Public Prosecutor v Devendran A/L Supramaniam

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Tan Siong Thye J
• Judgment Date: 14 July 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] SGHC 140
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Criminal Case No 4 of 2014
• Year: 2014
• Published date: 15 July 2014
• Hearing Date: 12 February 2014,04 February 2014,22 April 2014,11 February 2014,14 July 2014,05 February 2014
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ma Hanfeng and Bagchi Anamika (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Defendant Counsel: Pratap Kishan (M/s Kishan LLC) and Ramachandran Shiever Subramaniam (M/s Grays LLC)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Statutory offences,Misuse of Drugs Act,Illegally importing controlled drug
• Citation: [2014] SGHC 140

Tan Siong Thye J:

The accused, Devendran A/L Supramaniam, was charged with importing diamorphine into Singapore as follows:

That you, Devendran A/L Supramaniam,

are charged that you, on the 12th day of May 2011 at or about 5.48 am, at Woodlands Checkpoint, Singapore (“the said place”), while riding a Malaysian registered motorcycle bearing registration no JMV4571, did import into the said place a controlled drug specified in Class A of the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185 (“the said Act”), to wit, six (6) packets of granular/powdery substances weighing 2728.1 grams which was analysed and found to contain not less than 83.36 grams of diamorphine, without authorisation under the said Act or the Regulations made thereunder, and you have thereby committed an offence under section 7 and punishable under section 33 of the said Act, and further upon your conviction under section 7 of the said Act, you may alternatively be liable to be punished under section 33B of the said Act.

The amount of diamorphine imported by the accused exceeds the statutory limit of 15 grammes as prescribed under the Second Schedule of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“the Act”). Hence this offence is punishable with death unless he is liable to be punished under s 33B of the Act. The accused claims trial to the charge. His defence is that he did not know that the diamorphine was concealed in his motorcycle seat. The prosecution’s case

The prosecution adduced evidence that the accused is a 29-year-old male Malaysian. At the time of his arrest he was working as a part-time lorry attendant in Malaysia.

At Woodlands Checkpoint Counter 43

On 12 May 2011, at about 4.45 am, the accused rode his Malaysian-registered motorcycle bearing registration number JMV4571 into Singapore at the Woodlands Checkpoint. He went to Counter 43. He produced his passport to PW1, Corporal Muhammad Khatib bin Sani, the Primary Screening Officer with the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (“ICA”). PW1 then screened the accused’s particulars using the ICA computer. He was alerted by a notification that the accused was on the blacklist. PW1 told the accused to switch off his motorcycle engine and to hand over his motorcycle key. At the same time the ICA Quick Response Team was activated. The accused, together with his passport and motorcycle key, was then handed over to PW2, Corporal Mohamad Raime bin Hashim of the ICA Quick Response Team, who soon arrived at the scene.

At the ICA Arrival Car Secondary Team Office

The accused was asked by PW2 to push his motorcycle to the ICA Arrival Car Secondary Team Office. He parked his motorcycle at one of the parking lots located outside this office. In the meantime, officers from the Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) were alerted. They arrived shortly after and the accused was handed over to them for investigation.

Physical and dog search

The accused was then told by one of the CNB Officers to push his motorcycle to the Police K9 (dog unit) garage. A physical search was conducted on the motorcycle but nothing incriminating was found. However, during the search, PW4, Staff Sergeant Karathigayan s/o Jayabalan, felt the motorcycle seat was “unusually hard and bulging”.¹ Later, a police dog search was also conducted. There was no reaction from the dog.

Backscatter search

Thereafter, the accused was asked to push his motorcycle to the ICA Detention Yard. The ICA Backscatter Team arrived and did a backscatter scan on the motorcycle. The scan revealed some black background on the motorcycle seat. In the presence of the accused, PW5, Sergeant Mohamad Suffian bin Salleh, then proceeded to dismantle the motorcycle seat. Six bundles wrapped in newspaper were found concealed in the motorcycle seat. The accused was immediately placed under arrest for the importation of a controlled drug.

Accused’s first statement on the discovery of the six bundles in the motorcycle seat

Subsequently, at the CNB office in Woodlands Checkpoint, PW4 asked the accused about the six bundles wrapped in newspaper. The accused replied: “I don’t know.”² The accused was also asked who these bundles belonged to and again his reply was: “I don’t know.”³ When he was asked whether he knew that there was something stuffed inside his motorcycle seat, he replied: “Yes.”⁴ When he was further asked about how he knew that something was stuffed inside his motorcycle seat, he replied: “I felt something hard, when I sat on my motorbike seat.”⁵

All the accused’s statements were voluntarily given

The prosecution admitted all the statements of the accused as he confirmed that they were voluntarily taken from him without any inducement, threat or promise.

