1 The first accused, Mr Muhammed Izwan bin Borhan (“Izwan”), presently 36 years old (DOB: 17 November 1985), is charged with having committed the following trafficking offences on 29 September 2017 at about 11.50am in the vicinity of 31 Toh Guan East, Singapore:

(a) having in his possession for the purpose of trafficking, five packets containing not less than 1996.15g of granular/powdery substance found to contain not less than 26.19g of diamorphine, without authorisation, an offence under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) and punishable under s 33(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”); ¹ and

(b) having in his possession for the purpose of trafficking, at least one packet containing not less than 372.93g of crystalline substance found to contain not less than 252.04g of methamphetamine, without authorisation, an offence under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) and punishable under s 33(1) of the MDA. ²

2 The second accused, Mr Ahmad Suhaimi bin Ismail (“Suhaimi”), presently 29 years old (DOB: 20 May 1992), is charged with having committed the following offences on or before 29 September 2017, in Singapore:

(a) abetting the offence of trafficking by engaging in a conspiracy with Izwan to do a certain thing, namely to traffic in 26.19g of diamorphine, and in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing, an act took place on 29 September 2017 in the vicinity of 31 Toh Guan East, Singapore, where Izwan had in his possession for the purpose of trafficking at least five packets containing not less than 1996.15g of granular/powdery substance found to contain not less than 26.19g of diamorphine, without authorisation, an offence under s 5(1)(a) read with s 12 and punishable under s 33(1) of the MDA; ³ and

(b) abetting the offence of trafficking by engaging in a conspiracy with Izwan to do a certain thing, namely to traffic in 252.04g of methamphetamine, and in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing, an act took place on 29 September 2017 in the vicinity of 31 Toh Guan East, Singapore, where Izwan had in his possession for the purpose of trafficking at least one packet containing not less than 372.93g of crystalline substance found to contain not less than 252.04g of methamphetamine, without authorisation, an offence under s 5(1)(a) read with s 12 and punishable under s 33(1) of the MDA. ⁴

3 Diamorphine and methamphetamine are controlled drugs specified in Class A of the First Schedule to the MDA. Each of the offences in the charges is punishable with death under s 33(1) read with the Second Schedule of the MDA. Alternatively, pursuant to s 33B(1), if the requirements in ss 33B(2) or 33B(3) are met, the accused persons may be sentenced to imprisonment for life and caning of not less than 15 strokes (in the case of s 33B(2)) or imprisonment for life (in the case of s 33B(3)).

4 Both Izwan and Suhaimi claimed trial. The Prosecution applied for a joint trial under s 143(g) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) (“CPC”). Section 143(g) provides for a person accused of committing an offence and a person accused of abetment of or attempt to commit that offence, to be charged and tried jointly. Izwan and Suhaimi had no objections. I saw no reason why Izwan and Suhaimi should not be tried jointly and accordingly, I ordered a joint trial.

5 The first charge against Suhaimi originally referred to one packet containing not less than 2270.95g of granular/powdery substance, found to contain not less than 29.63g of diamorphine, whereas the first charge against Izwan referred to five packets containing not less than 2270.95g of granular/powdery substance, found to contain not less than 29.63g of diamorphine. On the fourth day of the trial, the Prosecution applied to amend the first charge against Suhaimi so that it referred to five packets instead of one packet. The weights of the granular/powdery substance and the diamorphine remained the same.

6 Suhaimi “formally” ⁵ objected to the amendment on the ground that the first charge had given him the impression that the diamorphine was contained in one packet. ⁶ However, he was unable to show what prejudice would be caused to him by the amendment.

7 I agreed with the Prosecution that the amendment would not cause any prejudice to Suhaimi and I therefore allowed the amendment.

8 The first charge against Izwan and the first charge against Suhaimi, as framed by the Prosecution, referred to 2270.95g of granular/powdery substance found to contain not less than 29.63g of diamorphine. ⁷ After closing submissions and having considered the evidence, I came to the view that the amount of granular/powdery substance and amount of diamorphine stated in the first charge against Izwan and the first charge against Suhaimi ought to exclude what was seized in an aluminium tray (marked “A3”). ⁸ The reasons for this are explained later in this judgment (see [125]–[127] below). Accordingly, pursuant to s 128(1) of the CPC, I amended the first charge against Izwan and the first charge against Suhaimi to reduce the amount of granular/powdery substance from 2270.95g to 1996.15g and the amount of diamorphine from 29.63g to 26.19g.

9 Izwan and Suhaimi claimed trial to the amended charges. ⁹ As all relevant evidence had been adduced and submissions made, they did not offer any further evidence or submissions.

