District Court of Singapore

Public Prosecutor v Syed Ahmad Nageeb bin Syed Idros
[2023] SGDC 292

Criminal Law – Statutory offences – Misuse of Drugs Act – Failure to provide urine sample without reasonable excuse

[LawNet Editorial Note: An appeal to this decision has been filed in MA 9113/2023/01.]

6 December 2023

District Judge Melissa Tan:

Introduction

1 The accused is a 53-year-old Singapore citizen. Initially, the accused claimed trial to one charge under s 31(2) punishable under s 33A(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”) for failing to provide a urine specimen without reasonable excuse (“Urine Charge”) and six charges under reg 15(3)(f) of the Misuse of Drugs (Approved Institutions, Medical Observation and Treatment and Rehabilitation) Regulations (Cap 185, RG 3) for failing to present himself for a urine test (“FPUT Charges”).

2 Midway during the second tranche of trial, the accused indicated that he intended to plead guilty to the FPUT Charges. The Prosecution then made an offer in respect of the FPUT Charges, which the accused accepted. On 9 February 2023, the accused pleaded guilty before a different court to two of the FPUT Charges with the remaining FPUT Charges taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing. He was convicted of the two charges and sentenced to an aggregate term of 11 months’ imprisonment.

3 The trial in respect of the Urine Charge resumed on 10 February 2023. At the conclusion of trial, I found the accused guilty and convicted him accordingly. The accused was sentenced to eight years and nine months’ imprisonment. The accused appealed only against his conviction. He is currently serving the sentence imposed in respect of the Urine Charge.

The Urine Charge

4 The Urine Charge states as follows:

You … are charged that you, on 2 April 2021 at or about 9.18pm, at the Changi General Hospital, Singapore, did without reasonable excuse, fail to provide a specimen of your urine as was required by a police officer, to wit, Sergeant (3) Mohamad Izwan bin Mohamad Ishak, and you have thereby committed an offence under section 31(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed),

and further that you, before the commission of the said offence, had been convicted on 24 November 1999 in District Court 24 (DAC/46422/1999) for consumption of Morphine, a Specified Drug, under section 8(b)(ii) punishable under section 33A(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 1998 Rev Ed), which you were sentenced to 5 years 6 months’ imprisonment and 3 strokes of the cane, which conviction and punishment have not been set aside to date, and you are thereby now liable to be punished under section 33A(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed).

The Prosecution’s case

5 The Prosecution’s case was that the accused was, at all material times, medically fit to provide his urine specimen but refused to do so without reasonable excuse. Moreover, the urine procurement process was properly followed. There was no other reasonable excuse for his failure to provide his urine specimen.[note: 1]

6 The Prosecution led evidence from 21 witnesses. The key aspects of the Prosecution’s case are summarised in what follows.

The accused’s arrest on 1 April 2021 and statement recording on 2 April 2021

7 On 1 April 2021 at about 2.48pm, Inspector Lee Hiang Hao (PW1) and Sergeant (2) Linus Toh (PW2) arrested the accused for a suspected offence of rash act under s 336(a) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed).[note: 2] They then conveyed the accused to the Bedok Police Division lock-up where he was handed over to an AETOS officer.[note: 3]

8 Investigation Officer Too Yong Fook (PW7) (“IO Too”) was the officer investigating the suspected offence of rash act.[note: 4] After midnight on 2 April 2021, IO Too went to the Bedok Police Division lock-up to record the accused’s statement.[note: 5] IO Too testified that the accused conversed in proper English.[note: 6] Towards the end of the statement recording, he observed that the accused had bloodshot eyes and was speaking gibberish in a slurred manner.[note: 7] Based on these observations, IO Too believed that the accused had taken controlled substances.[note: 8] After IO Too briefed the CNB Duty Officer Sergeant (3) Arif Hamizan Bin Juferi (PW4) (“DO Arif”) on his findings, the accused was arrested on suspicion of an offence under s 8(b) of the MDA.[note: 9]

Repeated warnings to the accused to provide his urine specimen

9 Later that day, from 10am to 9.30pm, various police officers required the accused to provide his urine specimen. These events were corroborated by the relevant police station diary entries (exhibit P2), body-worn camera (“BWC”) footages (exhibits P5 and P6), as well as evidence given by the police officers.

10 At 10am on 2 April 2021, while the accused was at the Bedok Police Division lock-up, Senior Staff Sergeant Muhammad Taufiq bin Abdul Samad (PW3) (“SSSgt Taufiq”) administered a warning in Malay to the accused, requiring him to provide a urine specimen and informing him that the failure to do so without a reasonable excuse was an offence under s 31(2) of the MDA.[note: 10] SSSgt Taufiq also offered a cup of water to the accused. The accused refused to consume the water offered or sign against the warning recorded in the station diary.[note: 11] The accused also did not provide his urine specimen.[note: 12] As the accused did not say that he refused to provide his urine specimen, SSSgt Taufiq did not indicate so in the station diary.[note: 13] It was recorded that the accused wanted to see the doctor as he could not urinate.[note: 14]

11 From 11am to 12pm, at half-hour intervals, SSSgt Taufiq repeated the warning in Malay and offered a cup of water to the accused. On each occasion, the accused refused to consume the water offered.[note: 15] The accused also did not provide his urine specimen.[note: 16] As the accused did not say that he refused to provide his urine specimen following the warnings at 11am and 11.30am, SSSgt Taufiq did not indicate so in the station diary.[note: 17] It was recorded that the accused refused to provide his urine specimen following the warning at 12pm.[note: 18] The “reason for refusal” recorded at 11am, 11.30am and 12pm was that the accused was “in pain”.[note: 19]

12 At 11.40am, SSSgt Taufiq recorded that DO Arif attended at the charge office to talk to the accused. SSSgt Taufiq testified that DO Arif had interviewed the accused and told the accused to provide his urine specimen, if not he may face additional charges.[note: 20]

13 At 12.05pm, SSSgt Taufiq recorded that he stopped administering the warnings as the accused was escorted to Changi General Hospital (“CGH”) for a medical check-up.[note: 21] Acting Inspector Lam Kin (PW9) (“Insp Lam”) and Senior Staff Sergeant Lee Wee Chang (PW10) (“SSSgt Lee”) escorted the accused to CGH.[note: 22] From around 12.40pm, SSSgt Lee administered eight warnings to the accused in English at half-hour intervals and offered two cups of water to the accused.[note: 23] The accused informed SSSgt Lee that he could not urinate owing to his medical condition and abdominal pain.[note: 24] He also declined both cups of water, stating that he was in abdominal pain and unable to drink water as doing so would worsen the pain.[note: 25] SSSgt Lee recounted that the accused tried to provide his urine sample on two occasions but ultimately failed to do so,[note: 26] claiming to be experiencing pain and unable to pass urine due to his medical condition.[note: 27] After obtaining the doctor’s discharge memo, Insp Lam and SSSgt Lee escorted the accused back to the Bedok Police Division lock-up at 4.35pm.[note: 28]

14 From 5.30pm to 7pm, SSSgt Taufiq resumed with administering warnings in Malay and offering a cup of water to the accused at half-hour intervals.[note: 29] These warnings were witnessed by either Sergeant(3) Khoo Zheng Han (PW8) (“Sgt(3) Khoo”) or Senior Staff Sergeant Mohamed Khairul Nizam bin Mohamed Sudirman (PW21) (“SSSgt Khairul”).[note: 30] On each occasion, the accused refused to consume the water offered and provide his urine specimen.[note: 31] The reason recorded for his refusals at 5.30pm, 6pm, 6.30pm and 7pm was that he was in pain and cold.[note: 32] At 6.30pm and 7pm, the accused provided an additional reason that he was framed.[note: 33] At about 7.05pm, SSSgt Taufiq recorded that he stopped administering the warnings as the accused was being escorted to CGH for a medical follow-up.[note: 34] SSSgt Taufiq was unable to recall why the accused was sent for another medical follow-up.[note: 35]

15 At 7.13pm, Sergeant(3) Mohamad Izwan bin Mohamad Ishak (PW12) (“Sgt(3) Izwan”) and Sergeant(2) Muhamad Firdaus bin Abdullah (PW15) (“Sgt(2) Firdaus”) escorted the accused to CGH.[note: 36] Sgt(3) Izwan testified that he was instructed to escort the accused to CGH as the accused complained of abdominal pain.[note: 37] Sgt(2) Firdaus testified that he was instructed to escort the accused to CGH and to procure the accused’s urine.[note: 38]

16 At 7.35pm, Sgt(3) Izwan administered a warning in Malay and offered one cup of water to the accused but the accused refused to drink water or provide any urine specimen.[note: 39] This warning was recorded in an entry in the station diary, which the accused signed against.[note: 40] When asked why the accused did not provide a urine specimen, Sgt(3) Izwan testified that the accused complained of “an SOP breach”, specifically that “the warnings had been administered for more than 6 hours”.[note: 41]

17 At 7.50pm, the accused was wheeled to see Dr Terry Teo Zhi Hong (PW19) (“Dr Teo”) (at [35] below).[note: 42] Based on the station diary, no warnings were administered to the accused at 8.05pm and 8.35pm as the doctor was attending to the accused.[note: 43] Sgt(2) Firdaus recalled that the consultation with Dr Teo took “about an hour” as the accused was “undecisive” [sic].[note: 44] The accused was given a set of bottles by the hospital to provide urine specimens for medical tests.[note: 45] Sgt(2) Firdaus was instructed to bring the accused for an X-ray and to await blood test results.[note: 46]

18 The subsequent sequence of events was captured by BWCs.[note: 47] Footages from Sgt(3) Izwan’s BWC and Sgt(2) Firdaus’s BWC were exhibit P5 and exhibit P6 respectively. A transcript of exhibit P5 was also tendered (exhibit P5T). Sgt(3) Izwan explained that timestamps displayed in the BWC footage did not tally with real-time as the BWC had issues such as incorrect date and timing.[note: 48] He further testified that when the timestamp in exhibit P5 showed 21:19:43 (at 19 minutes and 35 seconds), the BWC captured his mobile phone showing the time as 9.04pm.[note: 49] As regards exhibit P6, Sgt(2) Firdaus similarly testified that the timestamps displayed in exhibit P6 were not accurate.[note: 50] When the timestamp in exhibit P6 showed 21:06:04 (at 3 minutes and 7 seconds), the BWC captured the mobile phone screen showing the time as 8.51pm.[note: 51] In other words, the timestamps displayed in both exhibits P5 and P6 were approximately 15 minutes ahead of real-time. Owing to the difference between the timestamps and real-time, the Prosecution referred to the footages using the length of the video played.[note: 52]