Analysis of the six bundles

The six bundles contained a granular substance and were sent to the Health Sciences Authority (“HSA”) for analysis. The gross weight of the granular substance is 2,728.1 grammes. Upon analysis, the granular substance was found to contain 83.36 grammes of diamorphine.

Presumption of possession and knowledge of drug

The prosecution relies on the statutory presumptions under ss 18(1)(a) and 18(2) of the Act. Under s 18(1)(a), the accused is presumed to have been in the possession of the diamorphine found in the motorcycle and, under s 18(2), he is further presumed to have known of the nature of the diamorphine. This, combined with the fact that the accused physically brought the diamorphine hidden in the motorcycle seat into Singapore, establishes the offence of importation of a controlled drug with which he is charged.

The accused’s case

The accused seeks to rebut the presumptions of possession and knowledge under ss 18(1)(a) and 18(2) of the Act respectively. He alleged that he did not know that the six bundles concealed in his motorcycle seat contained diamorphine. He admits that he felt hardness in his motorcycle seat when he rode over humps, potholes and bumps. However, he alleged that the six bundles of diamorphine were planted inside the seat of his motorcycle without his knowledge when he rode into Singapore. His version of the events prior to his arrest and the discovery of the drug in his possession are summarised below.

Accused needed a loan to bail out his younger brother

The accused claims that on 9 May 2011, he was informed by Susila, his younger brother’s wife, that his younger brother, Rajeswaran, was arrested in Kedah, Malaysia. Bail of RM2,000 was required to secure his release. The accused managed to borrow RM500 from his friend, Agilan but he was still short of RM1,500. He met a friend, Suria, whom he had previously worked with at a shipyard in Pasir Gudang from February 2007 to October 2007. The accused told Suria that he needed a loan of RM1,500 to bail out his younger brother. Suria told the accused that he could refer the accused to someone who would be willing to grant him a loan with interest. Suria and the accused then agreed to meet the following day.

Meeting with Kumar and tele-conversation with Gobi regarding the loan

On 10 May 2011, at about 6 pm, the accused met Suria at a coffeeshop. They then proceeded to Ulu Tiram in Johor Bahru. Upon arrival, Suria made a phone call. Later, a person known to the accused as Kumar arrived. The accused knew Kumar as they had previously worked together at the shipyard in Pasir Gudang. The accused told Kumar that his younger brother was arrested by the police in Kedah and that he needed RM1,500 to bail him out. The accused thus requested for a loan of RM1,500 from Kumar. Kumar said he would talk to a person who could give the accused a loan of RM1,500 with interest. After talking to that person on his mobile phone, Kumar passed the mobile phone to the accused. The latter recognised the caller as a person known to him as Gobi. Gobi asked the accused for his name and age. Gobi also asked the accused whether he had a Singapore passport, whether he had been to Singapore before and whether he had been working in Singapore. The accused told him that he had been to Singapore and was looking for a job in Singapore. Gobi also asked the accused whether he owned any property. The accused responded that he owned the motorcycle.

Gobi then told the accused that he would lend the accused RM1,500 if the accused was willing to pledge the motorcycle as security. The accused agreed and he was then instructed to meet Kumar the next day, 11 May 2011, at 10 pm.

Accused lent his motorcycle to Alagendran

On 11 May 2011, at about 5 to 6 pm, the accused’s friend Alagendran came to the accused’s house to borrow the motorcycle for a short while. When Alagendran returned at about 6.30 pm, he told the accused that he had fought with someone who was armed with a parang and caused the motorcycle to be damaged in the process. There was a cut on the front cover near the handle bar. The seat of the motorcycle was also cut. Alagendran said he would repair the motorcycle on the same day. He then took the motorcycle, repaired it and returned it to the accused on the same night at about 8.30 pm.

Accused handed his motorcycle to Kumar at 10 pm on 11 May 2011

The accused met Kumar at 10 pm on 11 May 2011 at Ulu Tiram. Kumar told the accused that Gobi wanted to see the motorcycle to check whether it was stolen before granting the accused a loan of RM1,500. Kumar then took the motorcycle from the accused and rode it away. Kumar returned the motorcycle to the accused sometime around midnight.

Instruction to meet Kumar and another person upon entry into Singapore

Kumar then instructed the accused to ride the motorcycle into Singapore at around 4.30 to 5 am on 12 May 2011. The accused was told that, after entering Singapore, he was to meet Kumar and a Chinese man at a Caltex petrol kiosk located along Kranji Road where they would take the motorcycle from him. The accused was informed that the motorcycle would be returned to him at the bus stop near the Caltex...