10 It is not disputed that various terms used by Izwan and Suhaimi had the following meanings:

(a) “Panas”, “ubat” or “heroin” means diamorphine. ¹⁰

(b) One “batu” or “biji” of heroin means a packet of heroin, which according to Izwan, weighs about 450g. ¹¹ In the course of objecting to the Prosecution’s application to amend the first charge against Suhaimi, his counsel submitted that Suhaimi was under the impression that one “biji” of heroin simply meant one packet of heroin. ¹² However, it is clear from Suhaimi’s subsequent testimony in court and WhatsApp messages involving him that he knew that one “biji” referred to a specific amount of heroin. For example, Suhaimi had asked his Malaysian supplier about the price of one “biji” of heroin; obviously, the price had to have reference to a specific quantity. ¹³ In his closing submissions, Suhaimi accepted that one “biji” referred to 450g of heroin. ¹⁴

(c) “Sejuk”, “air batu” or “Ice” means methamphetamine. ¹⁵

(d) Half “batang” of Ice means a packet of methamphetamine weighing about 500g. ¹⁶

(e) “Cook” or “cooking” drugs mean pack or packing drugs. ¹⁷

11 The following names/aliases are also not disputed:

(a) Izwan is also known as “Neo”. ¹⁸ Izwan is referred to as “Prapa” in the contact list in Suhaimi’s handphone. ¹⁹

(b) Suhaimi is also known as “Hustler”. ²⁰

(c) One Mr Mohamed Yusof bin Kasim (“Yusof”) is also known as “Kimo”. Yusof is referred to as “Momo” in the contact list in Suhaimi’s handphone. ²¹

(d) “Arun” is a drug supplier in Malaysia from whom Suhaimi ordered drugs. ²² Izwan referred to Arun as “Mamak”. ²³

12 Izwan first met Suhaimi in 2008. They next met in 2014 at prison school. Izwan was released from prison in 2015 and Suhaimi was released in 2016.

13 Izwan and Suhaimi had separately met Yusof whilst in prison. Both reconnected with Yusof after their respective releases from prison. Both knew that Yusof dealt in drugs (including heroin) that he bought from Arun. Izwan admitted that he had previously bought heroin from Yusof. ²⁴

14 Izwan also admitted having previously dealt in heroin and Ice. ²⁵ Suhaimi admitted having previously dealt in Ice but denied having dealt in heroin. ²⁶ Suhaimi claimed that he only recommended customers to Izwan for heroin. ²⁷ Izwan and Suhaimi obtained their drugs from Arun but Suhaimi was the one who communicated with Arun.

15 On 29 September 2017, Izwan collected five “biji” of heroin and one packet of 500g of Ice at about 12.46pm in the vicinity of 31 Toh Guan East. He placed cash in Arun’s runner’s motorcycle basket in exchange for the drugs and then took a Grab taxi back to his home on the 12th floor of Block 27 New Upper Changi Road (“Block 27”).

16 Izwan repacked one “biji” of heroin into several smaller packets, marked “A4” (five packets), “B2A1” (five packets) and “B3A” (one packet); ²⁸ the balance was placed in an aluminium tray (A3). ²⁹ As instructed by Suhaimi, Izwan repacked the Ice into four packets of 125g each. ³⁰ At Suhaimi’s request, Izwan placed one of these 125g packets of Ice at the electrical box on the 11th floor of Block 27 for one of Suhaimi’s customers. ³¹ Izwan repacked the 125g packet that was meant for himself into several smaller packets, marked “A5” (one packet), “B1A1” (seven packets), “B2B1A” (two packets) and “B3B1” (one packet). ³²

17 At some point after 3.00pm, Suhaimi arrived at Block 27 in a black Subaru car, registration number SJJ 5287K (the “Subaru”). ³³ Yusof and one Mr Muhammad Zafar bin Ramli (“Zafar”) were with him. Izwan delivered a black plastic bag, containing two 125g packets of Ice, to Suhaimi. Suhaimi, Yusof and Zafar then left. Izwan identified the black plastic bag (marked “F1”) and the two 125g packets of Ice (marked “F1B1”) as the plastic bag and Ice that he handed to Suhaimi. ³⁴ However, Suhaimi claimed that F1 and F1B1 were not what Izwan handed to him. I will deal with Suhaimi’s claim below.

18 At about 4.10pm on 29 September 2017, Izwan was arrested by Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) officers at the void deck of Block 27. He was escorted to his apartment. Several drug exhibits were seized from Izwan’s bedroom. The items seized included the following, among other things:

(a) one unopened taped bundle (marked “A1”) that contained three “biji” of heroin (marked “A1A”, “A1B”, and “A1C”); ³⁵

(b)  one torn taped bundle (marked “A2”) that contained one “biji” of heroin (marked “A2A”); ³⁶

(c) an aluminium tray containing heroin (A3); ³⁷

(d) smaller packets of heroin – A4 (five packets), B2A1 (five packets) and B3A (one packet); ³⁸

(e) smaller packets of Ice – A5 (one packet), B1A1 (seven packets), B2B1A (two packets) and B3B1 (one packet); ³⁹

(f) one torn taped bundle that was empty (marked “A7”); ⁴⁰

(g) a paper fragment and a plastic bag (marked “A8”); ⁴¹

(h) several black plastic bags (marked “A9A”); ⁴² and

(i) Izwan’s handphone (marked “MI-HP1”). ⁴³

19 The 125g packet of Ice that had been left at the electrical box on the 11th floor was not recovered, and hence does not form part of the charges against Izwan and Suhaimi.