19 At 18 minutes and 58 seconds to 20 minutes and 19 seconds of exhibit P5 (ie, around 9.03pm to 9.05pm) and 16 minutes and 43 seconds to 17 minutes and 25 seconds of exhibit P6 (ie, around 9.04pm to 9.05pm), Sgt(3) Izwan administered a warning in Malay to the accused and asked if the accused wanted water.[note: 53] This warning was not recorded in the station diary but it was captured in exhibit P5 and exhibit P6.[note: 54] The accused’s response to the warning was not audible from exhibit P5.[note: 55] Based on exhibit P6, the accused asked the officers if six hours had passed.[note: 56]

20 At 19 minutes and 13 seconds to 20 minutes and 33 seconds of exhibit P6 (ie, around 9.07pm to 9.08pm), the doctor was drawing blood from the accused while the accused told the doctor that his pain was “due to black magic”.[note: 57]

21 At 27 minutes and 18 seconds to 28 minutes and 32 seconds of exhibit P5 (ie, around 9.12pm to 9.13pm), Sgt(3) Izwan collected a cup of water for the accused and said to the accused that he could urinate after drinking.[note: 58] Sgt(3) Izwan testified that upon hearing that, the accused immediately declined to drink water and expressed that he wanted to eat his medication and gargle his mouth with a solution.[note: 59]

22 At 28 minutes and 32 seconds to 30 minutes and 19 seconds of exhibit P5 (ie, around 9.13pm to 9.15pm), Sgt(3) Izwan and Sgt(2) Firdaus pushed the accused in a wheelchair to the X-ray room, and as Sgt(2) Firdaus was submitting documents for the accused’s X-ray, the accused said that he wanted to urinate.[note: 60] The accused mentioned the words “high tide”. Sgt(3) Izwan said that the phrase meant that the accused could not hold his urine any longer and wanted to go inside the toilet.[note: 61] Sgt(2) Firdaus similarly understood the accused to mean that his bladder was full and that he wanted to urinate.[note: 62]

23 At 30 minutes and 42 seconds to 33 minutes and 12 seconds of exhibit P5 (ie, around 9.15pm to 9.18pm), the two officers brought the accused into the handicapped toilet opposite the X-ray room whereat Sgt(3) Izwan asked the accused to choose his bottles from the bottles provided by CNB and to break the seal to the bottles.[note: 63] However, the accused did not break the seals.[note: 64] Instead, the accused said that it had been more than six hours and he did not wish to provide his urine in any of the bottles.[note: 65] He further said that he was having “high tide” and wanted to urinate.[note: 66]

24 At 33 minutes and 12 seconds to 34 minutes and 35 seconds of exhibit P5 (ie, around 9.18pm to 9.19pm), the accused repeatedly said that there was a breach of protocol as it had been more than six hours and he did not want to provide his urine specimen in the bottles.[note: 67] As Sgt(3) Izwan stepped out of the toilet, Sgt(2) Firdaus asked the accused to wait as they would be making a check and to tell him more about the alleged breach.[note: 68] Sgt(2) Firdaus had guessed that Sgt(3) Izwan was checking the accused’s claim regarding the breach of procedure.[note: 69] The accused said to Sgt(2) Firdaus that he would not provide his urine specimen.[note: 70]

25 In the meantime, Sgt(3) Izwan called DO Arif to inform the latter that the accused did not wish to urinate inside the bottles provided by CNB.[note: 71] DO Arif asked Sgt(3) Izwan if the accused could urinate inside the bottles provided by the hospital.[note: 72] Sgt(3) Izwan then re-entered the toilet to ask the accused if he wanted to pass urine in the hospital’s bottle.[note: 73] The accused refused.[note: 74] When Sgt(3) Izwan stepped out of the toilet again,[note: 75] the accused said to Sgt(2) Firdaus that he did not want to do so because he did not trust anybody.[note: 76]

26 At 34 minutes and 35 seconds to 36 minutes and 7 seconds of exhibit P5 (ie, around 9.19pm to 9.21pm), Sgt(3) Izwan ended his call with DO Arif and re-entered the toilet to tell the accused to go ahead to quickly urinate.[note: 77] Sgt(3) Izwan said in Malay, “OK, boleh. Nak kencing kan? Kencing ‘uh’”, which was translated into English as “OK, can. Want to urine, right? Urine ‘uh’”.[note: 78] Sgt(3) Izwan did not specify where the accused could urinate.[note: 79] As Sgt(3) Izwan spoke to the accused, he made a hand gesture that was captured from 32 minutes and 0 seconds to 32 minutes and 6 seconds of exhibit P6 (ie, around 9.20pm). According to Sgt(2) Firdaus, Sgt(3) Izwan gestured to the accused to pee in the toilet bowl but had not used the words “toilet bowl”.[note: 80] When Sgt(2) Firdaus asked the accused if he did not want to urinate in the doctor’s bottle, the accused refused and said that he “does not trust”.[note: 81] The accused then proceeded to urinate in the toilet bowl without complaints.[note: 82]

27 The accused’s refusal to provide his urine specimen was recorded in the station diary at 9.18pm as follows:

While wheeling PIC to x-ray room, PIC informed that he wanted to urine. PIC was then brought to the toilet whereby PIC refused to provide any urine specimen into the urine bottles. He also declined to provide urine inside the doctor’s bottle. He wished to urine at the toilet bowl instead.^{[note: 83]}

28 Sgt(3) Izwan testified that this station diary entry was shown and read out to the accused.[note: 84] The accused acknowledged the entry by signing against it.[note: 85]

29 At 36 minutes and 40 seconds to 37 minutes and 20 seconds of exhibit P5 (ie, around 9.21pm to 9.22pm), the accused was brought out of the toilet after he finished urinating. It was recorded in the station diary that the accused was sent to the X-ray room at 9.25pm.[note: 86] About three minutes later, the accused was brought back to the holding room to await further instructions.[note: 87]

30 At about 9.30pm, it was recorded in the station diary that Sgt(3) Izwan administered a warning in Malay and provided a cup of water to the accused and that the accused refused to drink or provide a urine specimen.[note: 88] The entry was showed and read out to the accused.[note: 89] The accused refused to sign against the entry because of the alleged “SOP breach” but he acknowledged the entry by nodding his head.[note: 90] His reason for refusing to provide any urine specimen was because of the alleged “SOP breach” that the warnings had taken place for more than six hours.[note: 91]

31 At about 10.47pm, while waiting in the holding room, the accused informed Sgt(3) Izwan and Sgt(2) Firdaus that he wanted to urinate but not inside the bottles provided by CNB or the hospital.[note: 92] Instead, he wanted to urinate in the toilet bowl.[note: 93] However, when he was brought to the toilet, he was unable to pass urine.[note: 94] These events were recorded in the station diary. When shown and read out to the accused, he acknowledged the entry by nodding his head but did not sign against it.[note: 95]

32 A few minutes later, the doctor returned to discharge the accused.[note: 96] After being given the discharge memo, Sgt(3) Izwan and Sgt(2) Firdaus brought the accused back to the Bedok Police Division lock-up.[note: 97]

Medical evidence

Evidence of Dr Chia Yet Hong

33 During the accused’s first visit to CGH on 2 April 2021 (at [13] above), he was seen by Dr Chia Yet Hong (PW18) (“Dr Chia”) at about 1.30pm.[note: 98] Dr Chia testified that the accused was referred to CGH A&E for his complaint of difficulty with passing urine and lower abdominal pain.[note: 99] During her consultation, the accused reported that he was having lower abdominal pain for two days and long-standing urine hesitancy but had been able to pass urine earlier that day.[note: 100] She observed that he was alert and comfortable, and upon physical examination of the accused, she found that there was no palpable bladder.[note: 101] She explained that the bladder would have been distended if the patient was unable to pass urine for a long time.[note: 102] Dr Chia was unable to conduct further investigations as the accused refused to have his blood sample taken or provide a urine specimen.[note: 103] She also testified that he did not give any reason for his refusals.[note: 104]

34 Following her consultation, the accused remained in the waiting area.[note: 105] When Dr Chia was told that the accused refused to pass urine, she suggested that he drink more water but the accused refused to do so.[note: 106] After waiting for a few hours, the accused still refused to drink water or provide his urine sample, at which point Dr Chia discharged the accused to the police’s custody.[note: 107] She prepared a memo (exhibit P9), which stated, among other things, that the accused was fit to pass urine. She explained that she reached this conclusion based on the following factors: the accused’s past history, his recent blood test records, his lack of known kidney problems, the kidney function test done at the CGH A&E on 24 March 2021 (ie, over a week prior to her consultation) showing that his kidney function was normal, the lack of a palpable bladder, and the accused’s account that he had passed urine earlier that day.[note: 108]

Evidence of Dr Teo

35 During the accused’s second visit to CGH in the evening of 2 April 2021, he was seen by Dr Teo (at [17] above).[note: 109] The accused presented with symptoms of abdominal pain and lower back pain.[note: 110] He was seen by Dr Teo to ascertain if there was any cause for his inability to provide a urine specimen.[note: 111]

36 Dr Teo physically examined the accused and found that there was no palpable bladder and that the accused had full power in his lower limbs.[note: 112] Dr Teo also conducted a digital rectal examination and found that there was no sign of Cauda Equina Syndrome that would have led to acute urinary retention.[note: 113] While the accused refused to provide his urine for urine tests,[note: 114] the renal panel blood test conducted showed that the accused’s kidney function was normal.[note: 115] The bedside ultrasound scan showed that there was no swelling of the kidneys, which would have arisen if he could not pass urine.[note: 116] It was Dr Teo’s testimony that medically, there was no reason as to why the accused could not pass urine.[note: 117]

37 Dr Teo issued a memo (exhibit P11) stating that the clinic examination showed “no signs of acute urinary retention” and that the accused refused to pass urine in the CGH Emergency Department. He also issued a referral letter to the orthopaedic doctor to follow up on the accused’s complaint of lower back pain (exhibit P14).

