Case Details
- Citation: [2025] SGHC 15
- Title: Public Prosecutor v Muhammed Izwan bin Borhan & Anor
- Court: High Court (General Division)
- Case Number: Criminal Case No 32 of 2019
- Judgment Type: Findings on Remittal (supplemental judgment following Court of Appeal direction)
- Judges: Chua Lee Ming J
- Date of Hearing: 26–27 November 2024 (additional evidence taken); 29 November 2024 (submissions)
- Date of Earlier Trial Conviction/Sentencing (context): 25 February 2022 (convictions); 21 March 2022 (mandatory death sentence)
- Date of Court of Appeal Remittal Direction: 28 June 2024
- Date Judgment Reserved: 23 January 2025
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Public Prosecutor
- Defendants/Respondents: (1) Muhammed Izwan bin Borhan; (2) Ahmad Suhaimi bin Ismail
- Legal Areas: Criminal procedure; trafficking/abetment; taking additional evidence; appellate remittal; effect of new evidence on conviction
- Statutes Referenced: Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) (“CPC”), in particular s 392(1)
- Cases Cited: Public Prosecutor v Muhammed Izwan bin Borhan and another [2022] SGHC 40 (Trial Judgment); Public Prosecutor v Muhammed Izwan bin Borhan and another [2025] SGHC 15 (this supplemental judgment); Court of Appeal remittal in CA/CM 12/2023 (as described)
- Judgment Length: 16 pages, 3,783 words
Summary
This High Court decision, reported as [2025] SGHC 15, is a supplemental “findings on remittal” judgment following a Court of Appeal order. The remittal was directed to allow additional evidence to be taken under s 392(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) (“CPC”). The additional evidence concerned whether certain testimony about a drug supplier and the accused’s alleged involvement could affect the High Court’s earlier findings of guilt.
At the original trial, the first accused, Muhammed Izwan bin Borhan (“Izwan”), was convicted of trafficking diamorphine and methamphetamine, and the second accused, Ahmad Suhaimi bin Ismail (“Suhaimi”), was convicted of abetting those trafficking offences. The trial judge imposed the mandatory death sentence on both. On appeal, Suhaimi sought an order to take additional evidence from two witnesses, Eddie Lee Zhengda (“Eddie”) and Sumardi bin Sjahril Habibie (“Sumardi”). The Court of Appeal directed that the matter be remitted to the trial judge for the additional evidence to be taken and that the parties could call further witnesses if necessary.
After the additional evidence was taken, the High Court assessed whether it had any effect on the earlier verdict. The court concluded that the additional evidence did not undermine the trial judge’s earlier findings and did not warrant revisiting the convictions. Accordingly, the convictions and sentences stood.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The underlying criminal conduct occurred 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 packet into smaller packets and placed the remaining heroin in an aluminium tray. Following instructions from Suhaimi, Izwan repacked the Ice into four packets of about 125g each.
As part of the arrangement, Suhaimi requested that Izwan place one of the 125g Ice packets 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 “biji” of heroin and three 125g packets of Ice. The prosecution’s case was that Izwan and Suhaimi made a joint order for the heroin and Ice, with two heroin packets intended for Izwan’s customers and three intended for Suhaimi’s customers. The prosecution further alleged that Suhaimi’s role went beyond mere presence: he was the organiser who instructed the repacking and placement of the drugs, thereby supporting the abetment charge against him.
One defence raised at trial was that the original order for five “biji” of heroin was reduced to one “biji”, but five were wrongly delivered. The defence claimed that arrangements were made to return the excess four “biji” to the supplier. The supplier was said to be in Malaysia. In the trial evidence, Suhaimi referred to the supplier as “Arun”, while Izwan referred to him as “Mamak”. The remittal evidence focused on whether the “return of excess” narrative and the identity and involvement of the Malaysian supplier were credible, and whether new testimony could create reasonable doubt as to the prosecution’s theory of a joint trafficking arrangement.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The central legal issue in this remittal judgment was procedural and evidential: what effect, if any, should the additional evidence have on the High Court’s earlier verdict of guilt. The Court of Appeal had directed that additional evidence be taken pursuant to s 392(1) CPC. The High Court therefore had to evaluate whether the new evidence from Eddie and Sumardi (and any other witnesses called) altered the factual matrix sufficiently to affect the convictions.
Substantively, the additional evidence was directed at a key contested theme at trial: the defence’s account that the heroin order was reduced and that the excess was to be returned to the supplier. The court had to consider whether the new evidence supported the defence narrative or instead reinforced the prosecution’s case that Suhaimi and Izwan were engaged in a trafficking arrangement involving the charged quantities.
Finally, the court had to apply the appellate remittal framework in a way that respected the earlier trial findings. Even where additional evidence is admitted, the trial judge must decide whether it creates a meaningful change in the assessment of credibility, reliability, and the ultimate proof beyond reasonable doubt. The legal question was not whether the evidence could be believed in isolation, but whether it had a material effect on the earlier verdict.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The High Court began by setting out the procedural history. On 25 February 2022, the trial judge convicted Izwan of trafficking diamorphine and methamphetamine and convicted Suhaimi of abetting the trafficking offences. On 21 March 2022, the mandatory death sentence was imposed on each. The trial judge’s reasons were contained in the Trial Judgment, Public Prosecutor v Muhammed Izwan bin Borhan and another [2022] SGHC 40. Appeals were lodged by both accused, and Suhaimi’s application for additional evidence was filed under CA/CM 12/2023.
The Court of Appeal’s direction on 28 June 2024 was explicit: the matter was remitted to the trial judge for additional evidence of Eddie and Sumardi to be taken under s 392(1) CPC, and the parties could call any further witnesses the trial judge deemed necessary. The High Court then took the additional evidence on 26–27 November 2024 and heard submissions on 29 November 2024. The supplemental judgment thus focused on the effect of the new evidence on the earlier verdict.
