PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v Lokman Bin Abdul Rahman & Anor

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

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 for the prosecution Eugene Thuraisingam Counsel for the accused Johannes Hadi Counsel for the accused Kenny Yang Counsel for the prosecution Mohamed Fazal Bin Abdul Hamid Counsel for the 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.

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.