Public Prosecutor v Ranjit Singh Gill Menjeet Singh and another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Hoo Sheau Peng JC
• Judgment Date: 06 October 2016
• Neutral Citation: [2016] SGHC 217
• Plaintiff Counsel: Han Ming Kuang and Jason Chua (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Docket Number: Criminal Case No 21 of 2016
• Date: 06 October 2016
• Hearing Date: 12 April 2016,05 April 2016,07 April 2016,14 April 2016,27 June 2016,08 April 2016,06 April 2016,15 April 2016,13 April 2016
• Subject Matter: Statutory offences,Misuse of Drugs Act,Criminal Law
• Year: 2016
• Defendant Counsel: Amarjit Singh (Donaldson & Burkinshaw LLP) and Mahesh Rai (Drew & Napier LLC),Singa Retnam (Aziz Tayabali & Associates), Dhanaraj James Selvaraj (James Selvaraj LLC) and Gino Hardial Singh (Prestige Legal LLP)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Citation: [2016] SGHC 217
• Published date: 05 May 2020

Hoo Sheau Peng JC:

The first accused, Ranjit Singh Gill Menjeet Singh (“Ranjit”), claimed trial to a charge of trafficking in a Class-A controlled drug under s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“the MDA”). Specifically, Ranjit was said to have trafficked by giving to the second accused, Mohammad Farid Bin Batra (“Farid”), five packets containing not less than 1,359.9 grams of a granular/powdery substance which was analysed and found to contain not less than 35.21 grams of diamorphine (“the drugs”). As for Farid, he claimed trial to a capital charge of trafficking in a Class-A controlled drug under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the MDA. Farid was said to have trafficked by having in his possession the drugs for the purpose of trafficking. The offences were punishable under s 33(1) or, alternatively, s 33B of the MDA.

At the conclusion of the joint trial, I found that the Prosecution had proved both charges beyond a reasonable doubt. I convicted Ranjit and Farid of the respective charge against each of them. Under s 33(1) of the MDA, the punishment prescribed for the charges is death. However, s 33B(1)(a) of the MDA gives the court a discretion to impose the alternative sentence of life imprisonment and a minimum of 15 strokes of the cane provided the conditions under s 33B(2)(a) and (b) of the MDA are met.

I found that Ranjit had fulfilled the requirements under s 33B(2)(a) and (b) of the MDA, and exercised my discretion to impose life imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane on Ranjit. Farid, on the other hand, had not fulfilled either requirement. Thus, I imposed the mandatory sentence of death. I now provide my reasons for my decision.

The Prosecution’s case Events leading to the arrests

The basic facts were not disputed, and were contained in a Statement of Agreed Facts which was furnished pursuant to s 267(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) (“CPC”).

Ranjit, a 42-year old Malaysian, was a self-employed driver. Farid, a 43-year old Singaporean, was employed as a house mover. In the evening of 6 February 2014, a party of officers from the Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) began surveillance in the vicinity of Choa Chu Kang Way. In particular, they were looking out for Farid, who was expected to be using a car bearing registration number SJK 5768J (“the Car”), and for a Malaysian-registered bus which was suspected to be carrying a consignment of drugs.

At about 8.35pm, a Malaysian-registered bus bearing registration number JHD 5635 (“the Bus”) was seen parked beside the multi-story car park at Block 610A Choa Chu Kang Way. About 45 minutes later, the Car, which was driven by Farid, pulled up and stopped in front of the Bus. Ranjit, who was the driver of the Bus, then got down. He was carrying a white Robinsons plastic bag (“the Robinsons bag”) in his hand. He approached the Car. Through the open window on the front passenger side of the Car, Ranjit placed the Robinsons bag on the front passenger seat. In return, he received a red-and-yellow package from Farid, which he brought back to the Bus.

Following the exchange, Ranjit and Farid went their separate ways in their respective vehicles. One group of CNB officers followed the Car. Another group followed the Bus. The Car was intercepted at about 9.25pm near Yew Tee MRT and Farid was arrested. The Bus was intercepted at about 10.10pm along Seletar Expressway Exit 3 and Ranjit was arrested.

Recovery of the drug exhibits and other exhibits

In the Bus, two envelopes containing cash amounts of S$4,050 and S$1,470 respectively were found under the driver’s seat.

In the Car, the Robinsons bag was found. It contained (within two more layers of plastic bags) three newspaper-wrapped packages. One newspaper-wrapped package contained a plastic packet containing a brownish granular/powdery substance. Each of the other two newspaper-wrapped packages contained two packets, each in turn containing another plastic packet containing a brownish granular/powdery substance. In total, there were five plastic packets.

