Public Prosecutor v Chandroo Subramaniam and others

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chan Seng Onn J
• Judgment Date: 01 October 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] SGHC 206
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Criminal Case No 36 of 2018
• Year: 2020
• Published date: 07 October 2020
• Hearing Date: 24 March 2020,26 March 2020,21 May 2019,17 May 2019,22 May 2019,17 May 2018,26 March 2019,11 July 2019,26 July 2018,10 March 2020,29 March 2019,16 May 2018,27 July 2018,25 March 2020,15 September 2020,10 July 2019,15 May 2018,15 May 2019,28 March 2019,11 March 2020,27 March 2019,25 July 2018,12 March 2020,09 July 2019,13 March 2020
• Plaintiff Counsel: John Lu Zhuoren, Chin Jincheng, Charleston Teo Wei Wen, Etsuko Lim and Jotham Tay (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Defendant Counsel: Uthayasurian s/o Sidambaram (Phoenix Law Corporation) and Lim Junchen Xavier (Surian & Partners),A Revi Shanker s/o K Annamalai (ARShanker Law Chambers) and Subir Singh Grewal (Aequitas Law LLP),Allagarsamy s/o Palaniyappan (Allagarsamy & Co), Zaminder Singh Gill (Hilborne Law LLC) and Chitra Balakrishnan (Regency Legal LLP)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Statutory offences,Misuse of Drugs Act
• Citation: [2020] SGHC 206

Chan Seng Onn J: Introduction

In the present case, the three accused persons face the following charges for their alleged involvement in the trafficking of three blocks of vegetable matter containing not less than 1,344.5g of cannabis (“the Drugs”): Pravinash a/l Chandran (“Pravinash”), the third accused, is charged under s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”) read with s 5(2) of the said Act for having the Drugs in his possession for the purpose of trafficking. Chandroo Subramaniam (“Chandroo”) and Kamalnathan a/l Muniandy (“Kamalnathan”), the first and second accused persons respectively, each face a charge for abetment by engaging in a conspiracy with Pravinash and each other to traffic the Drugs under s 5(1)(a) of the MDA read with ss 5(2) and 12 of the said Act.

All three accused persons claimed trial to their respective charges. Each of them is presently represented by a different set of defence counsel. In the course of the trial, which was spread over three years, some defence counsel were discharged for various reasons at different junctures and were replaced on each occasion by new sets of counsel. In this Judgment, I refer to Chandroo’s counsel as “DC1”, Kamalnathan’s counsel as “DC2” and Pravinash’s counsel as “DC3” (collectively, “the Defence”).

It is the Prosecution’s case that Pravinash and Kamalnathan, both Malaysians, worked in concert to deliver the Drugs to Chandroo. According to the Prosecution, Chandroo, who is a Singaporean, had ordered the Drugs from a Malaysian drug supplier for S$4,000, and Pravinash and Kamalnathan had been tasked by the said supplier to bring the Drugs to Chandroo from Malaysia. At the time of their arrest at different locations, all of the Drugs were found in Pravinash’s possession.

Pravinash’s defence is a denial of knowledge of the nature of the Drugs. Pravinash claims that he had simply been assisting Kamalnathan to transport “books”. Kamalnathan’s defence is likewise a denial of knowledge. Kamalnathan claims that the items, later established to be the Drugs, belonged to Pravinash and that he had simply been helping Pravinash find a job in Singapore. He had allegedly harboured a belief at that time that the items in question were “certificates” that were for the purpose of helping Pravinash secure a job in Singapore. Chandroo denies any involvement in the arrangement to traffic the Drugs and provides various explanations for why he had met Pravinash and Kamalnathan on the day of his arrest.

After considering the evidence and the parties’ submissions, I find that the Prosecution has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to each of the accused persons. I accordingly convict all three accused persons of the respective charges they face. I provide below the reasons for my decision.

The facts The arrest of the accused persons

On 5 March 2016, at about 5.27pm, Kamalnathan and Pravinash entered Singapore through Woodlands Checkpoint (“the Checkpoint”). Kamalnathan was riding a motorcycle bearing registration number KCP8801, and Pravinash was riding as a pillion passenger. The items later established to be the Drugs were in their possession at the time but had not been discovered at the Checkpoint.¹ The Drugs were wrapped in paper foil (marked “A1A1”, “A1B1” and “A1C1”) and further secured with transparent adhesive tape (marked “A1A”, “A1B” and “A1C”; see also photo exhibits P7 to P13).

Having crossed the Checkpoint, Kamalnathan and Pravinash proceeded to Kranji MRT station, while keeping in contact with their “boss”, one Suren (“Suren”), who was in Malaysia. Suren had been giving them instructions on the delivery of the Drugs through Kamalnathan’s handphone. At Kranji MRT station, in a public toilet, the Drugs were placed into a black Adidas haversack (marked “A”) which had been carried by Kamalnathan and Pravinash.² There is some disagreement between the two of them as to who had physical possession of the Drugs and the black Adidas haversack when they crossed the Checkpoint, and who had placed the Drugs into the black Adidas haversack at Kranji MRT station.

