Muhammad Hamir B Laka v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Facts

Muhammad Hamir B Laka appealed in Criminal Appeal No 31 of 2022 against his conviction and mandatory death sentence in Criminal Case No 22 of 2022 for possessing 39.71g of diamorphine for the purpose of trafficking, an offence under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act.

He was arrested on 23 September 2019 at Marine Parade when he came to sell drugs to a man named Zainudin, who had been arrested by the Central Narcotics Bureau that morning and arranged the delivery on the officers' instructions. Drugs were found on him and at his Hougang flat. In his statements he admitted getting supplies from a man named Rosli to sell for profit, and said he began selling because he needed money for his family given his wife's ill health. At trial he raised the defence of necessity, saying he urgently needed money for surgery his diabetic wife required; challenged the chain of custody of the drug exhibits; and challenged the accuracy of parts of his statements. The trial judge rejected all three, finding among other things that his wife's condition, though grave, was not of such a nature and so imminent as to excuse trafficking.

Issues

1. Whether the defence of necessity under s 81 of the Penal Code was available to the appellant
2. Whether there was a break in the chain of custody of the drug exhibits
3. Whether inaccuracies in the recorded statements made the conviction unsafe

Holding

The Court of Appeal (Sundaresh Menon CJ, Tay Yong Kwang JCA and Belinda Ang Saw Ean JCA) dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and the death sentence imposed by the trial judge.

Reasoning

The court took the opportunity to set out the principles governing necessity under s 81. Read with its explanation, its illustrations and its 2019 amendment, which only removed wording that might have become unworkable once oblique intention was codified, the defence does not cover deliberate or premeditated criminal conduct or the deliberate infliction of harm. Good faith requires due care and attention in weighing the risk and its justification. The harm to be avoided must reasonably be apprehended to be imminent, more likely and more serious than the harm risked, and to leave no reasonable legal alternative. The appellant's trafficking was a premeditated decision to deal in increasingly harmful drugs for greater reward, so the defence was unavailable. In any event his counsel accepted there was no evidence of his assets, his efforts to raise funds, the cost or urgency of the operation, or who paid for it.

On chain of custody, the question is the identity of the exhibits, not a perfect weight match, since officers at seizure and the Health Sciences Authority weigh for different purposes and in different ways. Varying discrepancies meant little without evidence that the packaging was the same, and the exhibit with the largest discrepancy did not count towards the charged quantity. DNA of the photographer and swabber, both connected with the case, did not suggest a mix-up, and the apparent inconsistency over the type of bag used was more apparent than real. The other points had been properly rejected below.

The complaints about the statements were not pursued orally, and the court agreed with the judge that the alleged inaccuracies were minor and raised no reasonable doubt.

From the judgment