20 Izwan’s wife (Mdm Nurul A’shirin binte Sa’ad), mother (Mdm Halinda binte Ismail) and stepfather (Mr Rashid bin Ahmat ) were in the apartment and they too were arrested.

21 At about 4.15pm on 29 September 2017, Suhaimi, Yusof and Zafar were arrested at an Esso petrol kiosk where they had stopped to refuel. Senior Staff Sergeant Bukhari bin Ahmad (“SSSgt Bukhari”) drove the Subaru (with Zafar and Sergeant Yogaraj s/o Ragunathan Pillay (“Sgt Yogaraj”) in the car) to a multi-storey carpark nearby at Block 2A Bedok South Avenue 1 (the “Carpark”). Yusof and Suhaimi were driven to the Carpark in separate CNB cars.

22 A search was conducted on the Subaru at the Carpark. A packet of Ice was recovered from the centre console of the car. Another packet of Ice was recovered from a compartment at the rear left door of the car. Yusof admitted that both packets belonged to him. These two packets of Ice are not the subject matter of this case.

23 A black plastic bag (F1) ⁴⁴ was recovered from the bottom compartment of the driver’s door ⁴⁵ and seized. F1 contained some small ziplock bags (marked “F1A”) ⁴⁶ and another black plastic bag (marked “F1B”); ⁴⁷ F1B contained two packets of Ice (F1B1). ⁴⁸ Suhaimi, Zafar and Yusof disclaimed ownership of F1 and its contents. The CNB officers also seized, among other things, a handphone belonging to Suhaimi (marked “AS-HP1”). ⁴⁹

24 On 30 September 2017, the case exhibits seized from the Subaru were photographed, and the drug exhibits weighed in the presence of Izwan, Suhaimi, Yusof and Zafar, all of whom signed the investigation diary to acknowledge the record of the weights of the drug exhibits. ⁵⁰ On the same day, the case exhibits seized from Izwan’s apartment were also photographed, and the drug exhibits weighed in the presence of Izwan, his wife, his mother and his stepfather, all of whom signed the investigation diary to acknowledge the record of the weights of the drug exhibits. ⁵¹ During the trial, Izwan and Suhaimi disputed the record in the investigation diary relating to the heroin in the aluminium tray (A3). ⁵²

25 The drug exhibits were sent to the Health Sciences Authority (“HSA”) for analysis. The heroin exhibits ⁵³ were found to contain not less than 29.63g of diamorphine. ⁵⁴

26 The Ice exhibits ⁵⁵ were found to contain not less than 252.04g of methamphetamine.

27 The Forensic Response Team (“FORT”) of the CNB’s Investigation Division examined AS-HP1 and retrieved the relevant phone calls, text messages and WhatsApp text and voice messages. ⁵⁶

28 Investigations also revealed the following information:

29 The DNA Profiling Laboratory of the HSA obtained Izwan’s deoxyribonucleic acid (“DNA”) profile on some of the items seized from his apartment at Block 27. ⁵⁷

30 As for the black plastic bag (F1) that was seized from the Subaru, and its contents (F1A, F1B and F1B1): ⁵⁸

(a) no interpretable DNA profile was obtained from the exterior and interior of the black plastic bag (F1).

(b) Izwan’s DNA profile and an uninterpretable component were obtained from:

(i) the exterior of the small ziplock bags (F1A);

(ii) the exterior and interior of the black plastic bag (F1B); and

(iii) the swabs of the two packets of Ice (F1B1).

Suhaimi’s DNA profile was not obtained from any of these items.

31 A total of ten statements recorded from Izwan were adduced in evidence:

(a)  On 29 September 2017 at about 5.40pm, Staff Sergeant Muhammad Helmi bin Abdul Jalal (“SSgt Helmi”) recorded a contemporaneous statement from Izwan in his apartment (“Izwan’s First Statement”). ⁵⁹

(b) On 30 September 2017, at about 3.30pm, Assistant Superintendent Bong Xiu Feng (“ASP Bong”) ⁶⁰ recorded a statement under s 23 of the CPC from Izwan in relation to 15g of diamorphine (“Izwan’s Second Statement”). ⁶¹

(c) On 3 October 2017 at about 10.18am, ASP Bong recorded a statement under s 22 of the CPC from Izwan (“Izwan’s Third Statement”). ⁶²

(d) On the same day (3 October 2017) at about 4.30pm, ASP Bong recorded a statement under s 22 of the CPC from Izwan (“Izwan’s Fourth Statement”). ⁶³

