Court of Appeal acquits man on death row, orders release after eight years

A 63-year-old man, Mohamed Mubin Abdul Rahman, who was sentenced to death in 2020 for trafficking heroin, has been acquitted of two capital drug charges by the Court of Appeal on 16 July.

Instead, Mubin pleaded guilty to two amended charges of possession of methamphetamine and was sentenced to time served, resulting in his release from prison.

Mubin was arrested on 5 October 2015 and has spent more than eight years and nine months in custody.

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

In its judgment, the court highlighted that the evidence did not support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt about when the two bundles of heroin were delivered to Mubin.

Following this, the court adjourned the case for written submissions on whether an acquittal should follow or a retrial should be ordered. The court also requested submissions on whether any altered charges should be brought against Mubin in light of his admission that he had obtained methamphetamine from his supplier on multiple occasions.

In its submissions, the prosecution recommended Mubin’s acquittal and proposed two charges for possession of methamphetamine based on evidence that emerged during the trial, including Mubin’s 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 trial’s conclusion, Mubin was sentenced to death, while Lokman was given life imprisonment after the judge accepted that he was just a courier.

Lokman was arrested on the night of 8 September 2015 by Central Narcotics Bureau officers at a condominium in Katong. He had a black bag containing two bundles of granular substances with not less than 39.28g of heroin, along with another bag with packets of heroin and methamphetamine. More heroin and methamphetamine were found in a unit at the condo, rented by Mubin.

When Mubin was arrested on 5 October 2015, he had two packets of methamphetamine, three packets of heroin, some empty sachets, and a weighing scale.

Prosecutors alleged that Mubin had directed Lokman to collect the two bundles of heroin from the condo unit and deliver one 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 knowing the bundles contained heroin and defended himself by claiming he acted as a courier for Mubin in exchange for drugs and money.

However, Mubin denied directing Lokman and claimed he had nothing to do with the drugs found on his brother or in the condo. He asserted that he only consumed methamphetamine supplied by Zaini and that Lokman falsely implicated him due to a rivalry over Mubin’s former wife and to avoid the mandatory death penalty.

At Mubin’s appeal hearing, his lawyers argued that the prosecution’s inconsistent case regarding the delivery dates of the heroin bundles caused prejudice to Mubin.

Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, delivering the judgment, noted that the prosecution’s inconsistency weakened their case significantly, stating, “The shifts in the prosecution’s narrative not only affected the overall integrity of their case but also impeded a fair assessment of the evidence.”

The Court of Appeal was critical of the prosecution’s shift in position, which it argued compromised the fairness of the trial process. Initially, the prosecution asserted that two bundles of diamorphine were delivered on 5 September 2015, but later adjusted the delivery dates during closing submissions to 1, 5, or 7 September 2015. This late change in the narrative was argued to have prejudiced Mubin, as the defence could not effectively address the new position.

Based on these findings, the court concluded that there were significant inconsistencies and doubts in the prosecution’s case regarding when and how the drugs were delivered, leading to the overturning of the case against Mubin. The court emphasized the need for procedural fairness, noting that the prosecution is generally required to present a consistent case.

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.