Following his arrest, Farid was escorted to his residential address on record at Block 542 Choa Chu Kang Street 52 #04-62 at about 11.15pm. Nothing incriminating was found there. However, upon questioning by Senior Station Inspector David Ng at about 11.32pm, Farid stated “Got balance. About half.” in his unit at Regent Grove Condominium, Tower B1 #04-25 (“the Unit”). CNB officers immediately escorted Farid to the Unit and found, among other things, numerous empty plastic packets, two electronic weighing scales, and four amounts of cash adding up to a total of S$13,888.

Analysis by Health Sciences Authority

Subsequently, the five packets containing the granular/powdery substance were submitted by CNB to the Health Sciences Authority (“HSA”) for analysis. An officer of the HSA, Hu Yiling Charmaine, found that the packets contained, in total, not less than 1,359.9 grams of the brownish granular/powdery substance, which contained not less than 35.21 grams of diamorphine. The HSA also found that the surface of the Robinsons bag carried genetic material which matched the DNA profile of Ranjit. There was no dispute as to the integrity and proper custody of all the exhibits at all material times.

Admissibility of evidence concerning other transactions

Up to this point, all the facts stated formed part of the Statement of Agreed Facts. In the course of the proceedings, a preliminary question (“the preliminary objection”) arose as to whether further evidence concerning the two areas described below should be admitted: Previous transactions involving heroin and/or other illegal items. In Farid’s statements furnished to CNB in the course of investigations, he mentioned transactions with “Abang” (whom he claimed to be Ranjit) involving heroin. In Ranjit’s statements furnished to CNB in the course of investigations, there were transactions said to involve something illegal (which he referred to as “makan” or “barang”), and concerned Farid and other parties. A series of dealings involving one quantity of methamphetamine. Eventually, the methamphetamine was found in the red-and-yellow package which Ranjit received from Farid, and which Ranjit subsequently delivered to another party. In the statements of both Ranjit and Farid, there were details of how and why Farid came to be in possession of the methamphetamine, and how and why the methamphetamine was later transferred to Ranjit.

Ranjit’s counsel, Mr Singa Retnam (“Mr Retnam”), made an application to exclude from evidence (i) the portions of the statements made by Ranjit and Farid regarding those two areas (the “Disputed Portions”); (ii) two HSA certificates relating to the methamphetamine in the red-and-yellow package; and (iii) three photographs of the red-and-yellow package and the methamphetamine. In addition to the evidence concerning those two areas, Mr Retnam also objected to the admissibility of one photograph of other drug exhibits recovered in the Unit.

At this juncture, I pause to observe that Ranjit and Farid accepted that the statements they made to CNB were made voluntarily; without any threat, inducement or promise made to them before or during the recording of the statements. Mr Retnam’s ground of objection to the Disputed Portions was that such evidence concerned Ranjit’s acts on previous and/or unrelated occasions, and constituted similar fact evidence of which the prejudicial value outweighed its probative force.

The Prosecution submitted that the Disputed Portions went towards proving Ranjit’s state of mind (in particular, his knowledge) at the time of the offence and with regard to the drugs. Therefore, the Prosecution submitted that such evidence was admissible under ss 14 and 15 of the Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) (the “EA”) which state:

Facts showing existence of state of mind or of body or bodily feeling

14. Facts showing the existence of any state of mind, such as intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashness, ill-will or good-will towards any particular person, or showing the existence of any state of body or bodily feeling, are relevant when the existence of any such state of mind or body or bodily feeling is in issue or relevant.

…

Facts bearing on question whether act was accidental or intentional

15. When there is a question whether an act was accidental or intentional or done with a particular knowledge or intention, the fact that such act formed part of a series of similar occurrences, in each of which the person doing the act was concerned, is relevant.

In relation to evidence on the series of dealings concerning the methamphetamine (including parts of the Disputed Portions, the HSA certificates and the three photographs) and the photograph of other drug exhibits recovered from the Unit, the Prosecution also submitted that such evidence was admissible to provide the court “with a complete account of the facts”. Otherwise, there would be gaps in the evidence, with difficulties in making sense of the events. Reliance was placed on ss 6 and 9 of the EA which provide:

Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction

6. Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places.

Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts

9. Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which establish the identity of any thing or person whose identity is relevant, or fix the time or place at which any fact in issue or relevant fact happened or which show the relation of parties by whom any such fact was transacted, are relevant in so far as they are necessary for that purpose.

Turning...