(e) On 4 October 2017 at about 10.45am, ASP Bong recorded a statement under s 22 of the CPC from Izwan (“Izwan’s Fifth Statement”). ⁶⁴

(f) On 13 December 2017 at about 2.24pm, ASP Bong recorded a statement under s 22 of the CPC from Izwan (“Izwan’s Sixth Statement”). ⁶⁵

(g) On 24 March 2018 at about 11.30am, Inspector Adam bin Ismail (“Insp Adam”) recorded a statement under s 23 of the CPC from Izwan in relation to 168.8g of methamphetamine (“Izwan’s Seventh Statement”). ⁶⁶

(h) On the same day (24 March 2018) at about 11.39am, Insp Adam recorded a statement under s 23 of the CPC from Izwan in relation to 83.24g of methamphetamine (“Izwan’s Eighth Statement”). ⁶⁷

(i) On 6 March 2019 at about 10.34am, Inspector Nur Yusyeila binte Yunus (“Insp Nur”) recorded a statement under s 22 of the CPC from Izwan (“Izwan’s Ninth Statement”). ⁶⁸

(j) On 20 March 2019 at about 10.55am, Insp Nur recorded a statement under s 23 of the CPC from Izwan in relation to 252.04g of methamphetamine (“Izwan’s Tenth Statement”). ⁶⁹

32 All of Izwan’s statements were adduced by the Prosecution. Izwan challenged only his First, Third, Fourth and Fifth Statements. After holding ancillary hearings, I admitted all of them into evidence.

33 Ten statements recorded from Suhaimi were adduced in evidence:

(a) On 29 September 2017 at about 5.25pm, Staff Sergeant Muhammad Fardlie bin Ramli (“SSgt Fardlie”) recorded a contemporaneous statement from Suhaimi, in a CNB vehicle at the Carpark (“Suhaimi’s First Statement”). ⁷⁰

(b) On 30 September 2017 at about 12.09am, Senior Staff Sergeant Huang Weilun (“SSSgt Huang”) recorded a statement under s 23 of the CPC from Suhaimi in relation to less than 167g and not more than 250g of methamphetamine (“Suhaimi’s Second Statement”). ⁷¹

(c) On 2 October 2017 at about 10.19am, ASP Bong recorded a statement under s 22 of the CPC from Suhaimi (“Suhaimi’s Third Statement”). ⁷²

(d) On the same day (2 October 2017) at about 7.10pm, ASP Bong recorded another statement under s 22 of the CPC from Suhaimi (“Suhaimi’s Fourth Statement”). ⁷³

(e) On 4 October at about 3.08pm, ASP Bong recorded another statement under s 23 of the CPC from Suhaimi in relation to 15g of diamorphine (“Suhaimi’s Fifth Statement”). ⁷⁴

(f) On 7 November 2017 at about 9.33am, ASP Bong recorded another statement under s 22 of the CPC from Suhaimi (“Suhaimi’s Sixth Statement”). ⁷⁵

(g) On 13 December 2017 at about 10.18am, ASP Bong recorded another statement under s 22 of the CPC from Suhaimi (“Suhaimi’s Seventh Statement”). ⁷⁶

(h) On 18 December 2017 at about 10.30am, ASP Bong recorded another statement under s 22 of the CPC from Suhaimi (“Suhaimi’s Eighth Statement”). ⁷⁷

(i) On 18 December 2017 at about 2.45pm, ASP Bong recorded another statement under s 22 of the CPC from Suhaimi (“Suhaimi’s Ninth Statement”). ⁷⁸

(j) On 8 March 2019 at about 11.50am, Insp Nur recorded another statement under s 23 of the CPC from Suhaimi in relation to 252.04g of methamphetamine (“Suhaimi’s Tenth Statement”). ⁷⁹

34 Suhaimi’s Eighth Statement was adduced in evidence by Suhaimi; the rest were adduced by the Prosecution. Suhaimi did not challenge any of his statements.

35 At the close of the Prosecution’s case, neither Izwan nor Suhaimi made any submissions. As the Prosecution had adduced evidence which was not inherently incredible and which satisfied each and every element of the charges, I called upon Izwan and Suhaimi to give evidence in their respective defences. Both Izwan and Suhaimi elected to give evidence.

36 The Prosecution alleges that the drugs referred to in the charges were from a joint order by Izwan and Suhaimi for:

(a) five “biji” of heroin, of which two were meant for Izwan to sell to Izwan’s customers and three were meant for Suhaimi to sell to Suhaimi’s customers; and

(b) 500g of Ice, of which 125g was meant for Izwan to sell to Izwan’s customers and 375g was meant for Suhaimi to sell to Suhaimi’s customers.

