Garnam Singh v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Karthigesu JA
• Judgment Date: 07 April 1994
• Neutral Citation: [1994] SGCA 55
• Date: 07 April 1994
• Subject Matter: Defence of personal consumption,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Trafficking in controlled drugs,Witnesses,Whether accused's two statements made involuntarily due to withdrawal symptoms,Evidence,Criminal Law,Competency,Misuse of Drugs Act,s 17 Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185),Statutory offences,Whether presumption rebutted,Evaluation of expert evidence on accused's drug consumption,Voluntariness,Whether different consideration of expert evidence should be given at voir dire stage and at trial,Statements
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 44 of 1993
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Defendant Counsel: PO Ram, Wong Choon Ning and Kow Keng Siong (Deputy Public Prosecutors)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Raj Kumar (Raj Kumar & Rama) and Aqbal Singh (Aqbal Singh & Pnrs) (both assigned)

The appellant was charged with trafficking diamorphine (amended in the High Court by the trial judge to `trafficking by transporting`) under s 5(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) (`the Act`). He was convicted of the amended charge and was sentenced to suffer death. We dismissed his appeal against the conviction on 21 March 1994 without finding it necessary to hear the learned deputy public prosecutor. Our reasons follow.

The appellant was arrested on 3 June 1992 at Blk 119, Bukit Merah View, by two police officers, PC Koh Guang Peng (`PC Koh`) and PC Quek Suan (`PC Quek`), who were at that time patrolling the corridors of the block.

The two officers first saw the appellant on the 14th floor of the block when the appellant was outside a flat (`the flat`) padlocking the gate. He appeared surprised to see them and lowered his head and tried to walk past them quickly. They noticed that he was carrying a big red plastic bag.

The officers decided to check him and asked him for his particulars. The appellant took out his wallet and told them that he did not have his IC with him and that it was inside the flat. He turned around as though to return to the flat, but instead, he ran.

The officers gave chase and managed to grab hold of him twice but he pushed them away, and when he reached the end of the block on the 14th floor, he threw away the red plastic bag. This was followed by a pursuit which took place along the 13th, 12th, 11th and 10th floors and which finally ended on the 9th floor, where he was subdued and secured with handcuffs to the staircase railings.

According to the two policemen, the appellant had upset flower pots along the way and had thrown a flower pot or brandished a flower pot stand at them. The appellant on the other hand alleged that the two policemen had assaulted him from the rear when he was running and they had assaulted him further after he was secured with handcuffs to the staircase railings.

The two officers then checked his personal particulars and called for assistance. The appellant struggled to free himself from the handcuffs and told the officers that if they removed the handcuffs, he would jump down and commit suicide. When they ignored him, he bit his tongue with such force that the officers were not able to force open his jaws.

Eventually, three members of Task Force One arrived. They were Cpl Adnan bin Hashim, PC Chia Peng Hoe and PC Noor Hidayat bin Sukairi. They were briefed by PC Koh and PC Quek. After that, PC Quek, Cpl Adnan and PC Chia went down the block to look for the red plastic bag.

The red plastic bag was subsequently recovered on the grass verge by the block by PC Quek. A total of 40 sachets containing white powdery substance were found. On analysis at the department of scientific services, the sachets were found to contain not less than 35.63g of diamorphine.

Two statements were recorded from the appellant by the investigation officer Staff Sergeant V Kanasalingam. The first was a s 122(6) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) (`CPC`) cautioned statement recorded on 9 June and the second, a statement (`the investigation statement`) recorded on 10 June. The appellant accepted that he had made the statements but contended that they were not made voluntarily as they were tainted by inducements and promises of the staff sergeant.

The appellant, on the day of his arrest and in the days when he was in custody, underwent a series of medical examinations. As the physical and psychological well-being of the appellant was central to his defence and to his contentions that he did not make the two statements voluntarily, it is necessary to refer to the medical examinations.

On 3 June, the day of his arrest, he was examined by Dr Chua Tee Lian, who stated that the appellant`s vital signs were stable and his nervous system was intact. Dr Tee added that the appellant was conscious but was uncooperative and refused to open his eyes and mouth.

On 4 June, Dr Naranjan Singh examined the appellant and stated that he had mild asthma, and that he was displaying drug withdrawal symptoms. Dr Singh saw the appellant retching but did not consider the withdrawal symptoms severe enough to warrant rehabilitation.

On 5 June and 6 June, the appellant was again examined by Dr Singh. He found that the appellant`s condition had generally improved and there was no vomiting. His only complaint was the lack of appetite.

On 8 June, Dr Singh examined the appellant and found that there were no signs of withdrawal symptoms and there was no record of the appellant vomiting or retching.

Before and after the cautioned statement was recorded, the appellant was examined by Dr Lim Yong Hwa. Dr Lim testified that he had not particularly looked out for withdrawal symptoms but added that, from his own notes, he did not think that there were any withdrawal symptoms displayed by the appellant. Dr Lim also noted a compression of the median and radical nerves at the site of handcuff marks on the appellant`s wrists, which, in his view, was temporary. He, nevertheless, referred the appellant to the orthopaedic outpatient clinic at Changi Prison Hospital for review.

Trial in the High Court

A voir dire was conducted to determine the admissibility of the two statements as there were allegations of assaults, deprivation of medical treatment and inducement with regard to the recording of the two statements. At the end of the voir dire, the learned trial judge ruled that the statements had been made voluntarily and admitted the statements in evidence.

In his s 122(6) statement, the appellant said `I do not wish to say anything`. In the investigation statement, he referred to the events leading up to his arrest.

Briefly, he said that, on 3 June, he was asked by one Ah Tee if he was prepared to deliver the drugs. He agreed and Ah Tee then handed him a plastic bag containing the 40 sachets. In return for having delivered the drugs, Ah Tee would give him two sachets. He was then instructed to transport the drugs to a bus stop in front of his mother`s flat at 8.15pm that night. He brought the drugs home at 3pm and placed them in a red plastic bag together with his clothing. He then smoked some drugs and went to bed. At 7pm he got up, dressed and had a meal. He then stepped out of the flat carrying the red plastic bag with the drugs and clothing when he was confronted by the two policemen who asked for his IC. He told them it was in his flat and said that he would show it to them. Instead, he turned and ran. The officers chased him. At the staircase landing of the 14th floor, he threw the plastic bag and ran downstairs until he was arrested at the 8th floor.

At the trial, the learned trial judge found that the appellant had been in possession of the drugs when he was arrested. Under s 17 of the Act, a rebuttable presumption arose from his possession of the drugs that he had been trafficking in the drugs. This was...