1. Introduction
We acted for Zuraimy Bin Musa (“Zuraimy“) who stood trial alongside Moad Fadzir Bin Mustaffa (“Moad“) for sharing a common intention to traffic in 36.93 grams of diamorphine (the “Drugs“) when they were arrested separately on 12 April 2016. If convicted, both would face the death penalty.
Zuraimy’s charge read
You, ZURAIMY BIN MUSA are charged that you, on 12th April 2016, at or about 12.15a.m., at the vicinity of Blk 623 Woodlands Drive 52, Singapore, together with one Moad Fadzir bin Mustaffa, NRIC No. SXXXXX12F, in furtherance of the common intention of both of you, did traffic in a controlled drug specified in Class ‘A’ of the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008, Rev Ed), to wit, by having in your possession for the purpose of trafficking four packets of granular substances that were analysed and found to contain not less than 36.93 grams of diamorphine, without any authorization under the said Act or Regulations made thereunder and you have thereby committed an offence under section 5(1)(a) read with section 5(2) of the Misuse of Drug Act read with section 34 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) which offence is punishable under section 33(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
Moad’s charge read
You, MOAD FADZIR BIN MUSTAFFA are charged that you, on 12th April 2016, at or about 12.15a.m., at the vicinity of Blk 623 Woodlands Drive 52, Singapore, together with one Zuraimy bin Musa, NRIC No. SXXXXX06E, in furtherance of the common intention of both of you, did traffic in a controlled drug specified in Class ‘A’ of the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008, Rev Ed), to wit, by having in your possession for the purpose of trafficking, four packets of granular substances that were analysed and found to contain not less than 36.93 grams of diamorphine, without any authorization under the said Act or Regulations made thereunder and you have thereby committed an offence under section 5(1)(a) read with section 5(2) of the Misuse of Drug Act read with section 34 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) which offence is punishable under section 33(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
2. Moad’s Contemporaneous Statement
Crucially, it was Moad who had been arrested in possession of the Drugs. In his contemporaneous statement, Moad had also admitted to knowing the nature of the drugs. It was also Moad who had made a withdrawal of approximately $3,000 the night before his arrest, presumably to pay for the Drugs (or at least a part thereof). Considering the evidence in its totality, the Judge thereby sentenced Moad to suffer death.
3. Common intention to traffic the drugs
The Judge, however, did not agree with the Prosecution’s case that Zuraimy had shared in Moad’s intention to traffic the Drugs. The Judge found that the evidence had not necessarily shown that Zuraimy knew that Moad was purchasing the Drugs for the purpose of trafficking, and opined that it was possible that Zuraimy had thought that Moad had made the purchase for his own consumption.
4. Conclusion
The Judge thereby amended the charge against Zuraimy to one of abetting Moad to obtain the Drugs, and sentenced him to 10 years’ imprisonment. The Prosecution appealed against the Judge’s decision to the Court of Appeal. We successfully defended this appeal, and it was dismissed.
Following four days of trial in the District Court, the learned District Judge Eddy Tham…
Eugene Thuraisingam LLP successfully reduced the jail sentence of Mr Soo Cheow Wee, who was…
Eugene Thuraisingam LLP successful in defending company and its director against claims brought by a…
This article outlines how the death penalty in a drug trafficking case was reduced to…
The High Court's acquittal of a man who was charged with Murder has been upheld…
In this case, the High Court clarified sentencing principles on imposing fines on indigent offenders.