37 The Prosecution’s case against Izwan is that he:

(a) had possession of the drugs when he collected them on 29 September 2017;

(b) had actual knowledge that the drugs contained diamorphine and methamphetamine; and

(c) intended to traffic in the drugs by selling his share to his customers and delivering Suhaimi’s share to Suhaimi; alternatively, pursuant to ss 17(c) and 17(h) of the MDA, Izwan is presumed to have possessed the drugs for the purpose of trafficking.

38 The Prosecution’s case against Suhaimi is that:

(a) by making the joint order for the drugs with Izwan and coordinating Izwan’s collection of the drugs in the vicinity of 31 Toh Guan East on 29 September 2017, Suhaimi had engaged with Izwan in a conspiracy;

(b) the conspiracy was for Izwan to possess the drugs for the purpose of trafficking; and

(c)  pursuant to the conspiracy, an unlawful act (ie, Izwan’s possession of the drugs for the purpose of trafficking) took place.

39 Izwan made the following submissions in his defence:

(a) The voluntariness of Izwan’s First, Third, Fourth and Fifth Statements should be reconsidered in view of certain evidence that had come up during the course of the trial, after the ancillary hearings had concluded.

(b) There is reasonable doubt in the chain of custody of all of the drugs seized, alternatively, of A3.

(c) Izwan was not in the vicinity of 31 Toh Guan East at about 11.50am, as alleged in the charges against him.

(d) In any event, with respect to the heroin, he should only be charged for trafficking in one “biji” of heroin because:

(i) he had changed his order for five “biji” of heroin to one “biji” of heroin;

(ii) five “biji” were wrongly delivered to him and he had made arrangements to return the excess four “biji” of heroin; and

(iii) at the time of collection, he did not know that he had collected five “biji” of heroin.

Therefore, the charge against him should be amended to one of possession of not more than 5.77g of diamorphine (A3, A4, B2A1 and B3A) for the purpose of trafficking.

(e) As for the Ice,

(i) with respect to the 125g of Ice that belonged to him, he had intended to keep two packets of Ice from the seven packets found in B1A1 for his own consumption; therefore, the trafficking charge against him should exclude these two packets;

(ii) with respect to the Ice found in F1B1 (which was recovered from the Subaru), he should be charged only for possession because he was merely a bailee, in that he had merely helped Suhaimi to collect the Ice and was only concerned with handing the Ice back to Suhaimi; and

(iii) alternatively, since he did not know what Suhaimi intended to do with the Ice in F1B1, the charge against him should be for an offence under s 5(1) read with s 12 of the MDA for doing an act preparatory to the commission of the offence of trafficking by Suhaimi.

40 In his oral testimony, Izwan said that the heroin in A3 could have included some heroin left over from his previous purchase, although he could not confirm it. ⁸⁰

41 Suhaimi made the following submissions in his defence:

(a) The chain of custody had been broken with respect to A3.

(b) The charge for conspiracy to traffic in heroin is not made out because:

(i) he had placed the order on behalf of Izwan; Izwan told him to place an order for heroin “as usual” and he (Suhaimi) did not know what quantity of heroin that referred to; and

(ii) he had no knowledge of Izwan’s intention with regards to the heroin.

(c) In any event, the order for heroin was changed to one “biji” but five “biji” of heroin were wrongly delivered and collected by Izwan. Thus, Suhaimi was party to an agreement for Izwan to possess no more than one “biji” of heroin.

(d) The chain of custody had been broken with respect to F1B1. One of Suhaimi’s arguments was that F1B1 was not the Ice that Izwan handed to him.

(e) Suhaimi was not party to an agreement for Izwan to order 125g of Ice, because Izwan made the order without any consultation or discussion with Suhaimi.

(f) In any event, Suhaimi did not know what Izwan intended to do with his (Izwan’s) 125g of Ice. Thus, Suhaimi had not engaged in any conspiracy to traffic with respect to Izwan’s 125g of Ice.

42 The issues before me are as follows:

(a) whether Izwan’s First, Third, Fourth and Fifth Statements are admissible;

(b) whether the chain of custody was broken with respect to the drugs, alternatively, A3 and/or F1B1;

(c) whether F1B1 was the Ice that Izwan handed to Suhaimi;

(d) whether the charges against Izwan are made out since he was not in the vicinity of 31 Toh Guan East at about 11.50am on 29 September 2017, as alleged in the charges against him;

(e) whether Izwan and Suhaimi made a joint order for five “biji” of heroin, with the knowledge that two “biji” were meant for Izwan to sell to his customers and three “biji” were meant for Suhaimi to sell to his customers;

(f) whether the order for heroin was changed from five “biji” to one “biji”;

(g) whether the heroin in A3 included heroin from Izwan’s previous purchase;

(h) whether Izwan and Suhaimi made a joint order for 500g of Ice, with the knowledge that 125g were meant for Izwan to sell to his customers and 375g were meant for Suhaimi to sell to his customers;

(i) whether Izwan was merely a bailee with respect to the Ice in F1B1; and

(j) whether the offences in the charges have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

43 I held a first ancillary hearing to determine the admissibility of Izwan’s Third, Fourth and Fifth Statements, all of which were recorded by ASP Bong in an interview room at the CNB Alpha lock-up.

44 ASP Bong testified, and it was not disputed by Izwan, that:

(a) Izwan spoke in English but expressed some words in Malay; however, ASP Bong had an interpreter, Mr Shaffiq bin Selamat (“Shaffiq”), to assist her. ⁸¹ ASP Bong recorded the statements in English after which she read the statements to Izwan in English and Shaffiq interpreted the statements to Izwan in Malay. ⁸²

(b) Izwan signed the statements which also contained a handwritten note to the effect that: (i) the statements were read to him in the Malay language; (ii) he was invited but declined to amend the statements; and (ii) he signed the statements confirming them to be true and given voluntarily. ⁸³

ASP Bong denied any threat, inducement, promise or oppression by her. ⁸⁴

45 Izwan alleged as follows:

(a) On 30 September 2017, after the drug exhibits had been weighed, he had spoken to ASP Bong and asked her to “let go” of his wife. ASP Bong replied: “Look, I have looked through your handphone. You give me Ahmad Suhaimi involvement in this and I will let your wife off.” ASP Bong also told him: “If you play me out, I will pull your wife back.” ⁸⁵

(b) Station Inspector Eng Chien Loong Eugene (“SI Eugene”) and Woman Senior Staff Sergeant Norizan binte Merabzul (“W/SSSgt Norizan”) escorted him back to the lock-up. On the way, SI Eugene asked W/SSSgt Norizan who would be “facing the capital charge” the next day and W/SSSgt Norizan replied that Izwan and his wife would be facing “the capital charge” the next day. On hearing that, Izwan asked why his wife would face the capital charge when ASP Bong had promised to let her off. W/SSSgt Norizan then made a phone call after which she told Izwan that only Izwan would face the capital charge the next day. ⁸⁶

(c) On 3 October 2017, before recording Izwan’s Third Statement, ASP Bong told him: “Look, whatever we have discussed in the exhibit room regarding your wife, just remember that.” During the recording of the statement, ASP Bong would tell him to “[t]hink properly” and “[r]emember your wife” whenever “certain things were not in her favour” during the recording of the statement. ⁸⁷

(d) On the same day, before recording Izwan’s Fourth Statement, ASP Bong told him: “Whatever we have discussed in the exhibit room, think about it properly” and “[t]hink of your wife”. ⁸⁸

(e) On 4 October 2017, before recording Izwan’s Fifth Statement, ASP Bong told him: “Remember what we have discussed in the exhibit room. Please think properly” and “[a]nd think about your wife”. ⁸⁹

(f) On the same day, after his Fifth Statement was recorded, ASP Bong rewarded him with a video call, and he had a video call with his children in the presence of his mother-in-law and sister-in-law. ⁹⁰

46 Under cross-examination, ASP Bong denied that Izwan had asked her to let his wife go, or that she told Izwan she would let his wife go if Izwan gave her Suhaimi’s “involvement”. ⁹¹ ASP Bong testified that Izwan was allowed to make a phone call, but not a video call, to his next of kin on 4 October 2017. ⁹²

47 Shaffiq’s evidence corroborated ASP Bong’s evidence. ⁹³ In particular, he testified that: (a) he did not witness any threat, inducement or promise by ASP Bong to Izwan; and (b) he did not hear ASP Bong say to Izwan “remember your wife and think properly”. ⁹⁴ Shaffiq’s testimony under cross-examination was as follows: ⁹⁵

Shaffiq also noted that Izwan was allowed to make a call on 4 October 2017 but could not remember whether it was a video call. ⁹⁶

48 It is well-settled that the test of voluntariness under s 258(3) of the CPC has an objective limb (ie, whether there was a relevant threat, inducement or promise having reference to the charge against the accused person) and a subjective limb (ie, whether the threat, inducement or promise was such that it would be reasonable for the particular accused person to think that he would gain some advantage or avoid any adverse consequences in relation to the proceedings against him): Chai Chien Wei Kelvin v Public Prosecutor [1998] 3 SLR(R) 619 (“Kelvin Chai”) at [53], recently affirmed in Sulaiman bin Jumari v Public Prosecutor [2021] 1 SLR 557 at [39]. It is also indisputable that where the voluntariness of a statement is challenged, the burden is on the Prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused’s statement was made voluntarily.

49 I found that the Prosecution had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no threat, inducement or promise made to Izwan.

50 First, I accepted ASP Bong’s evidence which was corroborated by Shaffiq’s evidence. Shaffiq was a freelance interpreter who provided interpretation services for CNB. He was an independent witness in that he was not a CNB employee. His evidence was also not shaken during cross-examination. In my view, Shaffiq was an objective witness, whose evidence deserved to be given considerable weight.