From Kranji MRT station, Kamalnathan and Pravinash proceeded to a nearby coffee shop (“the Kranji MRT station coffee shop”), located a few minutes away, to wait for instructions.³ They remained there for about one to two hours. Thereafter, upon receiving further instructions from Suren, the two of them made their way to a different coffee shop five to ten minutes away (“the second coffee shop”). At the second coffee shop, Kamalnathan continued to liaise with Suren over the phone. After about 15 to 20 minutes, Kamalnathan and Pravinash left at 9.17pm for Kranji Road.⁴

It was along Kranji Road that Pravinash and Kamalnathan met Chandroo. Chandroo was riding his motorcycle, which bore registration number FBG1274J. There is significant disagreement among the three accused persons as to the nature and purpose of their encounter, as well as their interactions during this meeting, which I will discuss in the course of this Judgment. It is nevertheless common ground that the three of them did interact and converse along Kranji Road that evening.

The three accused persons then left Kranji Road and attempted to regroup at the Kranji MRT station coffee shop. According to Pravinash, this was due to the presence of Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) officers in the vicinity of the former.⁵ Chandroo arrived at the Kranji MRT station coffee shop shortly after, and waited for Pravinash and Kamalnathan; however, the latter two did not stop at the Kranji MRT station coffee shop, and, according to Chandroo, simply “sped past”.⁶ Chandroo then rode off on his motorcycle.⁷ It was at this point that CNB officers moved in to arrest them.

Pravinash was arrested at the overhead bridge outside Kranji MRT station, with the Drugs in his possession. Kamalnathan was arrested near the bus stop in front of Kranji MRT station. Chandroo was arrested in the vicinity of Lian Hup Building. The CNB officers seized from the accused persons, inter alia, the following items: Pravinash: The black Adidas haversack and one mobile phone (marked “PC-HP”). Three blocks of a brown substance were recovered from the haversack (marked “A1A1A”, “A1B1A” and “A1C1A” respectively; henceforth referred to collectively as “the three blocks”). Kamalnathan: One Lenovo tablet (marked “KM-HP1”), one Nokia mobile phone (marked “KM-HP2”) and S$20.55 in cash. Chandroo: Two mobile phones (marked “CS-HP1” and “CS-HP2”) and one brown envelope (marked “B”) containing S$4,000 in cash (marked “B1”). The cash marked B1 was all in S$50 notes secured together with a single rubber band.

Drug analysis

On 7 March 2016, Station Inspector Yip Lai Peng (“SI Yip”) submitted the three blocks to the Health Sciences Authority (“HSA”) for analysis. The chain of custody is not disputed (except for an allegation made by Pravinash in his supplementary written closing submissions, which I will address subsequently (see [94] below)). Upon analysis, the three blocks were found to contain a total of not less than 1,344.5g of cannabis, ie, the Drugs: A1A1A was found to contain not less than 479g of vegetable matter which was analysed to be cannabis.⁸ A1B1A was found to contain not less than 428.1g of vegetable matter which was analysed to be cannabis.⁹ A1C1A was found to contain not less than 437.4g of vegetable matter which was analysed to be cannabis.¹⁰

None of the parties dispute the analysis of the seized drug exhibits and the results of the analysis thereof. Further, upon DNA analysis by the HSA’s DNA profiling laboratory, Kamalnathan’s DNA was found on the adhesive side of the tapes used to secure A1C1A.¹¹

The recorded statements

There being no challenge on grounds of voluntariness, all the recorded statements listed in the following paragraphs were admitted into evidence. There was some dispute, in particular with respect to the statements recorded from Kamalnathan, as to whether the recording officers accurately recorded all that Kamalnathan told them – I will address this in the course of my analysis (see [64], [65] below).

Pravinash

Four statements relating to the charge against Pravinash were recorded from him between 5 March and 10 March 2016 (collectively, “Pravinash’s statements”). They are as follows: On the day of his arrest (5 March 2016), at about 10.48pm, Senior Station Inspector Ng Tze Chiang Tony (“SSI Ng”) recorded a contemporaneous statement from Pravinash. The next day, 6 March 2016, at about 10.17am, Station Inspector Quah Yong Sen (“SI Quah”) recorded a cautioned statement from Pravinash pursuant to s 23 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) (“CPC”). One Malliga Anandha Krishnan (“Malliga”) served as interpreter for Pravinash who chose to speak in Tamil. SI Quah recorded the following two long statements from Pravinash under s 22 of the CPC, with Malliga serving as interpreter (referred to collectively as “Pravinash’s long statements”): a statement recorded on 9 March 2016 at about 2.15pm; and a statement recorded on 10 March 2016 at about 2.34pm.

Kamalnathan

Seven statements relating to the charge against Kamalnathan were recorded from him between 5 March and 7 October 2016 (collectively, “Kamalnathan’s statements”). They are as follows: On the day of his arrest (5 March 2016), at about 10.50pm, Staff Sergeant Muhammad Fardlie bin Ramlie (“SSgt Fardlie”) recorded a contemporaneous statement from Kamalnathan. The next day, 6 March 2016, at about 10.15am, SI Yip recorded a cautioned statement from Kamalnathan pursuant to s 23 of the CPC. One Subramaniam s/o Palanisamy (“Subramaniam”) served as interpreter for Kamalnathan who chose to speak in Tamil. SI Yip recorded the following five long statements from Kamalnathan under s 22 of the CPC, with Subramaniam serving as interpreter (referred to collectively as “Kamalnathan’s...