Public Prosecutor v Dinesh Pillai a/l Raja Retnam

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chan Seng Onn J
• Judgment Date: 14 April 2010
• Neutral Citation: [2011] SGHC 95
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Criminal Case No 1 of 2011
• Published date: 13 August 2014
• Year: 2010
• Hearing Date: 11 January 2011,01 March 2011,21 January 2011,18 January 2011,20 January 2011,14 January 2011,17 January 2011,13 January 2011,19 January 2011,12 January 2011,10 January 2011
• Plaintiff Counsel: Isaac Tan and Geraldine Kang (Deputy Public Prosecutors)
• Defendant Counsel: Amolat Singh (Amolat & Partners) and Lam Wai Seng (Lam W S & Co)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law
• Citation: [2011] SGHC 95

Chan Seng Onn J: Introduction

The accused, Dinesh Pillai A/L Raja Retnam (“the accused”), is a 27-year old Indian Malaysian who lived in Skudai, a town close to Johor Bahru in Malaysia. The eldest child of a family of five, he was penniless and unemployed in December 2009. He had a girlfriend whom he was planning to marry. He was going to start work in January 2010 at Universal Studios Singapore with a salary of $1,100. Life was about to improve for the accused. But on 19 December 2009, while travelling from Johor Bahru, he was arrested at the Singapore Woodlands Immigration Checkpoint (“Woodlands Checkpoint”). A brown paper wrapped packet found under his motorcycle seat was subsequently analysed and found to contain diamorphine – commonly known as heroin. He is charged with an offence under section 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”) of importing, without lawful authority, not less than 19.35 grams of diamorphine into Singapore, a capital offence under section 33 of the MDA.

Background

About one month before the accused was arrested, his friend Ravi (whom he had known for about one year) introduced him to someone called Raja. On 19 December 2009, at about 1.00pm, Raja came to his house with a proposal. According to the accused, Raja said that he had some food for the accused to deliver to a person called “Ah Boy” in Singapore for a payment of RM200. The accused was at that time financially strapped. He expressed his interest and asked Raja what the food was. Raja replied that it was a secret, something expensive and that the accused was never to open the packet as Ah Boy would know and refuse delivery. The accused agreed to deliver the “food”. At about 7.00pm Raja passed the accused a red plastic bag, which contained one brown paper wrapped packet secured with two rubber bands (the contents of which could not be seen without opening it), a packet of curry and a packet of cut fresh chilli (the contents of which could be clearly seen as they were both in clear, transparent plastic bags). The accused was told to call Raja before and after passing through the Woodlands Checkpoint, whereupon Raja would give the accused Ah Boy’s contact information and further instructions. The accused took the red plastic bag containing the three items and rode his motorcycle directly to the Woodlands Checkpoint without checking the contents of the brown paper wrapped packet.

At about 8.19pm, the accused arrived at Counter 45 of the Woodlands Checkpoint. A notification alert sounded when the accused’s particulars were scanned by the immigration officer. The immigration officer alerted the Quick Response Team at the Woodlands Checkpoint, who dispatched an officer to Counter 45. This officer escorted the accused and his motorcycle to the motorcycle parking lot beside the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority Car Arrival Secondary Team Office (“ST Office”) located within the Woodlands Checkpoint. The accused parked his motorcycle and waited inside the ST Office until a team of Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) officers arrived at about 8.55pm. The accused was then escorted by the CNB officers to his motorcycle. While walking to the motorcycle, the accused revealed to one of the CNB officers, Sergeant Vasanthakumar Pillai (“Sergeant Kumar”), that he had been paid to deliver some “items” to Ah Boy, and that the items were placed under his motorcycle seat. The motorcycle was then searched in the accused’s presence.

The red plastic bag and its contents were found under the accused’s motorcycle seat and seized. The CNB officer conducting the search, Staff Sergeant Chew Tai Wai, pulled open a corner of the brown paper wrapped packet and peeked inside. He noticed that it contained a brown granular substance. At about 9.05pm, the accused was arrested on suspicion of importation of a controlled drug.

The brown granular substance was subsequently analysed by the Health Sciences Authority of Singapore and found to contain not less than 19.35 grams of diamorphine.

Admissibility of similar fact evidence

At the commencement of the trial, the prosecution applied to admit evidence of two previous deliveries by the accused made also on behalf of Raja of similarly wrapped items to the same person, Ah Boy, in Singapore on the basis that they were similar fact evidence. This evidence was not to be used to show the accused’s propensity to import drugs into Singapore or his past behaviour but to show the state of knowledge of the accused in relation to the contents of the brown paper wrapped packet which he was delivering on this occasion. I allowed the admission of the evidence of the previous deliveries for the purpose stated by the prosecution against the objection of the defence. I now set out my reasons.

