Name: Roslan bin Bakar
Convicted for trafficking 96.07g of diamorphine and 76.37g of methamphetamine into Singapore on 14/06/2008, sentenced to death on 22/04/2010. Appeal dimissed on 17/03/2011. Clemency petition submitted on 28/06/2011.
Points of Concern
The prosecution’s case essentially relied on the testimonies of Nuradaha, Mohammed Zamri bin Mohamed Sopree and Pausi bin Jefridin. There was a lack of concrete evidence tying Roslan to the alleged crime.
Roslan was arrested on 18 July 2008, one month after the alleged crime. At the time of his arrest, he did not have any drugs on him.
Roslan had an alibi, saying he was at the Turf Club on 14 June 2008. His step-brother Shamsubari bin Jaafar testified in support of his alibi. However, in the trial judgement, Judge Choo Han Teck said that “Shamsubari appeared a little too anxious to provide an alibi. Contrsating their evidence with that of Nuradaha, Zamri, Norzainy and Pausi, I am satisifed that the alibi was not true.”
The phone number given to the investigating officers by Nuradaha and Zamri was not proven to have belonged to Roslan. The subscriber of the phone number was one Wang Yanghua who was not called as a witness as she was no longer in Singapore.
Although CNB officers had been monitoring the vehicles involved in the transaction on 14 June 2008, none of the CNB officers were able to testify that Roslan had been at the scene.
One of the men arrested on 14 June, Norzainy bin Zainal, testified in court that Roslan had not been at the scene. However, Judge Choo Han Teck wrote in his judgement, “I am mindful that Norzainy was trying his best not to identify Roslan, but his denial, inserted in the rest of his evidence and that of the others, strengthened the prosecution’s case against Roslan.”
Norzainy testified that he had initially given a statement that Roslan had been at the scene because the investigating officer kept insisting that he had been with Roslan. Norzainy had been traumatised and in a state of shock and panic he had agreed with hte officer. He also said that he had been told at the time of his arrest that if he did not admit that he had been with Roslan his whole family would be taken to the Cantonment.
Nuradaha’s capital charge was reduced after representations made by his counsel to the Attorney-General’s Chambers. When under cross-examination, he admitted that the reduction of the [capital] charge acted as an inducement for him to testify against Roslan”.
Mohammed Zamri bin Mohamed Sopree had his capital charge withdrawn with a discharge not amounting to an acquittal.
To our knowledge, there is not written judgement from the Court of Appeal giving the reasons for why Roslan’s appeal was dismissed.