Sulaiman bin Jumari v Public Prosecutor: Admissibility of Statements under the Misuse of Drugs Act
In Sulaiman bin Jumari v Public Prosecutor, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal against the conviction of Sulaiman bin Jumari for drug trafficking under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The primary legal issue was the admissibility of a contemporaneous statement made by Sulaiman shortly after his arrest, which he sought to exclude based on allegations of inducement and his vulnerable mental state due to drug withdrawal. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision, finding the statement admissible and reliable, and affirmed Sulaiman's conviction and the mandatory death sentence. The court dismissed the appeal.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore Court of Appeal judgment on admissibility of statements in a drug trafficking case, focusing on voluntariness and reliability under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Conviction Affirmed | Won | April Phang of Attorney-General’s Chambers Tan Ee Kuan of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Sulaiman bin Jumari | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | No |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| April Phang | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tan Ee Kuan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Lau Kah Hee | BC Lim & Lau LLC |
| Koh Weijin Leon | N S Kang |
| Anand Nalachandran | Forte Law LLC |
4. Facts
- Appellant was arrested in a rented room at Sunflower Grandeur.
- Drug exhibits were seized from a wardrobe, bedside table, and under the bed.
- Appellant admitted possession of all drug exhibits except those in the wardrobe.
- The drugs in question contained 49.86g of diamorphine.
- Appellant admitted the drugs were for consumption and sale in a contemporaneous statement.
- Appellant claimed he was experiencing drug withdrawal during the statement recording.
- The High Court admitted the contemporaneous statement as evidence.
5. Formal Citations
- Sulaiman bin Jumari v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Appeal No 25 of 2019, [2020] SGCA 116
- Public Prosecutor v Sulaiman bin Jumari, , [2019] SGHC 210
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant committed the offence of drug trafficking | |
| Appellant arrested by Central Narcotics Bureau officers | |
| Contemporaneous statement recorded from the appellant | |
| Appellant underwent pre-statement medical examination by Dr Yak Si Mian | |
| Cautioned statement recorded | |
| Appellant underwent post-statement medical examination by Dr Raymond Lim | |
| Appellant admitted into the Complex Medical Centre for drug withdrawal assessment | |
| Appellant discharged from the Complex Medical Centre | |
| Criminal Appeal No 25 of 2019 filed | |
| Public Prosecutor v Sulaiman bin Jumari [2019] SGHC 210 issued | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment delivered |
7. Legal Issues
- Admissibility of Statements
- Outcome: The court held that the contemporaneous statement was admissible as evidence.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Voluntariness of statement
- Inducement
- Exclusionary discretion
- Reliability of statement
- Related Cases:
- [2011] 3 SLR 1205
- Possession of Drugs
- Outcome: The court found that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had possession of the drugs.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Physical possession
- Knowledge of possession
- Presumption of possession
- Knowledge of Nature of Drugs
- Outcome: The court found that the appellant had knowledge of the nature of the drugs.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Awareness of the substance being a controlled drug
- Presumption of knowledge
- Intention to Traffic
- Outcome: The court found that the appellant possessed the drugs for the purpose of trafficking.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Purpose of possessing the drugs
- Sale of drugs
- Amount of drugs possessed
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Drug Trafficking
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Appeals
- Evidence
- Criminal Procedure
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Muhammad bin Kadar and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 1205 | Singapore | Cited for the common law exclusionary discretion where the prejudicial effect of evidence outweighs its probative value. |
| Public Prosecutor v Sulaiman bin Jumari | High Court | Yes | [2019] SGHC 210 | Singapore | The High Court decision under appeal, regarding the admissibility of the contemporaneous statement and the conviction of the appellant. |
| Panya Martmontree and others v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR(R) 806 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Prosecution bears the legal burden of proof to show beyond reasonable doubt that a statement was given voluntarily. |
| Poh Kay Keong v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR(R) 887 | Singapore | Cited for the reliability rationale underpinning section 258(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. |
| Chai Chien Wei Kelvin v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 619 | Singapore | Cited for the twin limbs of the voluntariness test. |
| Yeo See How v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 2 SLR(R) 277 | Singapore | Cited as an example of an inducement that is too vague to be considered a valid inducement. |
| Sharom bin Ahmad and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR(R) 541 | Singapore | Cited as an example of an inducement that is too vague to be considered a valid inducement. |
| Public Prosecutor v Dahalan bin Ladaewa | High Court | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR(R) 124 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that drug withdrawal could be a basis for finding that a statement was given involuntarily and that Kadar provided a basis for excluding voluntary statements where the prejudicial effect of the evidence exceeded its probative value, even if the evidence was otherwise admissible. The court held that 'intoxicated' in Explanation 2(b) to s 258(3) of the CPC can and should include drug withdrawal. |
| Regina v Sang | House of Lords | Yes | [1980] 1AC 402 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that there remained a discretion to exclude any evidence that had more prejudicial effect than probative value. |
| Wong Keng Leong Rayney v Law Society of Singapore | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 377 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that evidence that has been procured improperly or unfairly in order to prosecute offenders but which is not procured unlawfully is an abuse of process or that it is inadmissible in evidence, except when there would be unfairness at the trial in terms of its prejudicial effect exceeding its probative value. |
| Jagatheesan s/o Krishnasamy v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 45 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where statements, particularly confessions, have been retracted, the court will exercise care in assessing the retracted confession. |
| Garnam Singh v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 1 SLR(R) 1044 | Singapore | Cited to distinguish the facts of the current case from a case where the accused was in a state of near delirium. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ismil bin Kadar and another | High Court | Yes | [2009] SGHC 84 | Singapore | Cited to distinguish the facts of the current case from a case where the accused was in a state of drowsiness or confusion such as to make it unsafe to admit his statement made. |
| Adili Chibuike Ejike v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 254 | Singapore | Cited for the general principles concerning the element of possession. |
| Poon Soh Har and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1977–1978] SLR(R) 97 | Singapore | Cited for the interpretation of 'the keys' in the presumption as referring to all the keys to the premises in issue. |
| Public Prosecutor v Tan Lye Heng | High Court | Yes | [2017] 5 SLR 564 | Singapore | Cited for the comment that Poon Soh Har was at odds with more recent Court of Appeal pronouncements that the presumption could apply even if an accused person was not the owner of the premises in question but was only a tenant or a visitor and that proof of possession of 'the key' suffices to invoke the presumption. |
| Mui Jia Jun v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 1087 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there can be many reasons for the absence of a subject’s DNA from an exhibit, including the degradation of DNA samples by intentional or unintentional means. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 33(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 33B of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 258 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 18(1)(c) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 17(c) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| ss 85 and 86(3) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Contemporaneous statement
- Drug trafficking
- Diamorphine
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Voluntariness
- Inducement
- Exclusionary discretion
- Drug withdrawal
- Possession
- Knowledge
- Intention to traffic
15.2 Keywords
- Drug trafficking
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Admissibility of statements
- Voluntariness
- Drug withdrawal
- Singapore Court of Appeal
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Criminal Law | 95 |
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Procedure | 95 |
| Admissibility of evidence | 90 |
| Sentencing | 80 |
| Evidence | 70 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Evidence
- Criminal Procedure