Mustaqim Bin Abdul Kadir v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Facts

Mustaqim bin Abdul Kadir was convicted at trial in Criminal Case No 44 of 2022 on a capital charge of possessing not less than 56.8g of diamorphine for the purpose of trafficking under the Misuse of Drugs Act. He accepted possession and knowledge of the drugs and admitted intending to traffic part of them. His central defence was that two bundles had been given to him by mistake by a supplier, "Zack", and that he intended to return them, which would have taken the quantity for trafficking below the capital threshold. He also challenged the admissibility of seven statements to the Central Narcotics Bureau, alleging inducements by officers, including that he was told cooperation as a courier could lead to life imprisonment.

He appealed against conviction and sentence in Criminal Appeal No 7 of 2023. By Criminal Motion No 11 of 2025 he sought to adduce prison clinical notes and a psychiatric report suggesting he may have been suffering drug withdrawal and confusion when his long statements were recorded. He argued this explained why he never mentioned the unwanted drugs defence in his statements and meant those statements should be excluded. The Court of Appeal dismissed both the motion and the appeal and later gave its grounds.

Issues

1. Whether the further psychiatric evidence met the conditions for admitting fresh evidence on appeal in a criminal case.
2. Whether the application to adduce it was an abuse of process.
3. Whether the trial judge erred in admitting the appellant's statements over his allegations of inducement.
4. Whether the conviction should stand given his claim that he intended to return part of the drugs.

Holding

The Court of Appeal dismissed the criminal motion to adduce further evidence and dismissed the appeal against conviction and sentence.

Reasoning

Under Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489, applied less rigidly in criminal cases, the evidence was neither unavailable nor material. The same clinical information was before the trial court, and trial counsel had expressly consulted a psychologist and psychiatrist about withdrawal but chose not to run that case. That choice was likely tactical, since claiming confusion sat uneasily with the claim that he understood and responded to an officer's alleged inducement. Following Masri Bin Hussain v Public Prosecutor [2025] SGCA 9, the court held that seeking on appeal what amounted to a retrial on a different defence, after electing at trial not to lead the evidence, was an abuse of process.

The evidence was also not material. The records showed abnormal behaviour only from 6 to 11 February 2018, and the suggestion that it extended back to when the statements were taken was speculative and contradicted by unchallenged evidence of his normal demeanour and negative withdrawal assessments. Nor could it overcome the other evidence: phone records of active trafficking, a voice note confirming an order of three tablets of "panas" for $7,500, and his repacking and concealing of the bundles rather than returning them. His phone calls to the supplier did not show what was discussed.

On admissibility, the judge rightly treated the psychiatrist's evidence as corroborative, and the appellant himself admitted telling the psychiatrist that no promises were made. The mandatory death penalty notice is objectively not an inducement, and Explanation 2(aa) to s 258(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 neutralises any literal inducement. Conflicting accounts do not cancel each other out; the judge was entitled to prefer the officer, who had no motive to lie, over an appellant who admitted lying to escape capital punishment. A courier's statement that he handed over a package did not show drugs were delivered by mistake.

From the judgment