PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v Lokman Bin Abdul Rahman & Anor

Q: Which legislation does [2023] SGHC 60 consider?

The judgment refers to Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2023] SGHC 60 High Court (General Division) 17 March 2023 HC/CC 1/2019 39 min read

9 cases cited (8 SG, 1 foreign)

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	17 March 2023
Judge	Valerie Thean
Charges / claim	Criminal Law
Counsel	Attorney-General's Chambers, Eugene Thuraisingam LLP, IRB Law LLP, April Phang, Eugene Thuraisingam, Johannes Hadi, Kenny Yang, Mohamed Fazal Bin Abdul Hamid

Source: [2023] SGHC 60, High Court (General Division), decided 17 March 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Criminal Law — Statutory offences — Misuse of Drugs Act

Practice Areas

Criminal Law

Judges (1)

Valerie Thean Delivered

Counsel (8)

Attorney-General's Chambers Firm Eugene Thuraisingam LLP Firm IRB Law LLP Firm April Phang Counsel Prosecution Eugene Thuraisingam Counsel Accused Johannes Hadi Counsel Accused Kenny Yang Counsel Prosecution Mohamed Fazal Bin Abdul Hamid Counsel Accused

Parties (2)

Public Prosecutor Prosecution Mohamed Mubin bin Abdul Rahman Accused

Case Significance

Public Prosecutor v Mohamed Mubin bin Abdul Rahman [2023] SGHC 60 is a findings on remittal by Valerie Thean J in the General Division of the High Court on Criminal Case No 1 of 2019, delivered on 17 March 2023 under Criminal Law — Statutory offences — Misuse of Drugs Act. The accused, Mohamed Mubin bin Abdul Rahman, had been jointly tried with his brother Lokman bin Abdul Rahman, who was arrested on 8 September 2015 with two bundles containing not less than 39.28g of diamorphine at a condominium lift lobby. Lokman said Mubin had instructed him to collect the bundles, while Mubin, arrested on 5 October 2015, denied any knowledge of the drugs or giving instructions; at the earlier trial the court rejected Mubin's evidence and accepted Lokman's account, and the excerpt sets out the background to the remittal rather than the final findings.

[2023] SGHC 60 explained

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v Lokman Bin Abdul Rahman & Anor ([2023] SGHC 60) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 17 March 2023. It is categorised under Criminal Law. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2023] SGHC 60 about?

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v Lokman Bin Abdul Rahman & Anor ([2023] SGHC 60) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Criminal Law — Statutory offences — Misuse of Drugs Act”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2023] SGHC 60 consider?

The judgment refers to Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

Summary

This was a findings on remittal in the drug trafficking prosecution of Mohamed Mubin bin Abdul Rahman, who had been tried with his brother in relation to bundles containing not less than 39.28g of diamorphine under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The remitted issue concerned whether Mubin satisfied the alternative sentencing requirement in s 33B(3)(b) of the Act, which turned on abnormality of mind and mental responsibility. Applying the relevant tests, the court found insufficient evidence of an abnormality of mind and determined that s 33B(3)(b) was not satisfied.

What was Public Prosecutor v Mohamed Mubin bin Abdul Rahman [2023] SGHC 60 about?

It concerned findings on remittal in Criminal Case No 1 of 2019 before Valerie Thean J, arising from a Misuse of Drugs Act prosecution where Mubin was jointly tried with his brother Lokman, who was arrested on 8 September 2015 with not less than 39.28g of diamorphine.

What role did the diamorphine bundles play in the Mubin bin Abdul Rahman case ([2023] SGHC 60)?

Lokman was arrested with two bundles containing not less than 39.28g of diamorphine and said Mubin had instructed him to collect and deliver them, while Mubin, arrested on 5 October 2015, denied knowledge of the drugs or giving any such instructions.