Munusamy Ramarmurth v PP

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeJudith Prakash JCA,Tay Yong Kwang JCA,Steven Chong JCA
Judgment Date27 October 2022
Docket NumberCriminal Appeal No 31 of 2021
CourtCourt of Appeal (Singapore)
Munusamy Ramarmurth
and
Public Prosecutor

Judith Prakash JCA, Tay Yong Kwang JCA and Steven Chong JCA

Criminal Appeal No 31 of 2021

Court of Appeal

Criminal Law — Statutory offences — Misuse of Drugs Act — Accused found with bag in rear box of his motorcycle which contained diamorphine — Whether accused knew that bag contained diamorphine and possessed it for purposes of trafficking — Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed)

Evidence — Weight of evidence — Accused not having legal advice on presumptions under Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) when giving investigative statements — Whether less weight should be accorded to accused's investigative statements — Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed)

Evidence — Witnesses — Prompts given to Prosecution witness while under cross-examination — Whether prejudice to accused's case should be presumed

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) The appellant's arguments on the accuracy and authenticity of some of the Statements were rejected because the evidence did not support his assertions: at [16], [17], [20] and [22].

(2) The fact that the appellant did not have a lawyer to explain the presumptions under the MDA when giving the Statements did not affect the weight accorded to them because an understanding of how presumptions under the MDA operate did not affect an accused person's ability to state exculpatory facts. In the Statements, the appellant was asked questions that specifically elicited facts pertaining to the elements of the charges he faced, and he would have known he was facing charges of drug trafficking. He thus would have understood what facts he would have to state in his defence: at [31] to [33].

(3) The appellant's argument that it should have been made clear to him during investigations what presumption would be relied upon by the Prosecution was wrong. The case which he relied on, Zainal bin Hamad v PP[2018] 2 SLR 1119, did not stand for this proposition: at [35].

(4) It did not matter that the appellant repeated at various times in the Statements that he did not know what was inside the Red Bag; it was settled that a denial of knowledge was not sufficient to rebut the presumption of knowledge imposed by s 18(2) of the MDA: at [42] and [43].

(5) Although the Judge had accepted some parts of the appellant's version of events, she was correct to reject his assertion that he thought that the Red Bag contained stolen handphones because of the July 2017 Incident as he did not mention it in any of the Statements: at [47] to [50].

(6) The appellant's argument that the Prosecution's use of the weight of drugs to suggest an intention to traffic was tantamount to invoking the presumption of trafficking under s 17(c) of the MDA was wrong. Drawing an inference of an intention to traffic from the weight of drugs was not the same as invoking the presumption of trafficking under s 17(c) of the MDA. A presumption did not merely allow a court to draw an inference from a fact; it allowed the court to shift the burden of proof completely: at [54].

(7) The defence of “bailment” might allow an accused person to avoid liability where he intended to and in fact returned the drugs to the person who initially entrusted him with the drugs (but note the observation below). The appellant's reliance on this defence was an afterthought as he did not mention in the Statements that he thought Boy would return to retrieve the Red Bag and the Drugs from the rear box of the Motorcycle. Further, the evidence undermined his assertion that he thought Boy was going to retrieve the Drugs from the rear box of the Motorcycle because it established that the appellant had locked the rear box after the Red Bag was placed inside it: at [58], [60] and [64].

(8) The appellant had not established that IO Wong's conduct, although improper, had caused him prejudice. His argument that IO Wong's conduct during the trial meant that prejudice to his case should be presumed was rejected. There was no support for the concept of “presumed prejudice” in Singapore jurisprudence: at [75].

[Observation: The appellant's version of events would not have been sufficient to establish the “bailment” defence because the surrounding objective facts showed that he knew or intended for his “bailment” to be part of the process of supply or distribution of the drugs: at [67] and [68].

Even if prejudice could be presumed, it would need to be precipitated by, at the very least, substantial misconduct by law enforcement, and no such misconduct existed here: at [75] and [76].]