Evidence of Dr Lee Song Liang Joshua

38 As the accused had raised voiding dysfunction as an excuse for not providing his urine specimen, the Prosecution called Dr Lee Song Liang Joshua (PW13) (“Dr Lee”), a consultant at the CGH Urology Department to provide evidence.[note: 118] Dr Lee prepared a medical report on the accused (exhibit P8) based on a review of electronic documents relating to the accused’s clinical consultations with Dr Lee’s team of doctors.[note: 119]

39 Dr Lee’s diagnosis of the accused’s condition was lower urinary tract symptoms (“LUTS”), likely secondary to voiding dysfunction and erectile dysfunction.[note: 120] Dr Lee explained that voiding dysfunction is a broad term used for patients with voiding or storage of their urine.[note: 121] The accused’s condition was labelled as voiding dysfunction as the Urology Department was unable to find any underlying cause,[note: 122] despite having conducted several tests and scans over a few months.[note: 123] In the absence of objective medical evidence of an underlying cause, Dr Lee’s evidence was that the basis of his diagnosis was the accused’s self-reported complaints.[note: 124] When queried in examination-in-chief on whether voiding dysfunction impaired a patient’s ability to pass urine, Dr Lee explained that there may be difficulty in passing urine but eventually the patient should be able to do so – it is only a question of how long it would take.[note: 125] Dr Lee also testified that erectile dysfunction would not impair a person’s ability to pass urine.[note: 126]

Evidence of Dr Tan Jian Hong

40 During investigations into the FPUT Charges and the Urine Charge, the accused was remanded in the Institute of Mental Health (“IMH”) for psychiatric assessment.[note: 127] The accused was examined by an IMH psychiatrist, Dr Tan Jian Hong (PW16) (“Dr Tan”), on 14, 18 and 24 January 2022.[note: 128] Following his examination of the accused, Dr Tan prepared a forensic report on the accused (exhibit P13).

41 With respect to the Urine Charge, Dr Tan testified that the accused said that he was hearing voices of CNB officers and his neighbours talking about him at the time he was asked to provide his urine specimen,[note: 129] but what prevented the accused from providing his urine specimen was his difficulty in passing urine.[note: 130] Mr Tan noted that the accused knew that it was wrong not to provide a urine specimen when required.[note: 131]

42 Dr Tan opined that the accused most likely suffered from a psychotic episode during the period of the alleged offences (December 2020 to August 2021), secondary to drug abuse, as the symptoms appeared to have resolved spontaneously without treatment after the accused was taken into police custody in August 2021, possibly after the offending drugs were stopped..[note: 132] Dr Tan came to this conclusion based on what the accused reported to Dr Tan regarding the duration of the psychotic episode[note: 133] and the disappearance of symptoms several weeks after he was remanded.[note: 134] Dr Tan also opined that there was no contributory link to the suspected offences.[note: 135]

Evidence of Dr Yap Hwa Ling and Dr Tham Keng Seng

43 Evidence was further led from two psychiatrists from the CGH Psychological Medicine Specialist outpatient clinic, Dr Yap Hwa Ling (PW20) (“Dr Yap”) and Dr Tham Keng Seng (PW11) (“Dr Tham”), who had treated the accused prior to his arrest on 1 April 2021. In Dr Tham’s case, he saw the accused for another appointment soon after the latter’s arrest.

44 Dr Yap testified that she saw the accused five times, starting with the first consultation on 7 January 2021 and the last consultation on 9 February 2021.[note: 136] The accused had been referred by the A&E Department of CGH.[note: 137] Based on the symptoms that the accused reported at the first consultation, which included spontaneous onset of auditory hallucinations and delusions of being followed,[note: 138] Dr Yap initially diagnosed the accused with paranoid psychosis with the need to exclude organic causes.[note: 139] Investigations were then carried out. Save for slightly raised liver enzymes, the rest of the investigations yielded normal results.[note: 140] As the accused reported that his symptoms remained after more than one month, Dr Yap revised her initial diagnosis on 21 January 2021 to schizophreniform psychosis.[note: 141] At the consultation on 9 February 2021, the accused reported that the voices were much less and that he did not take any medication (including his antipsychotic medication) and did not want to take anymore medication.[note: 142]

45 After the consultation on 9 February 2021, the accused was transferred to Dr Tham’s clinic.[note: 143] He was seen by Dr Tham for the first time on 15 March 2021 and for the second and final time on 12 April 2021.[note: 144] At the consultation on 15 March 2021, the accused reported that he was still hearing persistent voices and that his condition was neither improving nor worsening.[note: 145] Dr Tham’s initial diagnosis, which was based on Dr Yap’s earlier assessment, was schizophreniform disorder.[note: 146] Dr Tham explained that the term “scizhophreniform disorder” is used when patients have psychotic symptoms for more than one month but less than six months whereas “schizophrenia” is used when there is persistent psychosis beyond six months.[note: 147] The accused was prescribed an antipsychotic drug, aripiprazole, and given a medical certificate at his request from 15 March 2021 to 11 April 2021.[note: 148]

46 At the consultation on 12 April 2021, the accused reported to Dr Tham that he did not start aripiprazole and denied auditory hallucinations.[note: 149] The accused had shared with Dr Tham that he did not hear anymore voices in “the recent weeks leading up to 12th April”.[note: 150] The accused also requested medical leave.[note: 151] As the accused denied having psychotic symptoms, and Dr Tham was uncertain if the accused was being truthful, he gave the accused a two-day medical certificate from 12 to 13 April 2021.[note: 152] Following this consultation, Dr Tham’s diagnosis of the accused’s condition was schizophreniform disorder with resolved hallucination and possible secondary depression.[note: 153] The accused did not attend the next consultation that was scheduled six weeks later.[note: 154]

47 During examination-in-chief, Dr Tham was asked how he examined the accused at both consultations. He testified that he did not physically examine the accused and only examined the accused verbally and through observation of the accused’s body language and physical state.[note: 155] On both occasions, Dr Tham observed that the accused was “quite calm” and did not think there was any relation to substance use.[note: 156] Dr Tham confirmed that aside from the accused’s medical history, which included a history of substance abuse years ago, his source of information was the accused’s self-reported complaints and symptoms.[note: 157]

Statement recording on 3 April 2021

48 On 3 April 2021 at 12.03am, Staff Sergeant Muhammad Saifuddin Rowther bin Mohidin Pitchai (“SSgt Saifuddin”) (PW17) recorded the accused’s statement (exhibit P4) at the interview room of the Bedok Police Division lock-up.[note: 158] It was recorded in English in the presence of DO Arif.[note: 159] After the statement was recorded, it was read back to the accused in English.[note: 160] SSgt Saifuddin invited the accused to make additions, corrections or deletions to the statement but the accused did not do so.[note: 161] The accused affirmed that the statement was true and correct,[note: 162] and did not have any complaints before, during or after statement recording.[note: 163] He did not challenge the voluntariness of the statement.[note: 164]

49 Exhibit P4 set out the three questions and answers provided during the statement recording, which are reproduced as follows:

Q1) Do you wish to provide urine sample for testing?

A1) I wish I can provide urine sample, but my medical condition prevents me from doing so.

Q2) What is your medical condition that prevents you to provide urine sample?

A2) Voiding dysfunction which was difficulty to start urination and the bladder may be in intense pain when the bladder gets heavier.

Q3) What is the reason you chose to urinate while at Changi General Hospital but refused to provide urine sample for testing?

A3) I am not in the right state to answer. (Recorder’s note: Accused informed that he does not wish to answer any further questions)

50 During examination-in-chief, SSgt Saiffudin was asked for his assessment of the accused’s condition during statement recording.[note: 165] He answered that the accused appeared “fine” and “[n]othing out of the ordinary”.[note: 166] Under cross-examination, SSgt Saiffudin was asked about the accused’s “two different signatures” on exhibit P4, one of which was at lines 13 to 14 while the other was at the last line next to the accused’s NRIC.[note: 167] SSgt Saiffudin agreed that these signatures did not look exactly the same.[note: 168] However, he disagreed that he asked the accused about the signatures and that the accused told him that the signatures “will be proof to Court that [the accused] said [he] was mentally unprepared for the statement, but [SSgt Saiffudin] still … keep on questioning [him] for the statement”.[note: 169]

Previous LT-1 antecedent

51 CNB Investigation Officer Look Yi Jun (PW14) gave evidence that he retrieved the memorandum of previous convictions (exhibit P12). It showed that the accused was previously convicted on 24 November 1999 on a charge of consumption of a specified drug, vide DAC 46422/1999 in the District Court No. 24, and sentenced to LT-1 imprisonment of five years and six months with three strokes of the cane.[note: 170] This conviction and punishment have not been set aside.[note: 171]

Close of the Prosecution’s case

52 At the close of the Prosecution’s case, the accused did not make a submission of no case to answer.[note: 172] I was of the view that there was some evidence which is not inherently incredible, and which satisfied each and every element of the Urine Charge. Accordingly, I administered the standard allocution and called upon the accused to enter his defence. The accused elected to give evidence.

The Defence’s case

53 The Defence’s case was that at all material times, the accused had a reasonable excuse for not providing his urine specimen. Prior to 9.18pm, his excuse was that he suffered from voiding dysfunction, was unable to urinate naturally and had to limit his intake of water significantly.[note: 173] At 9.18pm, the accused’s case is that he was “given a mistaken belief” that he had already been charged for failing to provide a urine specimen within six hours and was therefore not obligated to provide his urine specimen beyond the six-hour mark.[note: 174] Had he known that he was not charged, he would have provided his urine specimen.[note: 175]

54 The accused was the sole witness for the Defence. He testified that prior to being remanded, he was a freelance baker who helped in his brother’s kitchen.[note: 176] The accused gave a detailed account of his version of the events, which is summarised below.

55 On 1 April 2021, he was experiencing psychosis. He heard his neighbour talking about plotting harm against him, which he suspected was black magic.[note: 177] He suddenly felt “perpetual” but “not intense” pain in his lower abdomen.[note: 178] The only thing he could think of at the time to stop the pain was to scare his neighbour’s son by throwing a glass onto the outer wall of his neighbour’s house.[note: 179]

56 A few minutes later, he was arrested and brought to the “Bedok Police Station”.[note: 180] At his request, he was sent to the in-house station doctor, Dr Yak Si Mian (“Dr Yak”). He told Dr Yak that he threw the glass because he believed magic was cast on him and he needed to get rid of the pain.[note: 181] Dr Yak referred him to IMH.[note: 182] The accused did not want to go to IMH because he believed that he was “not insane at that point of time”.[note: 183] The accused relied on the medical reports (exhibit D1 and exhibit D2) issued by Dr Yak.

57 The accused testified that the attending psychiatrist at IMH, Dr Nigila Ravichandran (“Dr Ravichandran”), noticed “something not right about [him]” and asked if anyone could take care of him at home.[note: 184] The accused answered in the affirmative as he sensed that he would be admitted to IMH, which he did not want, if he answered no.[note: 185] He further stated that Dr Ravichandran got hold of his house number and called his house when not in his presence.[note: 186] He relied on Dr Ravichandran’s memo (exhibit D3), which stated that the accused was “noted to be calm and has no indication for inpatient admission” and was “advised to continue his prescribed medications and attend his scheduled appointment with his psychiatrist at CGH on 12/4/2021”.

58 He was eventually brought back to “Bedok Police Station” sometime at night.[note: 187] As he was hearing voices, he thought some police officers at the station were mistreating him but later realised that that was “not true”, and it had been his “psychosis symptom”.[note: 188] When he got to sleep around midnight, he was abruptly awakened by a lock-up police officer and brought to see IO Too at the interview room.[note: 189] The accused said that did not know that his eyes were bloodshot or that his speech was slurred.[note: 190] He thought that these symptoms could be due to “the effect of sleepiness, lack of sleep” and disagreed with IO Too that these symptoms were due to drug consumption.[note: 191] When IO Too took the accused’s statement, the accused was feeling “very sleepy” and “still hearing … aggressive voices about casting black magic” and “just want[ed] to get out from the interview room” so he agreed with the statement taken.[note: 192]

59 Later that morning on 2 April 2021, IO Too informed the accused that he would be bailed out for the fresh act and referred to CNB for urine taking.[note: 193] When IO Too brought up the recorded statement, the accused said to IO Too, “Yesterday, the statement was mine. But this morning, now, this statement was no longer mine.”[note: 194] The accused claimed that IO Too knew that he made a mistake by making the accused “read the statement from bottoms [sic] to top” and by taking the statement while the accused was hearing voices and half asleep.[note: 195] The accused could not remember IO Too going to CGH to record another statement but surmised that it was because the IO knew that he could not proceed with the statement recorded due to “irregularity in making that statement” and wanted to get another statement.[note: 196]

60 At about 10am, the accused told SSSgt Taufiq that he could not provide a urine specimen as he had voiding dysfunction but SSSgt Taufiq did not appear to understand and continued asking for his urine specimen until about 11am.[note: 197] The accused asked to see a doctor and was brought to CGH.[note: 198] The accused testified that he was “careful with the doctor” and not going to tell the doctor that he was hearing voices in case he would be sent to IMH again.[note: 199] As such, he only told the doctor about his abdominal pain and urology problem that was documented by his urologist.[note: 200]

61 At about 11.40am, the accused said that he was brought to the CNB office and met DO Arif.[note: 201] He also said that before he was brought to CGH at about 12pm,[note: 202] he was escorted by APOs (ie, auxiliary police officers) to another point where the escorting officers were waiting.[note: 203] When he told the APOs that he wanted to make an attempt to pass urine, they brought him to an available toilet and told him to “do [his] things” because there were officers waiting to escort him to CGH.[note: 204] He said that there was “no direction to wash [his] hand, … choose CNB bottles, but just to pass into the toilet bowl”.[note: 205] He managed to pass urine in the presence of APOs.[note: 206] He later informed the doctor that he did so at “11-something or maybe slightly more than 12”.[note: 207]

62 When the accused was brought to the CGH, he realised that he was communicating with voices behind closed windows.[note: 208] The escorting police officers asked him to provide his urine specimen but he was still unable to pass urine at the time because he did not drink water due to “[his] medical condition”.[note: 209] He disclosed his medical condition to the police officers but they continued to ask for his urine specimen.[note: 210]

63 When he was brought to see the CGH doctor, he told the doctor about his urological case history in-depth[note: 211] and said that he was there for his abdominal pain and not bladder issue.[note: 212] It was a daily problem to have difficulty passing urine and he would either pass urine once or twice a day or not at all.[note: 213] Despite this, the doctor kept asking for his urine specimen.[note: 214] The accused believed that the police officers and the doctor misinterpreted his inability to provide a urine specimen as refusal to provide a specimen.[note: 215] He told one of the escorting officers, Insp Lam, that he wanted to return to hospital on his own if given bail but he was ultimately not released on bail.[note: 216] He hoped the doctor would have admitted him to hospital for abdominal pain so he could get away from the fear he felt in the lock-up due to the voices he was hearing.[note: 217]

64 When he was brought back to the police station, he was asked to provide his urine specimen. As he did not drink water to avoid feeling pain, he could not provide his urine specimen.[note: 218] He wondered why the police and CNB did not use alternative methods to test him by extraction of hair and saliva, given that he made known to them that he was “medically” unable to provide his urine specimen.[note: 219]

65 After he was discharged from CGH, he returned to the CNB office where he met SSgt Saiffudin who had also taken the accused’s statement the day before.[note: 220] The accused provided another statement that he did not want to answer the questions and that he was unstable.[note: 221] He said that SSgt Saiffudin did not know that the accused was hearing voices or had a “psychiatric medical record” or “serious mental disorder”.[note: 222] Upon further questioning by SSgt Saiffudin, the accused “cross-examine[d]” SSgt Saiffudin and made the latter type out a statement that the accused “lost trust to [sic] the system, full stop”.[note: 223]

66 As the accused was unable to provide his urine specimen,[note: 224] he was brought to CGH again by Sgt(3) Izwan and Sgt(2) Firdaus.[note: 225] While waiting to see the doctors, the accused said that he was once again communicating with unreal voices in the holding room.[note: 226] When Sgt(3) Izwan and Sgt(2) Firdaus asked him to provide his urine specimen, he remembered that CNB had a six-hour guideline and wanted to know if CNB had already “taken” six hours and charged him.[note: 227] The accused explained as follows:

…why should I provide my urine specimen beyond the required time? It should be within the required time. Also, even if I’ve provide [sic] my urine specimen, I would still be charged, (indistinct)? Then, I don’t see any sense here.

67 When Sgt(3) Izwan and Sgt(2) Firdaus asked him to drink water, he told them “medically why [he] did not want to drink water”.[note: 228] He also told them about his “medical condition” and “mental condition” but they thought he was “trying to be hanky-panky”.[note: 229] He said that when he was brought to see the doctor, at some point, he “behave[d] and spoke quite strangely, which people might misinterpret as uncooperative” but he was actually suffering from auditory hallucinations and had been given four weeks’ medical leave that covered the time of the incident.[note: 230] He did not take his prescribed medication in favour of a “spiritual method” as he “[did] not want to be stigmatised as an insane person to depend on this psychiatric medication” and had “believe[d] those voices were real”.[note: 231] He said that he was unaware that his psychotic symptoms worsened.[note: 232]

68 The accused gave evidence that the only time he was able to pass urine “naturally” had been at “2118 hours, 02 April 2021”.[note: 233] The accused believed at the time of the incident in the toilet that he had a reasonable excuse about the six-hour guidelines.[note: 234] He recounted a previous occasion on 16 September 2020 when he was under CNB’s custody at CGH. On that occasion, CNB charged him at “exactly” six hours for not providing his urine specimen and did not want to collect his urine specimen even though he was later able to provide it.[note: 235] He said that he informed Sgt(3) Izwan and Sgt(2) Firdaus that it had been more than six hours and he would be charged[note: 236] so that “if they decided to extend … the required time … to provide my urine specimen beyond [six] hours, then it should be disclosed to me”.[note: 237] However, they did not disclose to him that he had not been charged by CNB,[note: 238] “only perpetuating the false certainty they had given [him], which was that CNB had already charged him”.[note: 239] He also said that Sgt(2) Firdaus had made him believe that they were checking regarding the six-hour guidelines.[note: 240] He did not know at the time that Sgt(3) Izwan did not hear what Sgt(2) Firdaus said because Sgt(3) Izwan was outside.[note: 241] He explained his reasoning as follows:

If the CNB did not take the 6 hours, I did not refuse. The only reason I refuse because the CNB took the 6 hours. If the CNB did not take the 6 hours, why didn’t they tell me? After I have make it clear to them, then they told me they want to make the check. I fulfil the requirement to hold my urine and they told me to proceed to pass urine and I got charged for this.^{[note: 242]}

69 During cross-examination, the accused agreed that while Sgt(3) Izwan was communicating on the phone, the accused could not have communicated with Sgt(3) Izwan about checking the six-hour requirement.[note: 243] He maintained that his account that the officers were checking the six-hour requirement during the call with DO Arif was “not an afterthought” because he was communicating with Sgt(2) Firdaus.[note: 244] However, he conceded that the BWC footages did not show that he sought confirmation from Sgt(3) Izwan that DO Arif had already charged him.[note: 245]

70 The accused also stated in examination-in-chief that he had informed the PTC judge that “there were inaccuracies in the [C]ase for [D]efence because [he] tried to guess correctly what happened”, but after watching the footage, he “saw something else happened” and decided to base his case on the footage instead with “no afterthought”.[note: 246] During cross-examination, the accused agreed that the last two pages of the Case for Defence (exhibit P15) did not state that he had asked Sgt(3) Izwan to check with DO Arif about the six-hour mark.[note: 247]

Issue to be determined

71 Section 31(1) and (2) of the MDA state that:

31.—(1) Any officer of the Bureau, immigration officer or police officer not below the rank of sergeant may, if he reasonably suspects any person to have committed an offence under section 8(b), require that person to provide a specimen of his urine for urine tests to be conducted under this section.

…

(2) A person who fails, without reasonable excuse, to provide a specimen of his urine within such time as may be required by any of the officers referred to in subsection (1), (1A) or (1B) shall be guilty of an offence.

72 To establish the Urine Charge, the Prosecution had to prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

(a) A CNB officer, immigration officer or police officer not below the rank of sergeant who reasonably suspected that the accused committed an offence under s 8(b) of the MDA (ie, the offence of consumption of a controlled drug) required the accused to provide a urine specimen.

(b) The accused failed to provide his urine specimen within such time as required by the said officer.

(c) The accused had, without reasonable excuse, failed to provide his urine specimen.

73 The accused initially appeared to dispute the basis for his arrest on suspicion of having consumed a controlled drug.[note: 248] However, the accused did not pursue this point in his submissions. The accused also did not dispute that he failed to provide a urine specimen within such time as required.[note: 249]

74 Given that the first two elements of the Urine Charge were not in dispute, the sole issue at trial was whether the accused had a reasonable excuse for his failure to provide his urine specimen.

