Imran bin Mohd Arip v Public Prosecutor and other appeals
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Sundaresh Menon CJ |
Judgment Date | 18 December 2020 |
Neutral Citation | [2020] SGCA 120 |
Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
Docket Number | Criminal Appeal Nos 22, 23 and 24 of 2019 |
Year | 2020 |
Published date | 23 December 2020 |
Hearing Date | 19 November 2020 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Daniel Chia Hsiung Wen and Ker Yanguang (Morgan Lewis Stamford LLC) and Prasad s/o Karunakarn (K Prasad & Co),Singa Retnam (IRB Law LLP) and Josephine Iezu Costan (David Nayar and Associates),Dhanaraj James Selvaraj (James Selvaraj LLC) and Mohammad Shafiq bin Haja Maideen (Abdul Rahman Law Corporation) |
Defendant Counsel | Wong Woon Kwong, Chin Jincheng and Shana Poon (Attorney-General's Chambers) |
Citation | [2020] SGCA 120 |
In cases where two or more persons are charged for the
In respect of a drug trafficking charge against several co-offenders framed in common intention, one complication which may arise is when the
In the morning of 8 February 2017, Pragas Krissamy (“Pragas”) and Tamilselvam a/l Yagasvranan (“Tamil”) passed Imran Bin Mohd Arip (“Imran”) a white plastic bag (“the white plastic bag”) with two packets containing 894.2g of granular/powdery substance (“the Drugs”). This was subsequently analysed and found to contain not less than 19.42g of diamorphine (hereinafter referred to by its street name “heroin”). This formed the subject matter of the charges under the MDA against Imran, Pragas and Tamil, who were subject to a joint trial (“the trial”) before the High Court judge (“the Judge”) below:
After the trial, the Judge convicted Imran, Pragas and Tamil of their respective charges under the MDA. The Judge found,
Imran, Pragas and Tamil, whom we refer to collectively as the appellants, appeal against their conviction and sentence in CA/CCA 22/2019, CA/CCA 23/2019 and CA/CCA 24/2019 respectively.
Factual background in the Agreed Statement of FactsThe background facts are not in dispute and are drawn from the Statement of Agreed Facts as well as the Judge’s findings in
On 8 February 2017, at about 7.05am, officers from the Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) observed Tamil and Pragas entering the carpark of Block 518A Jurong West Street 52, after parking their motorcycles at the motorcycle lots behind Block 517 Jurong West Street 52. Tamil and Pragas walked towards Block 518 Jurong West Street 52 (“Block 518”), with Pragas carrying a black haversack. Before Tamil entered the lift at Block 518, Tamil passed Pragas a handphone (GD at [7]).
At about 7.09am, Tamil came out of the lift at the fourth floor of Block 518. He met Imran, who came out of #04-139 of Block 518 (“the Unit”). Tamil called Pragas, who answered using the handphone. Pragas then walked up the staircase to the fourth floor of Block 518.
Senior Staff Sergeant Wilson Chew Wei Xun (“SSSgt Chew”) and Woman Staff Sergeant Cynthia Lee Shue Ching, who were at #07-08 of Parc Vista Tower 1 (a condominium facing Block 518), saw Pragas opening his black haversack and taking out a white plastic bag which he handed over to Imran. Imran then walked back to the Unit with a white plastic bag. Thereafter, Tamil and Pragas walked down the staircase of the block and towards their parked motorcycles (GD at [8]).
At about 7.10am, a team of officers from the CNB arrested Pragas and Tamil near their parked motorcycles. They seized, among other things, $6,700 (later marked as exhibit “E1”) from Tamil’s black waist pouch as well as three handphones (GD at [10]). At about 7.15am, another team of CNB officers raided the Unit and arrested Imran in the kitchen. An initial search of the Unit revealed the following exhibits (GD at [11]–[12]):
During a second search of the Unit at about 11.00am, the following items were seized (GD at [13]):
The heroin which formed the subject matter of the charges against Imran, Pragas and Tamil were contained in bundles C2A1A and C2B1A. The remaining exhibits found in the Unit containing heroin were not the subject of the charges against Imran, Pragas and Tamil.
After an analysis by the Health Science Authority (“HSA”), C2A1A and C2B1A were found to contain not less than 5.79g and 13.63g of heroin respectively, totalling 19.42g (GD at [14]).
The parties’ respective cases at the trialThe Prosecution’s caseThe Prosecution sought to prove that Imran had engaged in a conspiracy with Pragas and Tamil to have the Drugs delivered to himself, and that Pragas and Tamil had delivered the Drugs to Imran in furtherance of their common intention. The Prosecution’s case against Imran was that he had actual possession of the Drugs, that he had actual knowledge that they contained heroin, and that he possessed the Drugs for the purpose of trafficking.
The Prosecution’s case against Pragas was that he had actual possession of the Drugs before handing them over to Imran, in furtherance of the common intention between Pragas and Tamil. There is some dispute as to whether the Prosecution’s case against Pragas was premised on his actual knowledge of or wilful blindness to the nature of the Drugs. This point is of critical significance to the outcome of Pragas’s appeal and will be discussed in some detail below at [87]–[103].
The Prosecution’s case against Tamil was that Tamil knew and consented to Pragas’s possession of the Drugs. Relying on s 18(4) of the MDA, the Prosecution sought to prove that Tamil was deemed to be in possession of the Drugs. The Prosecution sought to prove that Tamil had actual knowledge of the nature of the Drugs and, in the alternative, pursuant to s 18(2) of the MDA, that he was presumed to have known the nature of the Drugs.
The appellants’ defencesWhilst accepting that Pragas and Tamil had delivered the Drugs to himself, Imran claimed that he had only intended to order one pound in gross weight of heroin, and not two pounds (the approximate gross weight of the Drugs). This defence, if proved, would reduce the
Pragas and Tamil both claimed that their common intention was only to deliver contraband cigarettes to Imran. Both of them also claimed, as a matter of
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Imran bin Mohd Arip v PP
...court): Introduction The two appeals before us are a sequel to our decision in Imran bin Mohd Arip v Public Prosecutor and other appeals [2020] SGCA 120 (“CA Judgment”) in which we acquitted one of three co-accused persons, Pragas Krissamy (“Pragas”), of a capital charge under the Misuse of......
-
Public Prosecutor v Daljeet Kaur d/o Dharam Chand
...that such an inducement did not render the First and Second Statements involuntary: see e.g., Imran bin Mohd Arip v Public Prosecutor [2020] SGCA 120 at [39]; Gulam bin Notan Mohd Shariff Jamalddin v Public Prosecutor [1999] 1 SLR(R) 498 at [61]. I am of the view that significant weight oug......