The accused had voluntarily admitted in the various statements to the CNB officers that he had, on two previous occasions, successfully brought into Singapore items which had been packed identically to those found on his motorcycle on 19 December 2009. Paragraph 10 of Sergeant Kumar’s conditioned statement stated that:

... I spoke to the subject in Tamil and he informed me orally that he had previously assisted a friend from Johor Bahru to smuggle drugs into Singapore on two different occasions. …

[emphasis added]

In a contemporaneous statement made by the accused to Sergeant Kumar at about 11.05pm on 19 December 2009, the following was recorded:

…

Q4) How many times have you delivered to Boy? A4) I have delivered to boy twice and this will be thirdtime I’ll be delivering to him and I will be paid by him in Singapore dollars. Q5) How much were you paid in your previous deliveries to Boy? A5) The first time when I delivered to Boy, I was not paid anything by him but è secon time when I delivered to him, I was paid $9,600/- in Singapore dollars which I passed back to Rajah in Malaysia. I in turn will be paid RM 200/- for every delivery. A6) Where were all these deliveries made? Q6) The first delivery was made in Pasir Ris MRT Station where I was picked up at è Taxi-stand by boy in his Car and the second delivery, I was picked up by boy in his Car outside UOB Bank near Bedok Bus Interchange. All transaction of drug & money took place in Boy’s Car.

[emphasis added]

On 22 December 2009, the accused said in a further statement recorded at about 2.25pm that:

…

23 The first delivery was made to Ah Boy was about 1 week before I was arrested. The second delivery was made to Ah Boy was about a few days before I was arrested. For all three occasions, Raja will give me the same exact package that includes a red plastic bag containing a brown paper bag, a packet of curry and a packet of chilli. Like the third occasion, I didn’t look at the content of the brown package and didn’t check. 24 For the first time, I passed to Ah Boy at Pasir Ris MRT. I parked my bike at Harbour Front and took a MRT there. I took a Taxi from Harbour Front to Bedok Interchange for the second occasion. It was done during daytime for the first two occasions. I don’t remember the timing but I know the Sun is still out. Both times, I boarded Ah Boy’s car and passed him the package. He didn’t check the contents and I left shortly. I didn’t collect anything from Ah Boy during the first trip and collected $9,600 during the second trip. I returned to Malaysia and passed the money to Raja. I asked a bit more for the second occasion as I saw that there were $9,600 and he gave me RM 300 for the second trip as compared to RM 200 for the first trip. I asked me [sic] what is the $9,600 for and he told me that it was owed by Ah Boy but he did not explained more. For the third trip where I was arrested, he promised to pay me RM 200 but might pay me more.

…

On 24 December 2009, the accused said at paragraph 28 of a further statement recorded at about 10.22am that:

… I met Raja a total of four times. First time when I was introduced to him, second time before the first trip when I delivered the food items and third and fourth time on the same day before I was arrested. …

The defence did not challenge the voluntariness of these statements. The prosecution sought to admit these statements under sections 14 and 15 of the Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) (“EA”) on the ground that the previous deliveries “shed light” on the accused’s state of mind, and more particularly on the extent of his knowledge of the actual nature of the contents in the brown paper wrapped packet. In other words, the statements were being adduced as evidence of the truth of the matters stated – ie (a) that the accused had in fact made two previous deliveries of identically packaged items which he knew did not contain food or anything else but contained drugs instead (as was clearly admitted by him in his statements), and therefore (b) that the striking similarity of the facts and circumstances of the previous two deliveries with those of the third delivery supported an inference that the accused was not ignorant of what he was delivering but that he knew, as he did on the previous occasions, that the third identically wrapped brown paper packet accompanied by a packet of curry and chilli for delivery to Ah Boy (the subject of the present charge) contained illicit drugs and not something else. The evidence sought to be admitted was to show that the accused knew exactly what he was delivering not only in the two similar previous deliveries but in the present (third) delivery as well. Thus, this evidence was to be used to rebut the accused’s claim that he was an innocent courier who simply did not know what he was asked to deliver because he had not opened the brown paper wrapped packet to check its contents. Section 15 of the EA states:

Facts bearing on question whether act was accidental or intentional

15. When there is a question whether an act was accidental or intentional or...