51 Second, ASP Bong’s investigation diary showed that Sergeant Muhammad Hidayat bin Jasni (“Sgt Hidayat”) was present during the weighing of the exhibits. ⁹⁷ Sgt Hidayat confirmed this. ⁹⁸ Sgt Hidayat also confirmed that he was one of the officers escorting Izwan and the other accused persons and that nothing occurred between the end of the weighing process and escorting them to the lock-up. ⁹⁹ I accepted his evidence, which withstood cross-examination.

52 Third, W/SSSgt Norizan denied having said anything regarding capital charges to any of the accused persons who were being escorted (ie, Izwan, his wife, his stepfather and his mother) to the lock-up; at that time she did not know if any of them would be served with capital charges and she also did not remember making any phone call to ASP Bong while the accused persons were being escorted to the lock-up. ¹⁰⁰ SI Eugene also denied Izwan’s allegations. ¹⁰¹ I accepted W/SSS Norizan’s and SI Eugene’s evidence. Their evidence withstood cross-examination.

53 Fourth, Izwan’s mother-in-law, Mdm Fauziah bte Abdullah (“Fauziah”) initially testified that Izwan had made a video call after he had been arrested. However, when cross-examined about this, she said she could not remember well and that it “could be a normal phone call”. ¹⁰² She then agreed with the Prosecution that it was a regular phone call and not a video call, and even went on to explain that she did not think a video call was possible because Izwan was in the police station at Cantonment. ¹⁰³ It was clear to me that Fauziah did not recall any video call from Izwan after he had been arrested. It was also clear to me from her evidence (that she did not think a video call was possible) that had there been a video call from Izwan when he was at the police station at Cantonment, she would have remembered.

54 Fifth, although Izwan’s wife was ultimately not charged, the reasons as to why she was not charged were not in evidence. However, as the Prosecution submitted, she was not involved in the drugs that formed the subject matter of this trial. ¹⁰⁴ In my view, the fact that Izwan’s wife was not charged was equivocal at best.

55 Sixth, I agreed with the Prosecution that Izwan gave his statements because he would have known that the WhatsApp messages between him and Suhaimi would incriminate both of them anyway.

56 For completeness, I should add that Izwan also called his stepfather to testify. However, his stepfather’s testimony was of no assistance. He testified that after the exhibits were weighed, he was asked to leave the room and to go to the interview room; he did not see Izwan and he could not remember who else came out of the room with him as he was suffering from withdrawal symptoms then. ¹⁰⁵

57 Taking all of the evidence into consideration, I was left in no doubt that Izwan had given his Third, Fourth and Fifth Statements voluntarily without any threat, promise, inducement or oppression by ASP Bong. Accordingly, I admitted these statements in evidence.

58 I held a second ancillary hearing to determine the voluntariness of Izwan’s First Statement, which was the contemporaneous statement recorded in his bedroom at Block 27 on 29 September 2017 by SSgt Helmi.

59 SSgt Helmi testified that he had no difficulty communicating with Izwan, the statement was read back to Izwan, and Izwan was invited to make amendments but he did not wish to make any. ¹⁰⁶ SSgt Helmi denied any threat, inducement, promise or oppression in the recording of Izwan’s First Statement. ¹⁰⁷

60 Izwan testified as follows: ¹⁰⁸

(a) Before recording his contemporaneous statement, SSgt Helmi asked him whom the items in the bedroom belonged to and he remained silent, after which his wife left the bedroom. SSgt Helmi’s tone of voice then changed, and he told Izwan that “he doesn’t care and that he will continue to take the statement because it’s [Izwan’s] life”.

(b) SSgt Helmi then took out a small book and asked Izwan questions. When SSgt Helmi asked him whom the items in the bedroom belonged to, he replied: “One batu, mine, the Ice in this house, mine, and four batu to be returned back.”

(c) SSgt Helmi then said to him: “Okay, make it simple, if you admit that all these items belong to you, I will let go of – I will let go your parents.”

(d) Izwan then replied: “Okay, what about my wife?” and SSgt Helmi asked him to “ask the IO about that”. Izwan replied: “Okay” and SSgt Helmi continued to record his statement.

61 Under cross-examination, SSgt Helmi denied Izwan’s allegations. ¹⁰⁹

62 I did not believe Izwan’s version of what transpired between SSgt Helmi and him. First, there was no reason for SSgt Helmi to start asking him about the items in the bedroom before he commenced recording the contemporaneous statement. Second, according to Izwan, he was induced to give his statement by SSgt Helmi’s promise to let his parents off, without knowing whether his wife would be let off. I agreed with the Prosecution that this was illogical. Third, there was no evidence that Izwan even tried to ask ASP Bong to let his wife off, after ASP Bong arrived at the apartment at Block 27. In my view, Izwan could not say that SSgt Helmi agreed to let his wife off for the purposes of his First Statement because in challenging his Third, Fourth and Fifth Statements during the first ancillary hearing, he had alleged that ASP Bong promised to let his wife off in connection with his Third, Fourth and Fifth Statements.