Case(s) referred to

Arun Ramesh Kumar v PP [2022] 1 SLR 1152 (refd)

Gobi a/l Avedian v PP [2021] 1 SLR 180 (folld)

Jasbir Singh v PP [1994] 1 SLR(R) 782; [1994] 2 SLR 18 (folld)

Mohammad Rizwan bin Akbar Husain v PP [2020] SGCA 45 (refd)

Obeng Comfort v PP [2017] 1 SLR 633 (refd)

Ramesh a/l Perumal v PP [2019] 1 SLR 1003 (refd)

Roshdi bin Abdullah Altway v PP [2022] 1 SLR 535 (refd)

Zainal bin Hamad v PP [2018] 2 SLR 1119 (refd)

Facts

The appellant, Munusamy Ramamurth, was arrested by Central Narcotics Bureau) (“CNB”) officers. He was taken to the carpark where he had parked his motorcycle (“the Motorcycle”). After a search, a red plastic bag (“the Red Bag”) was found in the rear box of the Motorcycle. After analysis, the Red Bag was found to contain 57.54g of diamorphine (“the Drugs”). During investigations, the appellant gave four contemporaneous statements, a cautioned statement, and four long statements (collectively, “the Statements”).

The appellant was charged with possession of the Drugs for the purpose of trafficking under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (the “MDA”) and claimed trial. During the trial in the General Division of the High Court, the appellant told the court that on the day of his arrest, a person named “Saravanan” had called him and told him that one “Boy” had placed the Red Bag in the rear box of the Motorcycle. He also claimed that Saravanan had mentioned an incident in July 2017 (“the July 2017 Incident”) where Saravanan had asked the appellant to store stolen handphones in the Motorcycle. He had agreed and the stolen items were later retrieved by Boy and Saravanan. Accordingly, his defence was that he thought the Red Bag contained stolen handphones that Boy would retrieve later, and thus: (a) he did not know that the Red Bag contained the Drugs; and (b) he did not possess the Red Bag with the intention that it would be moved along any supply or distribution process, ie, he invoked the “bailment” defence set out in Ramesh a/l Perumal v PP[2019] 1 SLR 1003.

The trial judge (“the Judge”) rejected the appellant's version of events, primarily because it was not mentioned in the Statements. She thus held that he was unable to rebut the presumption of knowledge under s 18(2) of the MDA, and that he possessed the Drugs for the purpose of trafficking.

The appellant challenged the Judge's decision in its entirety. He first made several challenges regarding the accuracy and authenticity of some of the Statements; he also argued that the Judge should have accorded less weight to the Statements because he was not advised by a lawyer on the operation of presumptions in the MDA when they were recorded. He then argued that the Judge erred in finding that: (a) he did not rebut the presumption of knowledge; and (b) he possessed the Drugs for the purpose of trafficking. He also raised the fact that during trial, the investigating officer, Derek Wong (“IO Wong”), had prompted one of the Prosecution's witnesses on the witness stand, and argued that this conduct had prejudiced his case.

Legislation referred to

Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (2020 Rev Ed) Art 9(3)

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 122(6)

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 23(1)

Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) ss 5(1)(a), 5(2), 17(c), 18(2)

Suresh s/o Damodara (Damodara Ong LLC) andJosephine Iezu Costan (David Nayar and Associates) for the appellant;

Chin Jincheng, Chong YongandBenedict Chan(Attorney-General's Chambers) for the respondent.

27 October 2022

Judgment reserved.

Judith Prakash JCA (delivering the judgment of the court):

Introduction

1 The appellant, Munusamy Ramarmurth, was convicted in the General Division of the High Court (“High Court”) on one charge of possessing 57.54g of diamorphine for the purposes of trafficking under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”). The appellant did not receive a certificate of substantive assistance from the Prosecution and, accordingly, he received the mandatory death penalty. He now appeals against his conviction and sentence. Aside from challenging the court's findings on the elements of the charge, he also raises arguments regarding misconduct by law enforcement officers during the trial.

Factual background

2 The facts of the present case were recounted in detail by the High Court judge (“the Judge”) in Public Prosecutor v Munusamy Ramarmurth[2021] SGHC 255 (“the Judgment”). We provide a brief summary.

3 On 26 January 2018, sometime after 11.00am, the appellant parked his motorcycle (“the Motorcycle”) at an open-air carpark (“the Carpark”) located along Harbourfront Avenue and proceeded to Harbourfront Centre, Tower 2, to take up his duties as a cleaner. At some point thereafter he opened the rear box of the Motorcycle and thereafter closed it before leaving the Carpark. Sometime after 1.00pm, officers from the Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) were positioned at Harbourfront Avenue. They located the Motorcycle in the Carpark and thereafter kept an eye on it. No one approached the Motorcycle while it was under observation.

4 Several hours later, at around 4.05pm, the appellant was arrested...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT