Abdul Karim bin Mohamed Kuppai Khan v Public Prosecutor
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Sundaresh Menon CJ |
Judgment Date | 30 March 2021 |
Neutral Citation | [2021] SGCA 27 |
Published date | 06 April 2021 |
Docket Number | Criminal Appeal No 35 of 2019 |
Year | 2021 |
Hearing Date | 26 January 2021 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Ramesh Chandr Tiwary (Ramesh Tiwary) |
Defendant Counsel | Professor Kumaralingam Amirthalingam (Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore) as amicus curiae.,Anandan Bala, Wong Woon Kwong, Nicholas Wuan Kin Lek, Zhou Yihong and Jotham Tay (Attorney-General's Chambers) |
Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
Citation | [2021] SGCA 27 |
Subject Matter | Statutory offences,Criminal Law,Sentencing,Misuse of Drugs Act,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing |
CA/CCA 35/2019 (“CCA 35”) was originally a self-contained appeal against sentence. The appellant had pleaded guilty to a charge of abetting another to possess not less than 329.99g of cannabis for the purpose of trafficking under s 5(1)(
The appeal potentially implicated our holding in
Following our decision in
In CM 13, the Prosecution had sought to persuade this court to reconsider the sentence imposed on the accused in
At the conclusion of the hearing on 26 January 2021, we maintained our holding in
By CA/CM 20/2020, the Prosecution applied to admit, for the purposes of CCA 35, evidence regarding the HSA’s process of analysing, testing and certifying compressed blocks of cannabis-related plant material. The evidence sought to be disclosed was enclosed in an affidavit of the Deputy Laboratory Director of the Illicit Drugs Division, Merula d/o M Mangudi (“DLD Merula”), who conducted the analysis of the drug exhibits in CCA 35. We granted the order sought by the Prosecution pursuant to s 408A(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) (“CPC”). Given that the Prosecution did not contend that we had erred in
To begin, the HSA analyst uses a weighing device to determine the gross weight of the compressed block. The analyst will then prise apart the compressed block and conduct a macroscopic (meaning visual) examination of all its components. The analyst takes note of: (a) the colour; (b) the presence of different plant parts (such as cannabis stalks or stems, leaves, flowering branches, fruiting branches, flowers and fruits); (c) the uniformity of the type of plant material; and (d) the presence of non-cannabis plant material. Based on the macroscopic examination, the analyst then separates the components into three different groups: (a) individual plant branches (“Group 1”); (b) fragments of plant parts (“Group 2”); and (c) observable extraneous matter (“Group 3”). Indicia for determining whether any given vegetable matter falls within each group, under macroscopic examination, are set out in the table below:
| | |
| | |
| | |
| ||
|
Once the plant matter has been separated into the three groups, the analyst will record the weight of each group. After completing the macroscopic examination, the analyst then conducts a microscopic examination in order to establish the presence of the characteristic botanical features of cannabis. These include: (a) the bear claw-shaped unicellular trichomes (trichomes are outgrowth akin to hairs) on the upper surface of leaves; (b) long slender unicellular trichomes on the lower surface of leaves; (c) multicellular stalked glandular trichomes and long curved unicellular trichomes on the outer surface of bracts or female flowers; (d) long unicellular upwards-pointing trichomes on stems; and (e) reticulate (meaning marked like a network) patterns on fruits. The process of the microscopic examination in respect of Group 1 material and Group 2 material can be summarised as follows:
| | |
| | |
| ||
| | |
Following both the macroscopic and the microscopic examinations, the analyst then conducts two chromatography tests: (a) Thin Layer Chromatography; and (b) Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry. These tests are used to determine the presence of cannabinol (“CBN”) and tetrahydrocannabinol (a cannabinol derivative) (“THC”), which are the chemical markers for cannabis. In each test sample, CBN and THC are extracted with a solvent. The analyst will then use Gas Chromatography-Flame Ionisation Detection to estimate the amount of CBN and THC in Group 1.
Created Fragmented Vegetable Matter We turn now to
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Public Prosecutor v Pang Chie Wei and other matters
...the impermissibility of the Prosecution’s “dual charging practice” in Abdul Karim bin Mohamed Kuppai Khan v Public Prosecutor [2021] 1 SLR 1390 (“Abdul Karim”) at [36]. The respondents in these applications had been charged with and convicted pursuant to the Prosecution’s “dual charging pra......
-
Gunasilan Rajenthiran v PP
...not mean that actual knowledge could be established: at [23] and [24].] Case(s) referred to Abdul Karim bin Mohamed Kuppai Khan v PP [2021] 1 SLR 1390 (refd) Gobi a/l Avedian v PP [2021] 1 SLR 180 (folld) Jumadi bin Abdullah v PP [2022] 1 SLR 814 (folld) Saravanan Chandaram v PP [2020] 2 SL......
-
Criminal Law
...v Public Prosecutor [2021] SGCA 103 at [120]. 59 Roshdi bin Abdullah Altway v Public Prosecutor [2021] SGCA 103 at [123]–[124]. 60 [2021] 1 SLR 1390. 61 [2020] 2 SLR 95. 62 Abdul Karim bin Mohamed Kuppai Khan v Public Prosecutor [2021] 1 SLR 1390 at [13]. 63 Abdul Karim bin Mohamed Kuppai K......