of Ice.
The prosecution’s case was that Izwan and Suhaimi made a joint order for the heroin and that the allocation of the drugs corresponded to each accused’s customers: two heroin “biji” were meant for Izwan to sell to Izwan’s customers, while three were meant for Suhaimi to sell to Suhaimi’s customers. A key factual dispute at trial concerned the defence explanation for the heroin quantities. One defence advanced was that the original order for five “biji” of heroin had been reduced to one “biji”, but five “biji” were wrongly delivered. The defence further claimed that arrangements were made to return the excess four “biji” to the supplier, who was said to be based in Malaysia. In the trial narrative, Suhaimi referred to the supplier as “Arun”, while Izwan referred to him as “Mamak”.
On remittal, the additional evidence was directed at the supplier-related narrative and the alleged communications and identification of Suhaimi by other drug couriers and intermediaries. The witnesses called were Sumardi, Eddie, and also evidence from a digital forensics expert, Mr Wang Sidao (“Wang”), together with Suhaimi’s own testimony. The additional evidence, as recorded in the supplemental judgment, included: (i) Sumardi’s account of receiving a photograph of Suhaimi from a Malaysian supplier through WhatsApp and being asked to “check” because Suhaimi had been caught; (ii) Eddie’s account of receiving a photograph of Suhaimi from his own supplier and being told that Suhaimi had “four stone” that he never passed back; and (iii) Wang’s forensic analysis of a Samsung Galaxy phone belonging to Sumardi, including the likely download dates of images and the presence or absence of contacts associated with the supplier names and numbers.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The central legal issue was evidential: what effect, if any, the additional evidence taken on remittal had on the trial judge’s earlier verdict. This required the court to apply the remittal framework under s 392(1) CPC and to determine whether the new testimony and forensic material created a reasonable doubt that would undermine the earlier findings of guilt, or whether it was consistent with the prosecution’s case and the trial judge’s existing conclusions.
Relatedly, the court had to consider the proper approach to credibility and reliability in a supplemental setting. The additional evidence did not exist in a vacuum; it had to be assessed against the trial record, including the earlier findings on the accused persons’ roles, the structure of the joint procurement, and the defence’s explanation about misdelivery and return arrangements. The court therefore had to decide whether the additional evidence materially strengthened the prosecution’s narrative about the Malaysian supplier’s involvement and the identification of Suhaimi, or whether it supported the defence’s version of events.
Finally, the remittal raised a procedural-analytical issue: the trial judge’s role after remittal is not to conduct a full rehearing of the entire case, but to make findings on the effect of the additional evidence. The court’s reasoning had to be careful to stay within that scope, while still engaging with the substantive implications of the new evidence for the earlier verdict.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court began by situating the remittal within the procedural history. The trial judge had already convicted both accused on 25 February 2022 and imposed mandatory death sentences on 21 March 2022. The Court of Appeal’s direction on 28 June 2024 remitted the matter for the taking of additional evidence from Eddie and Sumardi. The trial judge then took that evidence on 26–27 November 2024 and heard submissions on 29 November 2024. The supplemental judgment thus focused on the effect of the additional evidence on the earlier verdict, rather than re-litigating all issues.
In analysing Sumardi’s testimony, the court considered the witness’s background and the internal logic of his account. Sumardi testified that he met Suhaimi at the Tanah Merah Prison School in 2014, was released in 2015, and was later re-arrested around June 2018. He is currently serving a life sentence for drug trafficking as a courier. Crucially, Sumardi described how, in 2017, his Malaysian-based supplier (“Arvin”) called him and asked him to help “find this guy to give me back four batu”. Arvin sent a photograph of Suhaimi via WhatsApp. Sumardi emphasised that Arvin did not tell him that Suhaimi owed money, and did not provide Suhaimi’s address or phone number. Sumardi also stated that he had not previously spoken to Arvin about Suhaimi and did not know why Arvin thought he might have information about Suhaimi.
The court also examined the circumstances of Sumardi’s identification and subsequent actions. Sumardi said that after receiving the photo, he called Arvin and remarked that Suhaimi had been caught, and Arvin asked him to check. Sumardi then spoke to Suhaimi’s friend, Mohamed Shukur (“Ashuk”), and asked whether Ashuk knew anything about Suhaimi. A few weeks later, Ashuk sent photographs of two charges against Suhaimi to Sumardi’s phone, which Sumardi forwarded to Arvin. Sumardi’s evidence therefore linked the supplier’s interest in Suhaimi to an alleged need to recover “four batu” and to the supplier’s knowledge that Suhaimi had been caught. The court would have to assess whether this narrative was credible and whether it aligned with the earlier trial findings on the accused’s roles and the supplier-related defence explanation.
Turning to Eddie’s evidence, the court considered whether Eddie’s account corroborated or diverged from Sumardi’s. Eddie testified that he was arrested in July 2018 and sentenced to death for drug trafficking, and that he knows Suhaimi as “Hustler” but has never talked to him. Eddie described his supplier as operating under various names, including “Kelvin”, “Arvin”, “Arun”, “Kevin”, and “Mama”. He said that in 2018 or 2019, Kelvin randomly sent him a photograph of Suhaimi through WhatsApp and told him “This is Hustler”, asking if Eddie knew him. Eddie said he did not. Kelvin then said that “This guy got four stone with him that he never pass back” and asked Eddie to help find Suhaimi. Eddie stated that he would try to help find Suhaimi but did not do anything because he did not know Suhaimi at the time.