63 I was satisfied that the Prosecution had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Izwan’s First Statement was made voluntarily, and I admitted the same in evidence.

64 The court may, after hearing evidence in the main trial, reverse its earlier decision to admit evidence at an ancillary hearing: ss 279(7) and 279(8) of the CPC.

65 As stated in [45] above, during the first ancillary hearing, Izwan claimed that ASP Bong promised to let his wife off if he implicated Suhaimi in his statements. In her testimony during the ancillary hearing, ASP Bong had said that:

(a)  at the time she recorded Izwan’s Third Statement, she had not gone through any of the handphones that had been seized; ¹¹⁰ and

(b) at the time she recorded Izwan’s Fourth and Fifth Statement, she had not gone through Izwan’s handphone. ¹¹¹

66 During the first ancillary hearing, one of the submissions made by the Prosecution was that ASP Bong could not have asked Izwan to incriminate Suhaimi because when she was recording the statements, ASP Bong had not checked Izwan’s handphone and did not know that Suhaimi was known as Hustler. ¹¹² Subsequently, in the course of the main trial, ASP Bong was recalled to the stand and clarified that: ¹¹³

(a)  she had gone back and checked the investigation papers concerning Yusof, and realised that Yusof had identified himself as Kimo and Suhaimi as Hustler in his statement recorded on 2 October 2017; and

(b) she did know that Suhaimi was known as Hustler before she recorded Izwan’s Third Statement because she had read Yusof’s statement before that.

67 Izwan seized upon ASP Bong’s subsequent evidence to submit, during closing submissions, that I should review the voluntariness of Izwan’s statements because a “key plank” of the Prosecution’s case during the first ancillary hearing was gone. I disagree with Izwan’s submission. In my view, the fact that ASP Bong did know that Hustler referred to Suhaimi does not affect the reasons set out at [50] to [55] above.

68 In his testimony, Shaffiq had said that it was only if there was “something unusual” that he would note it down (see [47] above). In his closing submissions, Izwan pointed out that when explaining what “something unusual” meant, Shaffiq referred only to “force or threat” and did not mention inducement or promise. ¹¹⁴ Izwan appeared to be making the submission that it was not clear whether Shaffiq had also looked out for “promises” in addition to “force or threat”. ¹¹⁵ In my view, this submission is unmeritorious. Shaffiq mentioned “force or threat” as examples of what “something unusual” meant. It was also not put to Shaffiq that his answer meant that he would not have taken note of promises. Further, during re-examination, Shaffiq explained that if he had heard ASP Bong say “Remember what we talked earlier on. Make sure you do it” to Izwan, he would have noted it down because it sounded “like a promise or a threat”. ¹¹⁶ Clearly, Shaffiq had promises in mind as well.

69 I confirm my ruling made during the first ancillary hearing that Izwan’s Third, Fourth and Fifth Statements were given voluntarily and hence are admissible in evidence.

70 Izwan submitted that the chain of custody had been broken with respect to the drugs, and in particular, the heroin in A3 (the aluminium tray).

71 Suhaimi submitted that the chain of custody had been broken with respect to A3 and F1B1.

72 Staff Sergeant Au Yong Hong Mian (“SSgt Au Yong”) testified that at 2.45am on 30 September 2017, he handed a duffel bag containing the seized case exhibits and Izwan’s personal properties to ASP Bong at the Exhibit Management Room at CNB headquarters. ¹¹⁷ However, the entry made by ASP Bong in her investigation diary stated that she took over the exhibits from SSgt Au Yong at 5.22am. ¹¹⁸ ASP Bong confirmed on the stand that she took over the exhibits at 5.22am. ¹¹⁹

73 Izwan submitted that the discrepancy in the time at which ASP Bong took over the exhibits from SSgt Au Yong showed a gap in the handling of the drug exhibits. Izwan relied on Mohamed Affandi bin Rosli v Public Prosecutor and another appeal [2019] 1 SLR 440, in which the Court of Appeal held at [39]:

74 I disagree with Izwan’s submission. There was no gap in the chain of custody in that there was no moment during which it was not known who had custody of the exhibits. The fact that SSgt Au Yong took custody of the exhibits from Senior Staff Sergeant Tay Keng Chye, Sunny and that they remained in SSgt Au Yong’s custody until he handed them over to ASP Bong, has not been challenged. There was no differing account of who held the exhibits before they were handed over to ASP Bong. The discrepancy complained of was simply a discrepancy as to the time at which SSgt Au Yong handed custody of the exhibits over to ASP Bong; it was not a gap in the chain of custody. I find that Izwan has failed to raise a reasonable doubt as to the integrity of the chain of custody of the drugs.

75 On 30 September 2017, ASP Bong weighed the drug exhibits and recorded the same in her investigation diary. ¹²⁰ The entry for A3 appears in the investigation diary as follows: