PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v Mustaqim Bin Abdul Kadir
Key facts
| Court | High Court (General Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Tan Siong Thye |
| Charges / claim | Criminal Law |
Source: [2023] SGHC 142, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
Public Prosecutor v Mustaqim bin Abdul Kadir [2023] SGHC 142 is a reserved judgment of Tan Siong Thye J in the General Division of the High Court, delivered on 16 May 2023 in Criminal Case No 44 of 2022. The accused, Mustaqim bin Abdul Kadir, a 37-year-old male Singaporean who worked as a private-hire car driver for Grab, faced one capital charge of trafficking in a controlled drug under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, for possessing 31 packets and two straws containing not less than 56.8g of diamorphine at Spooner Road on 26 January 2018.
Summary
Mustaqim bin Abdul Kadir, a 37-year-old private-hire driver, faced one capital charge of trafficking in not less than 56.8g of diamorphine under s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, after 31 packets and two straws were found in his possession. He challenged the voluntariness of his statements, alleging inducement by a Central Narcotics Bureau officer, and after an ancillary hearing the court was satisfied the statements were given voluntarily.
What was the charge in Public Prosecutor v Mustaqim bin Abdul Kadir [2023] SGHC 142?
Mustaqim bin Abdul Kadir faced one capital charge of drug trafficking under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, for possessing 31 packets and two straws containing not less than 56.8g of diamorphine on 26 January 2018.
Who was the accused in [2023] SGHC 142?
The accused was Mustaqim bin Abdul Kadir, a 37-year-old male Singaporean who worked as a private-hire car driver for Grab. The alleged offence occurred at a parking lot in front of Block 1, Spooner Road on 26 January 2018, tried before Tan Siong Thye J.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (19)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments on the same subject, most closely matched first.
Referenced in
Statutes interpreted in this judgment
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2023] SGHC 142)