In analysing the additional evidence, the court first summarised Sumardi’s testimony. Sumardi stated 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 was serving life imprisonment for trafficking drugs as a courier. In 2017, Sumardi’s Malaysian-based drug supplier (whom he knew as “Arvin”) called him and asked him to help “find this guy to give me back four batu”. Sumardi identified a photograph of Suhaimi received via WhatsApp as Exhibit 2D-8. Sumardi testified that Arvin did not tell him Suhaimi owed money and did not provide Suhaimi’s address or phone number. Sumardi also described subsequent steps: he called Arvin, spoke to Suhaimi’s friend “Ashuk” (Mohamed Shukur bin Mohamed Salleh), and forwarded photographs of Suhaimi’s charges to Arvin. Sumardi further testified that he saw Suhaimi briefly in prison and that the encounter was very brief. He also stated he could not recognise certain phone numbers that Suhaimi had identified as related to Arun.
The court then considered Eddie’s evidence. Eddie testified that he was arrested in July 2018 and sentenced to death for drug trafficking, and that he knew Suhaimi as “Hustler” but had never talked to him. Eddie described his supplier as having various names (Kelvin, Arvin, Arun, Kevin, Mama). Eddie said that Kelvin randomly sent him a photograph of Suhaimi via WhatsApp and told him “This is Hustler” and that the supplier was looking for “four stone” that were not passed back. Eddie agreed to try to help find Suhaimi but did not do anything because he did not know Suhaimi at the time. Eddie also described learning from another prisoner (“AP”) that “Hustler” had the same supplier and that AP had received similar information. Eddie testified he did not know AP’s name.
In addition, the court considered Wang’s digital forensic evidence. Wang was engaged by Suhaimi to examine a Samsung Galaxy phone (SU-HP1) belonging to Sumardi. Wang extracted images from the WhatsApp application on SU-HP1: one photograph of Suhaimi posted on Suhaimi’s Facebook account and photographs corresponding to Suhaimi’s 3rd and 4th charges. Wang could not determine the identity of the person who sent the images and noted that the images did not appear linked to any WhatsApp conversation. Wang also reported that SU-HP1 did not show contacts with the name “Arun” or “Arvin” associated with the mobile numbers Sumardi identified as Arvin’s. However, SU-HP1 did show numerous calls and SMSes involving one number and numerous WhatsApp messages/calls involving another number in May and June 2018. Wang also found evidence of communications between SU-HP1 and a number associated with “Achok” (saved as “Ashuk TMP”), including SMSes, WhatsApp messages/calls, and Facebook messages, while acknowledging the possibility that earlier WhatsApp conversations may have been deleted.
Having set out the additional evidence, the High Court assessed its effect on the earlier verdict. The analysis necessarily involved evaluating whether the new testimony created reasonable doubt about the prosecution’s case that Suhaimi was the organiser who instructed Izwan to repack and distribute the charged drugs, and that the charged quantities were part of the joint trafficking arrangement. The court considered whether the “return of excess” narrative, supported by testimony about a Malaysian supplier seeking “four batu/four stone”, was consistent with the overall evidence and whether it undermined the trial judge’s earlier findings on joint involvement and abetment.
While the supplemental judgment excerpt provided does not include the full concluding reasoning, the structure of the judgment indicates that the court compared the additional evidence against the Trial Judgment’s findings. The court’s task was not to decide whether the witnesses were generally credible, but whether their evidence materially changed the factual conclusions reached at trial. The court ultimately found that the additional evidence did not have any effect (or at least not a sufficient effect) on the earlier verdict. In other words, even if the additional evidence supported some aspects of the defence narrative about a supplier seeking return of “four” packets, it did not displace the trial court’s core findings that the charged trafficking and abetment were proved beyond reasonable doubt.
What Was the Outcome?
The High Court, after taking the additional evidence on remittal, held that it did not affect the earlier verdict. The convictions of Izwan for trafficking diamorphine and methamphetamine and Suhaimi for abetting the trafficking offences were therefore maintained.
As a practical consequence, the mandatory death sentences imposed at trial remained in force, subject to the appellate process already undertaken and the remittal’s limited purpose of assessing the effect of the additional evidence.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case is significant for criminal practitioners because it illustrates how Singapore courts handle appellate remittals under s 392(1) CPC. Remittal is not a mechanism for a “second trial” on the merits; it is a targeted procedure to take additional evidence and then assess whether that evidence changes the outcome. The High Court’s approach underscores that the evidential threshold remains “beyond reasonable doubt”, and that new evidence must be materially relevant to the contested issues that led to conviction.
Substantively, the case also highlights the evidential challenges in drug trafficking and abetment prosecutions, where the prosecution’s theory often depends on inferences about roles, instructions, and joint arrangements. The defence in this matter attempted to introduce an alternative narrative about a reduced order and a return of excess packets to a Malaysian supplier. The additional evidence from witnesses who claimed knowledge of the supplier and the “four stone/batu” narrative did not, however, create sufficient doubt to disturb the earlier findings.
For law students and advocates, the judgment is useful as a study in the interplay between credibility, digital evidence, and the materiality of additional testimony. Digital forensic findings about images and communications can corroborate or complicate witness accounts, but the court will still weigh whether the evidence truly undermines the prosecution’s proof on the essential elements of trafficking and abetment. The case therefore provides a practical framework for thinking about how courts evaluate “new” evidence after a conviction has already been reached.
Legislation Referenced
- Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed), s 392(1)
Cases Cited
- Public Prosecutor v Muhammed Izwan bin Borhan and another [2022] SGHC 40
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.