Gunasilan Rajenthiran v PP

• Judge: Judith Prakash JCA,Steven Chong JCA,Chao Hick Tin SJ
• Judgment Date: 23 February 2022
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 18 of 2021

Gunasilan Rajenthiran

and

Public Prosecutor

[2022] SGCA 15

Judith Prakash JCA, Steven Chong JCA and Chao Hick Tin SJ

Criminal Appeal No 18 of 2021

Court of Appeal

Criminal Law — Statutory offences — Misuse of Drugs Act — Presumption of knowledge of controlled drugs — Appellant claiming that he knew drugs to be books — Whether s 18(2) presumption rebutted — Section 18(2) Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed)

Criminal Law — Statutory Offences — Misuse of Drugs Act — Whether Prosecution's charge should be based on purity of cannabis — Whether Prosecution should have preferred separate charges for each block of cannabis — Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed)

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Disclosure — Prosecution disclosing statements from two witnesses during trial — Defence deciding not to call witnesses — Whether Prosecution breached duty to disclose witness statements

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Statements — Admissibility — Trial judge admitting statement after voir dire — Whether mandatory death penalty notice administered by relevant officers — Whether trial judge erred in admitting statement — Section 258(3) Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed)

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) The procedural objections raised by the Appellant were without merit. The sentencing ranges for the offences of trafficking in, importing and exporting cannabis should be calibrated according to the gross weight of the cannabis, and not the potency or level of purity of the cannabis: at [12].

(2) The HSA amendments were not improper. They were done to clarify the meaning of “cannabis mixture” in light of this court's previous decisions on the meaning of “cannabis mixture”. The amendments did not affect the underlying analyses. The Appellant also failed to show how the HSA testing method was improper: at [13].

(3) The first contemporaneous statement was rightly admitted by the Judge, as the MDP notice was duly served on the Appellant who had signed on it. As stated in Explanation 2(aa) of s 258(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) (“CPC”), the contents of the MDP notice could not be said to amount to threat, inducement or promise so as to render the first contemporaneous statement inadmissible: at [14].

(4) The Prosecution had swiftly disclosed the two witness statements that could support the Appellant's case, upon hearing the Appellant's case at trial. There was no breach of the Prosecution's Kadar obligation: at [15].

(5) The Appellant failed to rebut the presumption of knowledge under s 18(2) of the MDA, as he could not prove that he had a genuine belief that he was carrying contraband items and not drugs. He admitted to wrapping “ganja”, meaning cannabis, in his raincoat pants, in his first contemporaneous statement. He also told Dr Stephen Phang, the psychiatrist of the Institute of Mental Health, that he did not believe that the Drugs were real books. Further, Pandian had also told him that those were “wrong things” to be hidden, and promised the Appellant a monetary reward of RM5,000 in return for the delivery: at [17] and [18].

(6) The Judge's finding that he was indifferent as to the true nature of the Drugs was not against the weight of the evidence. The Appellant could have checked the items at any time between the time when he collected the Drugs from Pandian till his arrival at the Tuas Checkpoint, and could have easily identified them as drugs since he was able to identify them after his arrest: at [19].

[Observation: The Judge excluded the statements other than the first contemporaneous statement on the basis that the oral remarks made by the relevant officers about the MDP notice while recording the other statements were not protected by Explanation 2(aa) of s 258(3) of the CPC since no separate MDP notice was administered in writing. Although this aspect of the Judge's decision was not challenged by the Prosecution on appeal, the court observed that it was reasonable for the relevant officers to have responded to the Appellant's queries on the MDP notice in the taking of subsequent statements, especially since the MDP notice had been administered in writing prior to the recording of any of the statements. Further, the Judge ought to have considered whether the oral remarks in themselves constituted threat, inducement or promise. As the MDP notice itself did not constitute threat, inducement or promise, it would follow that oral remarks explaining the same could not amount to any threat, inducement or promise: at [20] and [21].

The Judge had also conflated the Prosecution's primary case of actual knowledge with the Prosecution's secondary case of presumption of knowledge under s 18(2) MDA. The Judge should have examined the primary case of actual knowledge first, before dealing with the issue of presumption of knowledge. The burden of proof for the two cases differed. If the Prosecution was able to establish actual knowledge, it would follow that the accused person would not be able to rebut the presumption. The converse might not be true, as the accused person might not be able to rebut the presumption, but that did 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 SLR 95 (folld)

Facts

The appellant, Gunasilan Rajenthiran (“the Appellant”), was tried and convicted in the High Court of one charge of importing not less than 1,475.3g of cannabis under s 7 punishable under s 33(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“the MDA”). One block of vegetable matter wrapped in raincoat pants was found in the front storage box of his motorcycle (“the Motorcycle”), and four blocks of vegetable matter were found...