The court also considered Eddie’s explanation of how he came to connect “Hustler” with the supplier’s ongoing interest. Eddie testified that in prison he chit-chatted with someone (“AP”) who had the same supplier, and AP told him that “Hustler” also had the same supplier. Eddie then asked AP whether the supplier sent him any photo regarding “Hustler”. Eddie’s evidence thus provided a second independent witness account of a WhatsApp photo being sent by a Malaysian supplier and of the supplier’s alleged complaint about “four stone/batu” not being returned. The court would have to determine whether this was consistent with the prosecution’s theory and whether it undermined the defence’s claim of a reduced order and return arrangements.
Wang’s digital forensics evidence served as an objective check on the timeline and the presence of contacts. Wang analysed a Samsung Galaxy phone (SU-HP1) belonging to Sumardi. Wang found that SU-HP1 contained three image files: a photograph of Suhaimi posted on Suhaimi’s Facebook account, and photographs of Suhaimi’s 3rd and 4th charges. Wang opined that the Suhaimi photograph was likely received and downloaded on WhatsApp on 30 September 2017, and that the images of the charges were likely received and downloaded on WhatsApp on 30 October 2017. Wang also noted that the identity of the person who sent the three images could not be determined because the images were extracted from WhatsApp but did not appear linked to any WhatsApp conversation, and no text messages accompanying the images were found.
Wang’s evidence also addressed the supplier contact details. Wang reported that no contacts with the name “Arun” or “Arvin” associated with mobile numbers identified by Sumardi were found on SU-HP1. However, SU-HP1 showed call and SMS records involving one of those numbers in May and June 2018, and WhatsApp messages/calls involving the other number in May and June 2018. Wang further stated that no contacts with the name “Achok” were found, but there were SMSes, WhatsApp messages/calls, and Facebook messages between SU-HP1 and a mobile number identified by Sumardi as associated with “Achok”. The number was saved as “Ashuk TMP”, not “Achok”, and Wang acknowledged the possibility of deleted WhatsApp conversations or incomplete capture of Facebook communications.
In assessing the effect of the additional evidence on the earlier verdict, the court’s analysis necessarily involved reconciling these strands: (i) the narrative of a Malaysian supplier sending a photo of Suhaimi and asking for help to recover “four batu/stone”; (ii) the forensic timeline suggesting receipt/download of images around September and October 2017; and (iii) the earlier trial findings on the accused’s conduct and the defence explanation. The supplemental judgment’s focus was whether these additional materials introduced reasonable doubt or materially supported the prosecution’s case. The court’s reasoning, as reflected in the structure of the judgment, indicates a careful, evidence-by-evidence evaluation of credibility, consistency, and corroboration through digital records.
Although the provided extract truncates the remainder of the judgment, the court’s task on remittal is clear: to determine whether the additional evidence had any effect on the earlier verdict. That requires the court to articulate whether the additional testimony and forensic findings were sufficiently reliable and whether they altered the evidential balance. In capital cases, where the consequences are uniquely grave, the court’s approach to reliability and coherence is particularly important, and the remittal mechanism under s 392(1) CPC exists precisely to ensure that material evidence is not overlooked.
What Was the Outcome?
The supplemental judgment records the trial judge’s findings on the effect, if any, that the additional evidence had on the earlier verdict. The procedural outcome is that the High Court, after taking Eddie’s and Sumardi’s evidence on remittal, delivered a reasoned determination on whether the earlier convictions should stand in light of the new material.
Practically, the remittal judgment functions as an evidential update for the appellate process. It provides the Court of Appeal with the trial judge’s considered assessment of whether the additional evidence undermines or supports the earlier findings of guilt, thereby informing the appellate court’s final disposition of the appeals against conviction and sentence.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case is significant for criminal procedure in Singapore because it illustrates how the High Court applies s 392(1) CPC when the Court of Appeal remits a matter for additional evidence. For practitioners, it demonstrates the disciplined scope of remittal: the trial judge does not simply re-run the entire trial, but evaluates the incremental effect of the additional evidence on the existing verdict. This is particularly relevant for appeals where new witnesses emerge, where documentary or digital evidence requires contextual clarification, or where credibility issues are central.
Substantively, the case also highlights the evidential role of witness accounts about drug supply chains and intermediaries, especially where witnesses use multiple aliases for the same supplier. The court’s engagement with the internal logic of testimony, and its use of forensic evidence to corroborate timelines and the existence (or absence) of contacts, reflects a broader trend in drug cases: courts increasingly rely on digital traces to test narratives about WhatsApp communications, image transfers, and the timing of events.
For law students and litigators, the case offers a useful template for how to frame submissions on remittal. Arguments must be directed to “effect on the earlier verdict” rather than general re-litigation. In addition, the case underscores the importance of aligning witness testimony with objective evidence, and of addressing gaps (such as inability to link images to specific WhatsApp conversations) without overstating certainty.
Legislation Referenced
- Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) — s 392(1)
Cases Cited
- [2022] SGHC 40
- [2025] SGHC 15
Source Documents
This article analyses [2025] SGHC 15 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.