In a written judgment delivered by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon on May 8, the court said the evidence did not support a finding being made beyond a reasonable doubt on when exactly the two bundles of heroin were delivered to Mohamed Mubin Abdul Rahman.
“Given the manner in which the prosecution conducted its case in the court below, the provenance of the two bundles was a material issue and, on this issue, we are satisfied that a reasonable doubt exists,” said the court.
The case was adjourned for the prosecution and the defence to file further submissions within four weeks on whether an acquittal should follow or whether a retrial should be ordered.
The three-judge court also told the parties to submit on whether, in the event an acquittal is granted, any altered charges should be brought against Mubin in the light of his admission that he had obtained methamphetamine from his supplier on multiple occasions.
The court said the need to ensure procedural fairness in criminal proceedings meant that it is generally incumbent on the prosecution to put forward a consistent case.
This is so that the accused person knows the case that he has to meet, and to ensure that an accused person is not prejudiced by any change in the prosecution’s case, said the court.
Mubin and his younger brother, Lokman Abdul Rahman, 59, were jointly tried before a High Court judge for drug trafficking.
Lokman was arrested on the night of Sept 8, 2015, by Central Narcotics Bureau officers on the ground floor of a condominium in Katong.
He had a black bag with him which contained two bundles of granular substances containing not less than 39.28g of heroin. More drugs were found in a unit at the condo, which was rented by Mubin.
When Mubin was eventually arrested on Oct 5, 2015, he had two packets of methamphetamine, three packets of heroin, some empty sachets, and a weighing scale with him.
The prosecution’s case against Mubin was that he had directed Lokman to collect the two bundles from the condo unit, and then deliver one bundle to someone named “Edy” and the other to Mubin.
The prosecution contended that Mubin had received the two bundles of heroin from his Malaysian suppliers, Mohd Zaini Zainutdin and Mohd Noor Ismail.
Lokman admitted that he was aware that the two bundles contained heroin.
His only defence was that he had acted as a courier by working for Mubin, in exchange for a supply of drugs and some money.
But Mubin contradicted his brother’s defence. He denied that he had directed Lokman, and claimed that he had nothing to do with the drugs found on his brother or in the condo.
He said he consumed methamphetamine, commonly known as Ice, and that it was the only drug Zaini supplied him.
At the end of the trial, which was held between January 2019 and February 2020, Mubin was sentenced to death, while Lokman was given life imprisonment because the judge accepted that he was just a courier.
The trial judge found that Mubin’s suppliers had delivered various drugs to him on Sept 1, Sept 5 and Sept 7, 2015.
She concluded that the two bundles which were seized from Lokman were delivered on Sept 5, 2015.
The trial judge concluded that it was Mubin, rather than Lokman, who had ordered the drugs and coordinated the deliveries.
At Mubin’s appeal, his lawyers, Mr Eugene Thuraisingam and Mr Johannes Hadi, argued that prejudice was caused to him because the prosecution had changed its case at the trial regarding when the bundles were delivered to him.
In its judgment, the Court of Appeal said the prosecution had shifted its position in relation to an important aspect of its case.
Zaini had testified that he delivered two bundles of heroin on Sept 5, and two bundles of methamphetamine on Sept 7.
The court said the prosecution did not challenge this, meaning its position was that the heroin was delivered on Sept 5.
Lokman then testified that two bundles of heroin were delivered to Mubin on both Sept 5 and Sept 7. But he said those delivered on Sept 5 had either been unwrapped or disposed of.
When Mubin took the stand, the prosecution’s position shifted to a broader case that the bundles were delivered in the first week of September.
Then, in its closing submissions for the trial, the prosecution accepted Zaini’s version of events on the one hand, and on the other, contended that it was irrelevant which date specifically the two bundles were delivered.
Source: straitstimes.com, Selina Lum, May 10, 2024
_____________________________________________________________________
Twitter/X | Facebook | Telegram | Contact Us
"One is absolutely sickened, not by the crimes that the wicked have committed,
but by the punishments that the good have inflicted."
but by the punishments that the good have inflicted."
— Oscar Wilde