The applicable law

75 The MDA did not provide any guidance on what amounted to a “reasonable excuse”.

76 The Prosecution relied on Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Mustafa bin Mohd Haniffa [2022] SDGC 69 (“Muhammad Mustafa”). There, the court considered what amounted to a “reasonable excuse” in the context of an offence under s 31(2) of the MDA and obtained guidance from the High Court’s decision in Madiaalakan s/o Muthusamy v Public Prosecutor [2001] 3 SLR(R) 580 (“Madiaalakan”) (at [8]):

As to what amounts to a “reasonable excuse”, some guidance is provided from an analogous scenario in Madiaalakan s/o Muthusamy v Public Prosecutor [2001] 3 SLR(R) 580. This was a case where an offender failed to provide a breath specimen, which is an offence under s 70(4) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed). In Madiaalakan at [9], the High Court gave examples of a reasonable excuse, such as when the person from whom the specimen was required was “physically or mentally unable to provide it or the provision of the specimen would entail a substantial risk to his health” or when the person was unable to provide a specimen despite having “tried as hard as he could”. ^{[note: 250]}

77 The accused did not challenge these cases. Instead, he sought to distinguish the facts of the present case. He contended that the offender in the “precedent about accused not providing his breath … should have tried his best”, like the accused who managed to “force some urine out”,[note: 251] and that passing urine was different from “blowing breath where you can do it all the time”.[note: 252]

78 Having examined the cases, I agreed with the approach in Muhammad Mustafa in taking guidance from Madiaalakan. The accused had to show that he was physically or mentally unable to provide a urine specimen or that the provision of a urine specimen would entail a substantial risk to his health. Alternatively, he had to show that he was unable to provide a urine specimen despite having tried as hard as he could.

Findings

79 Based on the evidence before me, I found that the accused had no reasonable excuse for failing to provide a urine specimen. I deal with the key aspects of the accused’s defence in turn.

The medical evidence showed that the accused was able to provide his urine specimen

80 One of the main planks of the accused’s defence was that he was unable to provide urine specimen. He submitted that prior to 9.18pm, he suffered from voiding dysfunction, was unable to urinate naturally and had to limit his intake of water.[note: 253] The accused’s argument was unsupported by the evidence at trial.

81 In relation to the accused’s physical condition, I noted the following opinions from the doctors who attended to the accused:

(a) The urologist Dr Lee testified that accused’s diagnosis was LUTS, likely secondary to voiding dysfunction and erectile dysfunction. The accused’s condition was labelled as voiding dysfunction in the absence of an underlying cause. He explained that patients with voiding dysfunction may have difficulty but should eventually be able to pass urine. He further explained that erectile dysfunction did not impair the ability to pass urine (at [39] above).

(b) Dr Chia, who examined the accused during his first visit to CGH on 2 April 2021, testified that the accused was fit to pass urine (at [34]). She came to this conclusion based on the accused’s past history, his recent blood test records, his lack of known kidney problems, his recent kidney function test, the lack of a palpable bladder, and the accused’s account that he had passed urine earlier that day (at [33] above).

(c) Dr Teo, who examined the accused during his second visit to CGH on 2 April 2021, also testified that there was no reason as to why the accused could not pass urine. He came to this conclusion based on his finding that the accused lacked a palpable bladder, a digital rectal examination, renal panel blood test and bedside ultrasound scan (at [36] above).

82 Further, the accused did not produce any evidence that he had to limit his intake of water significantly because of voiding dysfunction. The closest question that the accused had asked Dr Lee at trial was if he had disclosed to Dr Lee that without relying on the medication that Dr Lee prescribed, the accused managed his condition “by keeping the amount of urine in [his] bladder as low as possible”.[note: 254] He did not elicit any evidence that limiting water intake was necessary or recommended to manage voiding dysfunction.

83 Insofar as the accused argued that he was experiencing a “psychotic state of mind”[note: 255] and auditory hallucinations at the material time, there was limited corroborative evidence in support of his account. I noted that the in-house station doctor, Dr Yak, had recorded in the medical report dated 20 August 2022 (exhibit D2) that the accused “claimed to have stomach problem [and] hearing voices” and had “complained of people teasing him for months, and pain over his private parts due to “black magic””.[note: 256] Dr Yak assessed the accused “to be possibly delusional/having psychosis/having an altered mental status” and referred him to hospital for further assessment.[note: 257] The accused had given evidence that “[n]obody … except the IMH psychiatrist”, Dr Ravichandran, knew what he was going through on 2 April 2021.[note: 258] In this regard, I noted that Dr Ravichandran’s memo (exhibit D3) stated that the accused was advised to continue his prescribed medication and to attend his upcoming appointment at CGH. While this might suggest that the accused was likely experiencing symptoms, the accused did not call Dr Yak and had specifically declined to call Dr Ravichandran as a Defence witness.[note: 259] In the premises, their accounts on his mental state and condition (apart from what was captured in their respective reports and memo) were not before this court nor subject to cross-examination.

84 On the contrary, the accused’s account that he was experiencing a “psychotic state of mind”[note: 260] and auditory hallucinations at the material time was undermined by his own evidence and Dr Tham’s evidence. The accused testified that he believed that he was “not insane at that point of time”.[note: 261] Under cross-examination, he agreed that he had been “calm”, “not unruly at any point in time” and “not crazy”.[note: 262] It also appeared from his evidence that he remained aware of his surroundings and capable of responding to the developing events. For instance, he gave evidence that he answered Dr Ravindran’s questions in such a way as to avoid admission to IMH (at [57] above) and had cross-examined his statement recorder during statement recording (at [65] above). Further, the accused did not challenge Dr Tham’s evidence that the accused shared with Dr Tham that he no longer heard voices in the “recent weeks leading to” his consultation with Dr Tham on 12 April 2021.[note: 263] As the date of the incident was 2 April 2021, which was less than two weeks before his consultation with Dr Tham, the incident would have been within the period when the accused claimed that he no longer heard voices.

85 Taken together, the medical evidence presented at trial was clear that the accused did not have a physical or mental condition preventing him providing his urine specimen. Neither was there any evidence that the provision of the urine specimen would entail a substantial risk to his health.

The accused passed urine on two occasions while in police custody

86 My finding was also fortified by the undisputed fact that the accused had passed urine twice while he was in police custody. In this connection, the accused admitted to the first occasion taking place at about 12pm, just before he was sent to CGH for his first visit (at [61] above). The second occasion took place at around 9.18pm in the handicapped toilet at CGH in the presence of Sgt(3) Izwan and Sgt(2) Firdaus. Based on the footage in exhibit P5 (at 34 minutes and 55 seconds to 36 minutes and 3 seconds), the accused did not appear to be in any discomfort. He was able to pass urine without assistance and even continued to speak while doing so.[note: 264]

The accused had not proven that he tried as hard as he could to provide a urine specimen as required

87 I also considered whether the accused had proven that he tried as hard as he could to provide a urine specimen by straining to “force some urine out” at about 12pm on 2 April 2021.[note: 265] In my view, he did not. I explain.

88 The accused’s account that he had strained to pass urine and was not directed by the APOs to provide a urine specimen (at [61] above) was uncorroborated. The APOs had not been called as witnesses at the trial. Neither did any other witnesses corroborate his account.

89 Even if I accepted the accused’s account, it did not assist him. At its highest, it showed that the accused tried as hard as he could to pass urine. It appeared that despite being aware of the requirement to provide a urine specimen and his alleged daily difficulties in passing urine, the accused was content to pass urine directly into the toilet bowl. He did not seem to think of reminding the APOs of his requirement to provide a urine specimen. Neither did he seek to have his urine specimen collected by them or other police officers. In these circumstances, even if he did try as hard as he could to pass urine, this was far from trying as hard as he could to provide a urine specimen as required.

The accused was not “given” a mistaken belief that he had already been charged for failing to provide a urine specimen and was no longer obligated to provide a urine specimen

90 The accused’s submission[note: 266] that he was “given” a mistaken belief at 9.18pm that he was already charged and no longer obligated to give his urine specimen was not borne out by the evidence. On the contrary, the evidence showed that it was the accused who held the belief that he was not obligated to provide his urine specimen as he would already be charged after six hours had passed. The evidence also showed that he held firmly to this belief even after being told that there was no procedural breach barring the provision of his urine specimen.

91 From as early as 7.35pm on 2 April 2021, the accused raised the issue of an “SOP breach” that “warnings had been administered for more than 6 hours” as his reason for not providing his urine specimen (at [16] above). At around 9.03pm to 9.05pm, when Sgt(3) Izwan administered another warning to the accused, the accused asked if six hours had passed (at [19] above).

92 Subsequently, at around 9.15pm, after the accused was brought to the handicapped toilet, Sgt(3) Izwan asked the accused to choose his bottles from the ones provided by CNB and break the seal to the bottles, only for the accused to reiterate that it had been more than six hours and that he did not wish to provide his urine in any of the bottles (at [23] above). The accused also repeatedly said that there was a breach of procedure as it had been more than six hours (at [24] above). This was recorded in the BWC footages. In the table below, I summarised the salient portions of the exchange among the accused, Sgt(3) Izwan and Sgt(2) Firdaus, as captured in the exhibit P5T: [note: 267]

Video Length of Exhibit P5	Approximate real-time	English Translation (Key: M2 – Accused; M3 – Sgt(3) Izwan; M5 – Sgt(2) Firdaus)
00:32:29	9.17pm	M3: OK you open plastic first, throw first.
00:32:32	9.17pm	M2: This one already more than 6 hours, I don’t, (00:32:35) “words not clear”. Because the procedure is different.
00:32:41	9.17pm	M3: How come different?
00:32:41	9.17pm	M2: So in 1 day, already 6 hours have to give urine sample. If in 6 hours never give urine sample charge. This one already more than 6 hours.
00:32:51	9.17pm	M3: No now I ask you to pee.
00:32:54	9.17pm	M2: Here cannot pee already because already hit the procedure.
00:32:58	9.17pm	M3: No no is not because of the procedure.
00:33:00	9.18pm	M2: I don’t want…have this urine.
00:33:02	9.18pm	M3: Open…open this. Open plastic. After that, urine in this red colour.
00:33:05	9.18pm	M2: No…no.
00:33:06	9.18pm	M3: Why don’t you want to?
00:33:07	9.18pm	M3 [sic]: It’s against the procedure. (00:33:08) “words not clear” … want to only pee normally. (00:33:10) “words not clear” …
00:33:13	9.18pm	M3: What…what?
00:33:14	9.18pm	M2: Because I don’t want to urine… I want to make your work easier, Sergeant.
00:33:15	9.18pm	M3: No…no. Not about being easy. You urine here first.
00:33:20	9.18pm	M5: You have to take…we have to take your urine.
00:33:22	9.18pm	M2: It’s not that I refuse to give…because against the procedure.

