Anyanwu v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 17 March 1994
• Date: 17 March 1994
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 58 of 1993
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)

Anyanwu

Plaintiff

and

Public Prosecutor

Defendant

[1994] SGCA 42

Yong Pung How CJ

,

M Karthigesu JA

and

L P Thean JA

Criminal Appeal No 58 of 1993

Court of Appeal

Courts and Jurisdiction–Jurisdiction–Area of–Definition of Singapore territory–Whether arrest at Keppel railway station was within Singapore–Whether ownership of premises bestowed Malaysian Government with criminal jurisdiction–Section 2 Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 1985 Rev Ed)–Clause 9 Independence of Singapore Agreement 1965 (1985 Rev Ed)–Criminal Law–Statutory offences–Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 1985 Rev Ed)–Trafficking in controlled drugs–Presumptions of possession and knowledge–Whether presumptions rebutted–Sections 7 and 18 Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 1985 Rev Ed)–Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Judgment–Grounds of decision–Trial judge's written grounds of decision given subsequent to oral judgment–Whether written grounds of decision could be considered by appellate court

The appellant was convicted after trial on a charge of importing into Singapore not less than 2,199g of diamorphine. The appellant raised three arguments on appeal: (a) the Court of Appeal ought to have regard only to the reasons given in an earlier oral judgment as the trial judge had erred in writing a subsequent written grounds of decision; (b) he was not importing drugs into Singapore at the point of his arrest at Keppel Railway Station as the station and the railway line situated in Singapore were owned by the Government of Malaysia; and (c) the trial judge had erred in his findings of fact as he failed to consider various inconsistencies in the evidence of the key prosecution witnesses.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) The trial judge had stated in his oral judgment the charge, the prosecution case, the defence and his findings that the Prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. There was no objection to the trial judge providing subsequent written grounds of decision to a brief oral judgment. Such grounds of decision could form part of the record for the Court of Appeal's consideration: at [20].

(2) The territorial boundaries of Singapore and the official map of Singapore clearly showed that the premises of Keppel Railway Station and all parts of the railway line south of the Straits of Johor were part of Singapore territory. The stretch of land on which the railway line ran and the station premises were owned by the Malaysian Government for purely commercial purpose and such ownership per se did not establish Malaysian sovereignty over the property in Singapore. Furthermore, there were no statutory provisions expressly or impliedly conferring any extra-territorial jurisdiction or criminal jurisdiction upon the Malaysian Government over those premises in question: at [23].

(3) The trial judge saw and heard the appellant and found that he was not a truthful witness. On the evidence before him, he was amply justified in reaching this finding and in accepting the evidence of the key prosecution witnesses as witnesses of truth. The appellant had not rebutted the statutory presumptions of possession and knowledge of the nature of the drugs: at [24], [25] and [26].

Ankur Nath Ganguli v PP [1956] MLJ 206 (refd)

Goh Lai Wak v PP [1994] 1 SLR (R) 563; [1994] 1 SLR 748 (folld)

Lorraine Phylis Cohen v PP [1989] 2 MLJ 288 (refd)

Independence of Singapore Agreement1965 (1985 Rev Ed)cl 9 (consd)

Interpretation Act (Cap 1,1985 Rev Ed)s 2 (consd)

Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185,1985 Rev Ed)ss 7, 18 (consd)

Service Lands Act (Cap 292,1985 Rev Ed)

States of Malaya Customs Duties Collection Act (Cap 316, 1985 Rev Ed)

Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1985 Rev Ed,1993 Reprint)s 46 (1)

N K Rajah (Muru Rajah & Partners) and Remesha Pillai (Mansur Husain & Partners) for the appellant

Mathavan Devadas (Deputy Public Prosecutor) for the respondent.

L P Thean JA

(delivering the judgment of the court):

1 The appellant, a Nigerian national, was tried before the High Court on a charge for importing into Singapore six packets of substance containing not less than 2,199g of diamorphine on 29 November 1990 at about 8.00am at Keppel Railway Station, contrary to s 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185). He was convicted and was sentenced to suffer death. Against his conviction this appeal was brought. We heard the appeal and, at the conclusion of the hearing, we dismissed it. We now give our reasons.

The prosecution case

2 The evidence adduced by the Prosecution, so far as material, was this. On 29 November 1990, the appellant was on board the train from West Malaysia which arrived at Keppel Railway Station (“the railway station”) at about 7.00am. A team of three customs officers from the Investigation Branch of the Customs and Excise Department were carrying out surveillance duties in plain clothes at the station. The team comprised Chief Customs Officer R Tanahgobar (“CCO Tanahgobar”), Higher Customs Officer Abdul Aziz bin Hashim (“HCO Aziz”) and Higher Customs Officer Pius Michael (“HCO Michael”).

3 As the train came to a halt, CCO Tanahgobar saw the appellant behaving suspiciously at the exit of coach No 4. He informed HCO Michael to keep the appellant under surveillance. HCO Michael boarded the train to observe the appellant. He noticed the appellant walking back to coach No 4 and sitting on a bed. The appellant waited for all the other passengers to alight before he got off. He carried a black briefcase, a grey coloured plastic bag and a colourful bag with vertical stripes. He walked towards the immigration counter...