PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v AFFANDI BIN MOHAMED HASSAN

Facts

Affandi bin Mohamed Hassan was arrested by Central Narcotics Bureau officers on 10 December 2020 at a flat in Block 305 Serangoon Avenue 2 where he lived. He had previous convictions, including drug offences, and had been released from prison in 2018. Drugs were found in several places in the flat. Three sets formed the charge: the A drugs, 61 packets under his bed containing not less than 6.96g of diamorphine; the B drugs, four packets and two straws in a box on the bedside table containing not less than 0.24g; and the D drugs, three black-taped bundles holding five stones on the dining table containing not less than 17.44g. In all, the 2,752.64g of substance contained not less than 24.64g of diamorphine. Packing materials and digital scales were also seized.

In Criminal Case No 12 of 2023 he claimed trial to possession for the purpose of trafficking under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. A statement of agreed facts recorded that he possessed all the drugs, knew they were diamorphine and gave his statements voluntarily, and he accepted that he meant to sell the A drugs and traffic the D drugs. His defence was that the B drugs were for his own use and that he was only a courier for the D drugs, holding them for a man called Ah Kwang until they went to others named Salim and Pekboon. The Prosecution called Salim, then serving a sentence for drug possession and consumption, in rebuttal.

Issues

1. Whether the B drugs were possessed for the purpose of trafficking rather than for the accused's own consumption.
2. Whether the accused proved on a balance of probabilities that he was only a courier in relation to the D drugs under s 33B(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act.

Holding

The High Court convicted the accused of the trafficking charge, finding that the A, B and D drugs were all possessed for trafficking and that he had not shown he was merely a courier. Although the Prosecution said a certificate of substantive assistance would be issued, the alternative sentencing regime was unavailable, and the court sentenced him to the mandatory death penalty.

Reasoning

The judge noted that the Prosecution did not pursue the presumption of trafficking in its closing submissions, but found no reasonable doubt in any event. On the B drugs, the accused had admitted ownership at arrest, denied it in a later statement and at trial, and conceded possession only when confronted with a forensic report showing that some B packets were made in the same batches as packets holding other drugs. The B drugs were packed like the A drugs, which he admitted were for sale, and he had never claimed they were for his own use until trial, though he said so of other drugs in the same statement. The utensils in the box were, by his own account, for methamphetamine, not diamorphine. The consumption defence was an afterthought.

On the D drugs, his accounts kept changing: whether he worked for Ah Kwang, whether he would be paid $500, how many stones were meant for Salim and Pekboon, and whether he would collect $11,100 and $7,400 from them. His call records showed no Malaysian calls, police camera footage did not show him going down to collect the drugs, and his descriptions of the deliverer and car shifted. He admitted lying to falsely implicate Salim and about where and when he collected the drugs. Applying Public Prosecutor v Ilechukwu Uchechukwu Chukwudi [2015] SGCA 33, these deliberate lies on material points corroborated his guilt. The absence of his DNA on the bundles did not prove he was a courier, the burden was on him, and he had let slip that he ordered the drugs and that he was arrested before he could repack and sell them. Even without the B drugs, the A and D drugs together were 24.4g, well above the 15g capital threshold.

From the judgment