93 The above exchange showed that after the accused expressed his belief that it would have been a breach of “procedure” for the police officers to take his urine specimen and that he would already have been charged for not giving his urine specimen within six hours, Sgt(3) Izwan persisted in instructing the accused to pass urine, even refuting the accused at one point to say that it was “not because of the procedure”. Despite Sgt(3) Izwan’s efforts, the accused remained unshaken in his belief and insisted that he would not provide his urine specimen because it was “against the procedure”.

94 As Sgt(3) Izwan stepped out of the toilet, Sgt(2) Firdaus told the accused to wait (at [24] above). At that juncture, when Sgt(2) Firdaus asked the accused if he did not want to pass urine in the bottles due to procedural issues, the accused maintained that it was “against the procedure”. This was captured in the exhibit P5T as follows:[note: 268]

Video Length of Exhibit P5	Approximate real-time	English Translation (Key: M2 – Accused; M3 – Sgt(3) Izwan; M5 – Sgt(2) Firdaus)
00:33:28	9.18pm	M5: Hold on, hold on, hold on.
00:33:30	9.18pm	M2: Hold on…what?
00:33:31	9.18pm	M5: You don’t want to urine in the bottle because of the procedure?
00:33:34	9.18pm	M2: Because it’s against the procedure. Against a lot of procedures (00:33:37) “words not clear”…

95 When Sgt(3) Izwan re-entered the toilet to ask the accused if he wanted to pass urine in the hospital’s bottle, the accused refused. After Sgt(3) Izwan stepped out of the toilet again, the accused said to Sgt(2) Firdaus that he did not want to urinate in the hospital bottle because he does not trust anyone (at [25] above). In my view, Sgt(2) Firdaus’s evidence in this respect, which was not challenged by the accused, revealed that the accused did not want to provide a urine specimen to anyone, even if the specimen would be used for his medical treatment.

96 When Sgt(3) Izwan subsequently returned to the toilet and told the accused that he could pass urine, the accused made no attempt to confirm that DO Arif had already charged him. This was acknowledged by the accused under cross-examination (at [69] above). Given that Sgt(3) Izwan’s last question to the accused was unrelated to the accused’s immediate concerns that he had been charged, it was odd that the accused did not seek confirmation or clarification. Instead, he proceeded to pass urine into the toilet bowl. By not seeking confirmation or clarification from Sgt(3) Izwan, it was the accused, and not Sgt(3) Izwan or Sgt(2) Firdaus, who perpetuated his own belief that he had already been charged for not providing a urine specimen.

97 I make three further observations on the accused’s argument that he was not obligated to provide his urine specimen beyond the six-hour window:

(a) First, there is no legal requirement that a person must provide his urine specimen within six hours. Section 31(2) of the MDA only stated that the person provide a urine specimen “within such time as may be required by any of the officers”. In this connection, the accused appeared to accept that Sgt(3) Izwan and Sgt(2) Firdaus could extend the period of time within which he could provide his urine specimen under s 31(2) of the MDA (at [68] above).[note: 269]

(b) Second, the accused’s insistence on adhering to the six-hour window was inexplicable as it was to his own detriment. It was the accused’s case that he faced daily difficulties with passing urine and sometimes passed urine once or twice a day or not at all.[note: 270] Put another way, on his own evidence, it would have taken him a long time to pass any urine. If he wanted to prove that he did not consume controlled drugs, it would have been to his benefit if he could provide his urine specimen beyond a six-hour window. By insisting that he was not obligated to provide his urine specimen after six hours, the accused was denying himself that chance if he was unable to pass any urine during the six-hour period. In this connection, when the Prosecution asked the accused during cross-examination if he agreed that he could prove that he did not take the controlled drugs by providing his urine specimen, the accused gave bizarre and convoluted answers, first stating that he did not have to prove that he did not consume drugs, then saying that it was “enough” to say he did not take it and that he had the choice to not provide his urine specimen:

Q: Okay. So, do you agree that if you wanted to prove that you didn’t consume drugs, right, because IO Too Yong Fook suspected you consumed drugs, right? If you wanted to prove him wrong, you could have provided your urine sample, and then it would show that it’s negative, right? You could have. Do you agree?

A: I do not have to prove that.

Q: Do you agree that if you want to prove to somebody that you didn’t take drugs, you can provide your urine sample, and then it will turn up negative. That’s the surest way to prove that you didn’t take drugs, isn’t it?

A: It’s got nothing to do with that.

Q: Do you agree or disagree that’s the way to prove that you didn’t take drugs? Do you agr---

A: That’s not the only way.

Q: Do you agree that is the way to prove you didn’t take drugs? Agree or disagree?

A: I just said I did not take drug. That’s the only---I think it’s enough to prove. If I’m not obligated to give my urine specimen, I just need to say I did not take drug, unless I’m obligated to give my urine specimen, and I will do both. I’ll give my urine specimen to prove, and I also will say that I did not take drug. So, here, I was given the belief that I was not obligated, so, I got a choice to give or not to give.^{[note: 271]}

(c) Third, the accused did not raise the six-hour window issue in his statement recorded on 3 April 2021 (exhibit P4). Under cross-examination, the accused agreed that it was not raised in his Case for Defence (exhibit P15) (at [70] above). While that was an inconsistency with his case at trial, it did not amount to an afterthought in my view as it was clear from the BWC footages (exhibits P5 and P6) that the accused had repeatedly raised the issue to Sgt(3) Izwan and Sgt(2) Firdaus at the material time.

98 In any event, even if I accepted that the accused’s belief had operated on his mind at the material time, applying the approach in Muhammad Mustafa and Madiaalakan (at [78] above), it did not amount to a reasonable excuse under s 31(2) of the MDA. Far from trying his best to provide a urine specimen, it showed that the accused resisted doing so because of his misguided belief.

Verdict

99 Having examined the totality of the evidence and the parties’ submissions, I was satisfied that the Prosecution proved its case against the accused on the Urine Charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I found the accused guilty and convicted him of the Urine Charge.

Sentencing

100 The accused did not appeal against his sentence. Nonetheless, I briefly explain the reasons for the sentence imposed.

101 The prescribed punishment for an offence under s 31(2) punishable under s 33A(2) of the MDA is a mandatory imprisonment term of not less than seven years and not more than 13 years with not less than six strokes and not more than 12 strokes of the cane. In this case, given that the accused was above 50 years of age, caning was not applicable.

102 The accused was traced. The Prosecution relied on two antecedents in particular that were similarly punishable under s 33A(2) of the MDA:

Date of Conviction	Offence Sections	Sentence
17 October 2007	s 8(b)(ii) read with s 33A(2) of the MDA	Seven years’ imprisonment and six strokes of the cane
1 April 2014	s 8(b)(ii) read with s 33A(2) of the MDA	Eight years and three months’ imprisonment and seven strokes of the cane

103 The Prosecution sought a sentence of nine years’ imprisonment.[note: 272] It was submitted that the accused was a repeat LT2 offender and had claimed trial and was therefore not entitled to a sentencing discount.[note: 273] The Prosecution did not seek an enhanced imprisonment term in lieu of caning.[note: 274]

104 In mitigation, the accused stated that he claimed trial not because he was not remorseful but rather, he did not know that the reason he provided was not a reasonable excuse.[note: 275] He sought a sentence “as low as possible” below nine years’ imprisonment.[note: 276] While he initially urged the court to backdate the sentence to the date of arrest (ie, 5 August 2021) on the grounds that he was remorseful,[note: 277] he subsequently sought backdating to the date when the investigation officer served the Charge on him (ie, 29 September 2021) on compassionate grounds.[note: 278]

105 In determining the appropriate sentence, I noted that this was the accused’s third conviction for LT2 offences punishable under s 33A(2) of the MDA. I was of the view that an uplift from the previous sentence of eight years and three months' imprisonment was warranted to give effect to specific deterrence. I also took into account that the accused claimed trial and was not entitled to the sentencing discount that would have been available to an offender who pleaded guilty. All considered, I imposed a sentence of eight years and nine months' imprisonment. I did not impose an enhanced sentence in lieu of caning given the considerable length of the imprisonment term.

106 I ordered his sentence to commence on 4 April 2022. The accused’s sentence for FPUT Charges had been backdated to his date of arrest (ie, 5 August 2021). He was therefore serving his sentence for the FPUT Charges from 5 August 2021 to the earliest date of release on 4 April 2022. Pursuant to s 322(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010, where a person undergoing an imprisonment is sentenced again to imprisonment, the latter sentence of imprisonment must begin either immediately or at the end of the previous imprisonment term. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I was of the view that it was more appropriate for his imprisonment term to commence at the end of the previous imprisonment term (ie, 4 April 2022) than at the date of the sentencing (ie, 1 June 2023).[Context] [Hide Context]

^{[note: 1]}Prosecution’s Closing Submissions at paras 2 and 15.

^{[note: 2]}Exhibit P1; Notes of Evidence (“NE”), 2 November 2022, 22/10-20; 26/25-29.

^{[note: 3]}NE, 2 November 2022, 23/22-24.

^{[note: 4]}NE, 3 February 2023, 5/10-11, 21.

^{[note: 5]}NE, 3 February 2023, 6/15-18, 7/13-15.

^{[note: 6]}NE, 3 February 2023, 6/19-20.

^{[note: 7]}NE, 3 February 2023, 6/21-23, 7/32-8/1.

^{[note: 8]}NE, 3 February 2023, 6/25-26.

^{[note: 9]}Exhibit P3.

^{[note: 10]}Exhibit P2, “Charge Office SD Book” at 1^st entry.

^{[note: 11]}Exhibit P2, “Charge Office SD Book” at 1^st entry; NE, 2 November 2022, 34/20-28.

^{[note: 12]}NE, 2 November 2022, 35/1-3.

^{[note: 13]}NE, 2 November 2022, 35/4-7.

^{[note: 14]}Exhibit P2, “Charge Office SD Book” at 1^st entry.

^{[note: 15]}Exhibit P2, “Charge Office SD Book” at 4^th, 6^th and 9^th entries.

^{[note: 16]}NE, 2 November 2022, 39/4-6, 41/30-32 and 45/8-10.

^{[note: 17]}NE, 2 November 2022, 39/6-13, 42/3-7.

^{[note: 18]}NE, 2 November 2022, 44/27-30.

^{[note: 19]}Exhibit P2, “Charge Office SD Book” at 4^th, 6^th and 9^th entries.

^{[note: 20]}NE, 2 November 2023, 43/12-27.

^{[note: 21]}Exhibit P2, “Charge Office SD Book” at 11^th entry.

^{[note: 22]}NE, 3 February 2023, 76/15-17, 85/17-28.

^{[note: 23]}NE, 3 February 2023, 78/3-13, 86/1-24, 87/9-23.

^{[note: 24]}NE, 3 February 2023, 86/28-30.

^{[note: 25]}NE, 3 February 2023, 78/16-20, 87/1-5, 22-23.

^{[note: 26]}NE, 3 February 2023, 80/2-6, 87/27-32; exhibit P2, “Charge Office SD Book” at entry recorded on 2 April 2021 at 1730 hours.

^{[note: 27]}NE, 3 February 2023, 80/7-8, 88/2-3.

^{[note: 28]}NE, 3 February 2023, 88/20-23, 89/7-10; exhibit P2, “Charge Office SD Book” at 12^th entry.

^{[note: 29]}Exhibit P2, “Charge Office SD Book” at 13^th, 15^th, 17^th and 19^th entries.

^{[note: 30]}Exhibit P2 at 14^th, 16^th, 18^th and 20^th entries.

^{[note: 31]}Exhibit P2, “Charge Office SD Book” at 13^th, 15^th, 17^th and 19^th entries.

^{[note: 32]}Exhibit P2, “Charge Office SD Book” at 13^th entry; NE, 2 November 2022, 55/15-19, 58/15-21, 62/8-11

^{[note: 33]}NE, 2 November 2022, 58/15-21, 62/10-11.

^{[note: 34]}Exhibit P2, “Charge Office SD Book” at 21^st entry.

^{[note: 35]}NE, 2 November 2022, 64/22-25.

^{[note: 36]}Exhibit P2, “Escort Book” at 1st entry.

^{[note: 37]}NE, 6 February 2023, 19/2-5.

^{[note: 38]}NE, 7 February 2023, 43/6-7.

^{[note: 39]}Exhibit P2, “Escort Book” at 2^nd entry.

^{[note: 40]}NE, 6 February 2023, 20/12-14.

^{[note: 41]}NE, 6 February 2023, 20/25-28.

^{[note: 42]}Exhibit P2, “Escort Book” at 3^rd entry.

^{[note: 43]}Exhibit P2, “Escort Book” at 4^th and 5^th entries.

^{[note: 44]}NE, 7 February 2023, 45/10-13.

^{[note: 45]}NE, 6 February 2023, 33/5-8.

^{[note: 46]}NE, 7 February 2023, 51/5-7.

^{[note: 47]}NE, 6 February 2023, 26/4-6; NE, 7 February 2023, 47/18-20.

^{[note: 48]}NE, 6 February 2023, 27/31-28/4.

^{[note: 49]}NE, 6 February 2023, 27/28-30, 28/5-6.

^{[note: 50]}NE, 7 February 2023, 48/13-14.

^{[note: 51]}NE, 7 February 2023, 48/5-10.

^{[note: 52]}NE, 6 February 2023, 28/7-9.

^{[note: 53]}NE, 6 February 2023, 29/18-30/1; exhibit P5T at page 45, S/No 297; NE, 7 February 2023, 49/24-50/1, 10-13.

^{[note: 54]}NE, 6 February 2023, 29/31-30/3; NE, 7 February 2023, 50/4-5.

^{[note: 55]}NE, 6 February 2023, 30/5.

^{[note: 56]}NE, 7 February 2023, 50/1-2.

^{[note: 57]}NE, 7 February 2023, 50/15-23.

^{[note: 58]}NE, 6 February 2023, 30/12-16.

^{[note: 59]}NE, 6 February 2023, 30/16-20; NE, 7 February 2023, 51/16-19.

^{[note: 60]}NE, 6 February 2023, 30/25-30; NE, 7 February 2023, 51/22-52/5.

^{[note: 61]}NE, 6 February 2023, 31/3-9.

^{[note: 62]}NE, 7 February 2023, 52/11-13.

^{[note: 63]}NE, 6 February 2023, 31/10-24; exhibit P5T at pages 76 to 80; NE, 7 February 2023, 52/14-21.

^{[note: 64]}NE, 6 February 2023, 31/24.

^{[note: 65]}NE, 6 February 2023, 31/25-28; NE, 7 February 2023, 52/22-31.

^{[note: 66]}NE, 6 February 2023, 31/25-29.

^{[note: 67]}NE, 6 February 2023, 32/4-6.

^{[note: 68]}NE, 7 February 2023, 54/6-9.

^{[note: 69]}NE, 7 February 2023, 61/7-11.

^{[note: 70]}NE, 7 February 2023, 54/9-10.

^{[note: 71]}NE, 6 February 2023, 32/7-11.

^{[note: 72]}NE, 6 February 2023, 31/11-12.

^{[note: 73]}NE, 7 February 2023, 54/29-32.

^{[note: 74]}NE, 6 February 2023, 31/12-14; NE, 7 February 2023, 55/6-7.

^{[note: 75]}NE, 7 February 2023, 55/15-17.

^{[note: 76]}NE, 7 February 2023, 55/6-9.

^{[note: 77]}NE, 6 February 2023, 32/21-23, 34/14-19.

^{[note: 78]}Exhibit P5T at page 84, S/No. 565.

^{[note: 79]}NE, 6 February 2023, 32/24.

^{[note: 80]}NE, 7 February 2023, 56/20-22, 72/12-18.

^{[note: 81]}NE, 7 February 2023, 55/27-29.

^{[note: 82]}NE, 6 February 2023, 33/4; NE, 7 February 2023, 55/31-56/10.

^{[note: 83]}Exhibit P2, “Escort Book” at 6^th entry.

^{[note: 84]}NE, 6 February 2023, 33/15-16.

^{[note: 85]}NE, 6 February 2023, 33/16-18.

^{[note: 86]}NE, 6 February 2023, 33/19-26; Exhibit P2, “Escort Book” at 7^th entry; NE, 7 February 2023, 57/1-3.

^{[note: 87]}NE, 6 February 2023, 23/11-13; Exhibit P2, “Escort Book” at 8^th entry.

^{[note: 88]}NE, 6 February 2023, 23/16-24.

^{[note: 89]}NE, 6 February 2023, 24/3-4.

^{[note: 90]}NE, 6 February 2023, 23/28-24/6; NE, 7 February 2023, 46/26-29.

^{[note: 91]}NE, 6 February 2023, 24/5-9; NE, 7 February 2023, 46/21-25.

^{[note: 92]}NE, 6 February 2023, 24/12-15; Exhibit P2, “Escort Book” at 10^th entry.

^{[note: 93]}NE, 6 February 2023, 24/15; Exhibit P2, “Escort Book” at 10^th entry.

^{[note: 94]}NE, 7 February 2023, 47/3-5; Exhibit P2, “Escort Book” at 10^th entry.

^{[note: 95]}NE, 6 February 2023, 24/20-25.

^{[note: 96]}NE, 6 February 2023, 24/29-32.

^{[note: 97]}NE, 6 February 2023, 24/32-25/2; NE, 7 February 2023, 47/12-15.

^{[note: 98]}NE, 8 February 2023, 52/30-53/1.

^{[note: 99]}NE, 8 February 2023, 48/12-13.

^{[note: 100]}NE, 8 February 2023, 48/24-27.

^{[note: 101]}NE, 8 February 2023, 49/6-10.

^{[note: 102]}NE, 8 February 2023, 49/16-18.

^{[note: 103]}NE, 8 February 2023, 49/29-32.

^{[note: 104]}NE, 8 February 2023, 50/8-9.

^{[note: 105]}NE, 8 February 2023, 51/3-6.

^{[note: 106]}NE, 8 February 2023, 51/7-8.

^{[note: 107]}NE, 8 February 2023, 51/9-11.

^{[note: 108]}NE, 8 February 2023, 50/16-20 and 52/1-15.

^{[note: 109]}NE, 10 February 2023, 3/14-15.

^{[note: 110]}NE, 10 February 2023, 7/17-26.

^{[note: 111]}NE, 10 February 2023, 18/28-29.

^{[note: 112]}NE, 10 February 2023, 4/13-14.

^{[note: 113]}NE, 10 February 2023, 4/-15-16, 6/1-24.

^{[note: 114]}Exhibit P14 at page 3; NE, 10 February 2023, 4/28-31.

^{[note: 115]}NE, 10 February 2023, 8/11-13.

^{[note: 116]}NE, 10 February 2023, 8/13-21.

^{[note: 117]}NE, 10 February 2023, 8/21-22.

^{[note: 118]}Prosecution’s Closing Submissions at para 11.

^{[note: 119]}NE, 7 February 2023, 21/11-18.

^{[note: 120]}Exhibit P8; NE, 7 February 2023, 27/27-31.

^{[note: 121]}NE, 7 February 2023, 26/20-22.

^{[note: 122]}NE, 7 February 2023, 26/22-24.

^{[note: 123]}Exhibit P8; NE, 7 February 2023, 22/22-26/32.

^{[note: 124]}NE, 7 February 2023, 28/15-18.

^{[note: 125]}NE, 7 February 2023, 28/19-26.

^{[note: 126]}NE, 7 February 2023, 28/27-30.

^{[note: 127]}Exhibit P13 at para 1; Prosecution’s Closing Submissions at para 12.

^{[note: 128]}Exhibit P13 at para 2(a); NE, 8 February 2023, 3/4-6.

^{[note: 129]}Exhibit P13 at para 10c; NE, 8 February 2023,5/31-6/1.

^{[note: 130]}Exhibit P13 at para 10c; NE, 8 February 2023, 6/1-3.

^{[note: 131]}Exhibit P13 at para 10c; NE, 8 February 2023, 6/3-4.

^{[note: 132]}Exhibit P13 at para 16(a).

^{[note: 133]}NE, 8 February 2023, 9/6-13, 11/11-20.

^{[note: 134]}NE, 8 February 2023, 14/1-13.

^{[note: 135]}Exhibit P13 at para 16(b).

^{[note: 136]}NE, 10 February 2023, 26/9-13.

^{[note: 137]}NE, 10 February 2023, 27/7.

^{[note: 138]}NE, 10 February 2023, 27/7-9, 12-27; exhibit P10 at para 1.

^{[note: 139]}NE, 10 February 2023, 27/31-32, exhibit P10 at para 4.

^{[note: 140]}NE, 10 February 2023, 28/9-11, 32/11-12, 14-15.

^{[note: 141]}NE, 10 February 2023, 29/6-7, 32/1-7.

^{[note: 142]}NE, 10 February 2021, 31/2-9.

^{[note: 143]}Exhibit P10 at para 9.

^{[note: 144]}NE, 6 February 2023, 4/7.

^{[note: 145]}NE, 6 February 2023, 4/11-19.

^{[note: 146]}NE, 6 February 2023, 5/10-11, 21-27.

^{[note: 147]}NE, 6 February 2023, 10/13-16.

^{[note: 148]}NE, 6 February 2023, 4/11-19, 4/29-5/17, 6/12-13; exhibit P10 at para 11.

^{[note: 149]}NE, 6 February 2023, 6/17-19; exhibit P10 at 12.

^{[note: 150]}NE, 6 February 2023, 7/16-21.

^{[note: 151]}NE, 6 February 2023, 6/24-27.

^{[note: 152]}NE, 6 February 2023, 7/4-15.

^{[note: 153]}NE, 6 February 2023, 7/26-28.

^{[note: 154]}NE, 6 February 2023, 7/22-24.

^{[note: 155]}NE, 6 February 2023, 8/15-18.

^{[note: 156]}NE, 6 February 2023, 8/18-20.

^{[note: 157]}NE, 6 February 2023, 8/21-28.

^{[note: 158]}NE, 8 February 2023, 36/2-7.

^{[note: 159]}NE, 8 February 2023, 36/8-18.

^{[note: 160]}NE, 8 February 2023, 36/25-29.

^{[note: 161]}NE, 8 February 2023, 36/30-37/2.

^{[note: 162]}NE, 8 February 2023, 37/9-14.

^{[note: 163]}NE, 8 February 2023, 37/24-26.

^{[note: 164]}NE, 8 February 2023, 38/7-9.

^{[note: 165]}NE, 8 February 2023, 37/15-16.

^{[note: 166]}NE, 8 February 2023, 37/17.

^{[note: 167]}NE, 8 February 2023, 43/17-18.

^{[note: 168]}NE, 8 February 2023, 43/25-26.

^{[note: 169]}NE, 8 February 2023, 43/30-44/3, 8-14.

^{[note: 170]}NE, 7 February 2023, 34/12-20; exhibit P12.

^{[note: 171]}NE, 7 February 2023, 34/21-22.

^{[note: 172]}NE, 10 February 2023, 50/14.

^{[note: 173]}Defence’s Closing Submissions at p 3, point 6i.

^{[note: 174]}Defence’s Closing Submissions at p 3, point 6i.

^{[note: 175]}NE, 21 March 2023, 21/10-18.

^{[note: 176]}NE, 10 February 2023, 52/4-11.

^{[note: 177]}NE, 10 February 2023, 52/14-16.

^{[note: 178]}NE, 10 February 2023, 52/16-18.

^{[note: 179]}NE, 10 February 2023, 52/19-22.

^{[note: 180]}NE, 10 February 2023, 52/22-23.

^{[note: 181]}NE, 10 February 2023, 52/23-26.

^{[note: 182]}NE, 10 February 2023, 52/26-28.

^{[note: 183]}NE, 10 February 2023, 52/28-29.

^{[note: 184]}NE, 10 February 2023, 52/29-32, 58/1-2.

^{[note: 185]}NE, 10 February 2023, 52/31-53/1.

^{[note: 186]}NE, 10 February 2023, 53/1-5.

^{[note: 187]}NE, 10 February 2023, 53/6-7.

^{[note: 188]}NE, 10 February 2023, 53/7-11.

^{[note: 189]}NE, 10 February 2023, 53/11-13.

^{[note: 190]}NE, 10 February 2023, 53/14-15.

^{[note: 191]}NE, 10 February 2023, 53/15-18.

^{[note: 192]}NE, 10 February 2023, 53/19-23.

^{[note: 193]}NE, 10 February 2023, 53/23-26.

^{[note: 194]}NE, 10 February 2023, 53/25-28.

^{[note: 195]}NE, 10 February 2023, 54/5-8.

^{[note: 196]}NE, 10 February 2023, 54/9-17.

^{[note: 197]}NE, 10 February 2023, 54/26-55/3.

^{[note: 198]}NE, 10 February 2023, 54/31-55/2.

^{[note: 199]}NE, 10 February 2023, 54/19-21.

^{[note: 200]}NE, 10 February 2023, 54/22-24.

^{[note: 201]}NE, 10 February 2023, 59/3-5.

^{[note: 202]}NE, 10 February 2023, 55/9.

^{[note: 203]}NE, 10 February 2023, 55/3-4.

^{[note: 204]}NE, 10 February 2023, 55/11-13.

^{[note: 205]}NE, 10 February 2023, 55/14-15.

^{[note: 206]}NE, 10 February 2023, 55/26-27.

^{[note: 207]}NE, 10 February 2023, 55/15-18.

^{[note: 208]}NE, 10 February 2023, 55/28-56/1.

^{[note: 209]}NE, 10 February 2023, 56/4-7.

^{[note: 210]}NE, 10 February 2023, 56/12-14.

^{[note: 211]}NE, 10 February 2023, 57/1-17.

^{[note: 212]}NE. 10 February 2023, 56/15-18.

^{[note: 213]}NE, 10 February 2023, 56/22-24.

^{[note: 214]}NE, 10 February 2023, 56/18.

^{[note: 215]}NE. 10 February 2023, 56/30-32.

^{[note: 216]}NE, 10 February 2023, 57/17-22.

^{[note: 217]}NE, 10 February 2023, 57/25-31.

^{[note: 218]}NE, 10 February 2023, 58/9-12.

^{[note: 219]}NE, 10 February 2023, 58/21-25, 28.

^{[note: 220]}NE, 10 February 2023, 59/6-9.

^{[note: 221]}NE, 10 February, 2023, 59/10-14.

^{[note: 222]}NE, 10 February 2023, 59/14-16.

^{[note: 223]}NE, 10 February 2023, 59/17-21.

^{[note: 224]}NE, 10 February 2023, 59/21-22.

^{[note: 225]}NE, 10 February 2023, 59/22-23.

^{[note: 226]}NE, 10 February 2023, 59/23-26.

^{[note: 227]}NE, 10 February 2023, 60/3.

^{[note: 228]}NE, 10 February 2023, 60/12-14.

^{[note: 229]}NE, 10 February 2023,60/14-18.

^{[note: 230]}NE, 10 February 2023, 60/21-24.

^{[note: 231]}NE, 10 February 2023, 60/25-31.

^{[note: 232]}NE, 10 February 2023, 60/31-32.

^{[note: 233]}NE, 21 March 2023, 34/3-5.

^{[note: 234]}NE, 10 February 2023, 61/5-6, 8-11.

^{[note: 235]}NE, 10 February 2023, 62/10-24, 64/10-21.

^{[note: 236]}NE, 10 February 2023, 62/25-27.

^{[note: 237]}NE, 10 February 2023, 62/28-30.

^{[note: 238]}NE, 21 March 2023, 35/15-16.

^{[note: 239]}NE, 21 March 2023, 35/17-19.

^{[note: 240]}NE, 10 February 2023, 62/30-63/3.

^{[note: 241]}NE, 10 February 2023, 61/21-24.

^{[note: 242]}NE, 10 February 2023, 63/10-16; see also NE, 21 March 2023, 34/11-27, 35/15-19.

^{[note: 243]}NE, 21 March 2023, 15/24-29.

^{[note: 244]}NE, 21 March 2023, 16/1-2.

^{[note: 245]}NE, 21 March 2023, 20/13-20.

^{[note: 246]}NE, 10 February 2023, 63/22-29, 36/9-14.

^{[note: 247]}NE, 21 March 2023, 17/26-29.

^{[note: 248]}NE, 2 November 2022, 83/19-20, 88/2-6, 88/28-89/6, 89/23-90/7; NE, 3 February 2023, 13/9-14, 15/12-15.

^{[note: 249]}NE, 21 March 2023, 1/27-29.

^{[note: 250]}Prosecution’s Closing Submissions at para 28.

^{[note: 251]}NE, 29 May 2023, 2/6-10, 5/15-19.

^{[note: 252]}NE, 29 May 2023, 5/19-22.

^{[note: 253]}Defence’s Closing Submissions at 3, point 6i.

^{[note: 254]}NE, 7 February 2023, 30/21-25.

^{[note: 255]}NE, 29 May 2023, 2/17.

^{[note: 256]}Exhibit D2.

^{[note: 257]}Exhibit D2.

^{[note: 258]}NE, 10 February 2023, 57/25-58/2.

^{[note: 259]}NE, 10 February 2023, 36/1-6.

^{[note: 260]}NE, 29 May 2023, 2/17.

^{[note: 261]}NE, 10 February 2023, 52/28-29.

^{[note: 262]}NE, 21 March 2023, 2/4-10.

^{[note: 263]}NE, 6 February 2023, 7/19-21.

^{[note: 264]}Exhibit P5T at 85-87, S/No 573, 575, 577, 579, 581 and 583.

^{[note: 265]}NE, 29 May 2023, 2/6-10.

^{[note: 266]}Defence’s Closing Submissions at 3, point 6i.

^{[note: 267]}Exhibit P5T at 79-81, S/No 528-544.

^{[note: 268]}Exhibit P5T at 81-82, S/No 547-550.

^{[note: 269]}NE, 10 February 2023, 62/28-30.

^{[note: 270]}NE, 10 February 2023, 56/21-24.

^{[note: 271]}NE, 21 March 2023, 21/19-22/10.

^{[note: 272]}NE, 29 May 2023, 11/29.

^{[note: 273]}NE, 29 May 2023, 11/29-12/4.

^{[note: 274]}NE, 29 May 2023, 12/6-8.

^{[note: 275]}NE, 29 May 2023, 14/13-15.

^{[note: 276]}NE, 29 May 2023, 14/11.

^{[note: 277]}NE, 29 May 2023, 12/14 and 14/12-13.

^{[note: 278]}NE, 1 June 2023, 2/15-21.