Public Prosecutor v Khalid Bin K K Mohamad

Khalid bin K K Mohamad claimed trial in the High Court, in Criminal Case No 60 of 2024, to two capital charges under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act: possessing for the purpose of trafficking six packets containing not less than 25.95g of diamorphine, and one block containing not less than 624.5g of cannabis. He was arrested on 19 January 2021 in a unit at Telok Blangah, where the drugs were found in the kitchen and in the shoe rack of the next unit.

Possession and knowledge were not disputed. The prosecution relied mainly on a statement recorded on 3 February 2021, in which he admitted he intended to repack the bundles into smaller packets, each for sale to clients, and that none was for his own use; he identified other seized drugs as set aside for his consumption. The defence challenged that statement as involuntary, saying he was suffering toothache, backache, withdrawal and fatigue. At trial he claimed that about half the drugs were for his own consumption, at rates of 14.64g of diamorphine and 14.29g of cannabis a day, which would bring the trafficking quantities below the capital thresholds. He also argued that the blocks had not been tested individually for purity.

1. Whether the 3 February 2021 statement was voluntary and deserved full weight.
2. Whether his consumption defence raised a reasonable doubt or rebutted the presumptions of trafficking under s 17 of the Act.
3. Whether the lack of individual testing of the blocks raised a reasonable doubt about the capital quantities.

After an ancillary hearing, the court held that the statement was voluntary under s 258(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010, applying Tey Tsun Hang v Public Prosecutor [2014] 2 SLR 1189 and Public Prosecutor v Yue Roger Jr [2019] 3 SLR 749. His complaints were belated and unsupported by medical records, the recorder and interpreter saw nothing untoward, and a four-hour session was not oppressive. The admissions were accurate and consistent with his earlier statements, as the drugs for his own use were held separately.

Applying the factors in A Steven s/o Paul Raj v Public Prosecutor [2022] 2 SLR 538, the court rejected the consumption defence. He had given consistent lower rates to doctors and officers soon after arrest and raised them only in September 2021, an explanation the court found smacked of fabrication. Some claimed deliveries were not supported by his messages, and one alleged supplier was in fact his customer. He was short of money and borrowing shortly before his arrest, and his claimed investment with a new acquaintance was unsubstantiated. His lies went to credibility, though they were not shown by independent evidence to corroborate guilt under Regina v Lucas (Ruth) [1981] QB 720.

Since the statement showed all the drugs in the bundles were for sale, individual testing was unnecessary. In any event he offered no evidence that purity varied between blocks or of which blocks he meant to consume.

The court convicted the accused on both charges. Because he was not a courier within s 33B of the Act, he was not eligible for the alternative sentencing regime, and the court pronounced the mandatory death sentence on each charge. The other charges stood down at the start of trial were withdrawn.