Case Details
- Citation: [2025] SGHC 15
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Date: 2025-01-23
- Judges: Chua Lee Ming J
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Public Prosecutor
- Defendant/Respondent: Muhammed Izwan bin Borhan and another
- Legal Areas: Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Taking additional evidence
- Statutes Referenced: Criminal Procedure Code
- Cases Cited: [2022] SGHC 40, [2025] SGHC 15
- Judgment Length: 16 pages, 3,783 words
Summary
This case involves the remittal of a criminal case to the trial judge for the taking of additional evidence. The Public Prosecutor had originally convicted Muhammed Izwan bin Borhan and Ahmad Suhaimi bin Ismail for drug trafficking offenses. The defendants appealed their convictions and sentences, and the Court of Appeal directed that additional evidence from two witnesses, Eddie Lee Zhengda and Sumardi bin Sjahril Habibie, be taken by the trial judge. This supplemental judgment sets out the additional evidence taken and the trial judge's findings on the effect, if any, of this evidence on the earlier verdict.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
On 29 September 2017, Muhammed Izwan bin Borhan ("Izwan") collected five packets of heroin, each weighing about 450g, and one packet of methamphetamine weighing about 500g. Izwan repacked the drugs as instructed by his co-accused, Ahmad Suhaimi bin Ismail ("Suhaimi"), and placed one packet of methamphetamine at an electrical box for one of Suhaimi's customers. The charges against Izwan and Suhaimi involved the five packets of heroin and three 125g packets of methamphetamine.
The Prosecution's case was that Izwan and Suhaimi made a joint order for the drugs, with two packets of heroin meant for Izwan to sell to his own customers and three packets meant for Suhaimi to sell to his customers. One of the defenses raised at trial was that the original order was for only one packet of heroin, but five packets were wrongly delivered, and arrangements were made to return the excess four packets to the supplier in Malaysia.
On 25 February 2022, the trial judge, Chua Lee Ming J, convicted Izwan for trafficking diamorphine and methamphetamine, and Suhaimi for abetting the trafficking offenses. On 21 March 2022, the judge passed the mandatory sentence of death on each of them.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The key legal issue in this case was whether the additional evidence from Eddie Lee Zhengda and Sumardi bin Sjahril Habibie would have any effect on the trial judge's earlier verdict convicting Izwan and Suhaimi.
Specifically, the Court of Appeal directed that the additional evidence be taken pursuant to Section 392(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which allows a court to take additional evidence if it appears necessary or expedient in the interests of justice.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The trial judge, Chua Lee Ming J, heard the additional evidence from four witnesses: Sumardi, Eddie, Wang Sidao, and Suhaimi.
Sumardi's evidence was that in 2017, his drug supplier in Malaysia, known as "Arvin," asked Sumardi to help find Suhaimi to return four packets of drugs. Sumardi contacted Suhaimi's friend, Ashuk, who sent Sumardi photographs of Suhaimi's charges. Sumardi then forwarded these to Arvin. Sumardi also claimed to have briefly seen Suhaimi in prison in 2018 or 2019 and told him that Arvin had sent Sumardi a photo of Suhaimi.
Eddie's evidence was that in 2018 or 2019, his drug supplier, known by various names including "Kelvin" and "Arvin," sent Eddie a photograph of Suhaimi and asked Eddie to help find Suhaimi, saying that Suhaimi had four packets of drugs that he had not returned.
Wang Sidao, a digital forensic expert, examined Sumardi's phone and found the photographs of Suhaimi's charges that Sumardi had received, as well as communications between Sumardi and Ashuk. However, Wang did not find any contacts named "Arun" or "Arvin" associated with the phone numbers Sumardi had provided.
Suhaimi testified that he had limited interactions with Sumardi after leaving the Tanah Merah Prison School in 2016, except for a brief encounter in 2018 or 2019 when Sumardi told him that Arvin had sent Sumardi a photo of Suhaimi. Suhaimi also said he later learned from another inmate, AP, that Eddie had received a photo of Suhaimi from Arvin.
What Was the Outcome?
The trial judge, Chua Lee Ming J, found that the additional evidence did not have any effect on his earlier verdict convicting Izwan and Suhaimi. The judge noted that the evidence from Sumardi and Eddie was hearsay and did not directly contradict the Prosecution's case or the judge's earlier findings. The judge also found that the digital forensic evidence from Wang did not undermine the reliability of Sumardi's testimony.
Accordingly, the trial judge upheld his earlier convictions of Izwan and Suhaimi for the drug trafficking offenses.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case is significant for several reasons:
First, it demonstrates the court's willingness to consider additional evidence on appeal, even in a serious criminal case where convictions and death sentences have already been handed down. The Court of Appeal's decision to remit the case for the taking of further evidence shows a commitment to ensuring a fair trial and the proper administration of justice.
Second, the case highlights the importance of the trial judge's role in carefully evaluating the weight and reliability of additional evidence, even if it appears to contradict the original findings. The trial judge in this case thoroughly examined the new evidence and ultimately concluded that it did not undermine the original verdict.
Finally, this judgment provides guidance on the application of Section 392(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which allows courts to take additional evidence in the interests of justice. The case sets a precedent for how courts should approach and analyze such additional evidence, particularly in the context of serious criminal appeals.
Legislation Referenced
- Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed), Section 392(1)
Cases Cited
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.