Man spared the gallows after apex court acquits him of capital drug charges

A 63-year-old man who was sentenced to death in 2020 for trafficking heroin has avoided the gallows, after the Court of Appeal acquitted him of two capital drug charges on July 16.

Instead, Mohamed Mubin Abdul Rahman pleaded guilty to two amended charges for possession of methamphetamine.

The court sentenced him to time served, and ordered his release from prison.

Arrested on Oct 5, 2015, Mubin has spent more than eight years and nine months in custody.

The acquittal came after the court on May 8 set aside Mubin’s conviction on the grounds that the prosecution had run an inconsistent case during his trial regarding when the heroin was delivered to him.

In its judgment at the time, the court said the evidence did not support a finding that was beyond a reasonable doubt on when exactly two bundles of heroin were delivered to Mubin.

The court then adjourned the case for written submissions to be filed on whether an acquittal should follow or whether a retrial should be ordered, bearing in mind the relevant legal principles.

The court also asked for submissions on whether 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.

In its submissions, the prosecution said Mubin should be acquitted, and proposed two charges for possession of methamphetamine based on the evidence that emerged during the trial, including his own admission.

Mubin and his younger brother, Lokman Abdul Rahman, 59, were jointly tried for drug trafficking in the High Court between January 2019 and February 2020.

At the end of the trial, Mubin was sentenced to death, while Lokman was given life imprisonment after the judge accepted that the latter was just a courier.

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 that held two bundles of granular substances containing not less than 39.28g of heroin.

He was also carrying another bag containing packets of heroin and methamphetamine. More heroin and methamphetamine were found in a unit at the condo, which was rented by Mubin.

When Mubin was eventually arrested on Oct 5 that year, he had two packets of methamphetamine, three packets of heroin, some empty sachets and a weighing scale with him.

Prosecutors alleged that Mubin had directed Lokman to collect the two bundles of heroin 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 heroin from his Malaysian suppliers, Mohd Zaini Zainutdin and Mohd Noor Ismail.

Lokman admitted that he was aware 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 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 and that Zaini supplied him with only this drug.

Mubin claimed that Lokman had falsely implicated him because of the brothers’ rivalry for the affections of the older man’s former wife and to avoid the mandatory death penalty.

At Mubin’s appeal hearing, his lawyers argued that prejudice was caused to him because the prosecution had changed its case regarding when the bundles were allegedly delivered to him.

Mubin was represented in his appeal by Mr Eugene Thuraisingam, Mr Johannes Hadi, and Mr Mohamed Fazal Abdul Hamid, who acted pro bono under the Supreme Court’s Legal Assistance Scheme for Capital Offences.

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 the specific delivery date was irrelevant.

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.

Source: Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

New laws ‘level playing field’ for corporate service providers, but could lead to industry consolidation