Affandi bin Mohamed Hassan v Public Prosecutor

Affandi bin Mohamed Hassan was arrested on 10 December 2020 at his flat at Block 305 Serangoon Avenue 2. Three sets of drugs, called the A, B and D drugs, were recovered from his bedroom and living room, together found to contain not less than 24.64g of diamorphine. It was undisputed that he possessed all of them and knew what they were. He was charged with trafficking under the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA).

At trial he accepted that he intended to traffic in the A and D drugs, but said he was only a courier for the D drugs on behalf of a man called Ah Kwang, and that the B drugs were for his own use. The trial judge found his evidence on the courier point confused and shifting, rejected the consumption defence as an afterthought, convicted him and imposed the mandatory death sentence. Although he held a certificate of substantive assistance, he could not use the alternative sentencing regime because he had not shown that he was a mere courier (Public Prosecutor v Affandi bin Mohamed Hassan [2023] SGHC 182).

He appealed in Criminal Appeal No 5 of 2023, seeking only to have the sentence commuted to life imprisonment. In Criminal Motion No 49 of 2024 he applied to admit a psychiatric report by Dr Jacob Rajesh dated 14 August 2024, which said he suffered an abnormality of mind from moderate opioid use disorder at the time of the alleged offence. He alleged that his former trial counsel had not explained an earlier Institute of Mental Health report by Dr Yeo to him. Both former counsel denied this and produced interview records.

1. Whether the fresh psychiatric evidence should be admitted on appeal, given the allegations of inadequate legal assistance by trial counsel.
2. Whether the trial judge was right that the appellant had not proved he was a mere courier for the D drugs.
3. Whether a single charge covering three sets of drugs breached s 132(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
4. Whether the burden of proving courier status lay on the Prosecution, or was affected by the certificate of substantive assistance.

On the motion, the appellant had to show flagrant or egregious incompetence by counsel and a real possibility of a miscarriage of justice. His feelings that counsel were not making full effort, without corroboration, fell far short. Counsel's records showed he had been advised on Dr Yeo's report, and on 23 March 2023 he confirmed in writing that his only defence on the D drugs was that he was a courier. The new report was therefore available at trial and failed the non-availability requirement. It was also of little relevance, since Dr Rajesh did not say the abnormality persisted to the trial and agreed the appellant was fit to plead. The court disapproved of the unfounded allegations against former counsel.

On the appeal, with the motion dismissed, nothing explained the confusion in his evidence except dishonesty; there was also ample evidence that he meant to repack the D drugs for sale. The single charge was proper: the drugs were found in the flat at the same time and he admitted possessing all of them, so there was one offence of possession, and in any event no failure of justice was shown. Being a courier is not a defence to trafficking but one of two conjunctive conditions for the alternative sentence under s 33B, and the MDA places the burden of proving it on the accused. The Prosecution's suggestion in cross-examination that his role was not restricted to delivery meant only that it disputed his case. A certificate of substantive assistance is a wholly separate requirement. The trial judge did not err by dealing with the courier issue alongside guilt. The consumption defence was rightly rejected and, given the quantities in the A and D drugs, would not have changed the result.

The Court of Appeal (Tay Yong Kwang JCA delivering the grounds, with Steven Chong JCA and Ang Cheng Hock JCA) heard both matters on 6 March 2026 and dismissed the criminal motion and the appeal against conviction and sentence. The conviction and death sentence stood.