Public Prosecutor v Mervin Singh and another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 05 October 2011
• Neutral Citation: [2011] SGHC 222
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Criminal Case No 16 of 2010
• Year: 2011
• Published date: 09 April 2013
• Hearing Date: 24 May 2010,27 May 2010,18 July 2011,08 October 2010,14 July 2011,25 May 2010,05 October 2010,22 February 2011,11 October 2010,04 October 2010,02 September 2011,19 July 2011,17 August 2011,07 October 2010,25 February 2011,20 July 2011,12 October 2010,21 May 2010,24 February 2011,13 October 2010,15 July 2011,14 October 2010,23 February 2011,21 February 2011,20 May 2010,26 May 2010
• Plaintiff Counsel: Sellakumaran Sellamuthoo, Geraldine Kang, Ramesh Ethan, Crystal Ong, Sherlyn Neo, Toh Puay Suan, Navih Thevar and Wynn Wong (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Drug Trafficking
• Citation: [2011] SGHC 222

Choo Han Teck J:

The two accused were charged for trafficking in 186.62g of diamorphine on 27 November 2008. Mervin Singh (“the first accused”) was arrested at 3.10pm along Tampines Avenue 7 and found to be in possession of a pink coloured box for the “Daia” brand detergent (“the pink box”) which contained nine packets of granular substance later analysed to be 186.62g of diamorphine, the subject of the charge against the two accused. Subashkaran (“the second accused”) was arrested shortly after 3.02pm when he was said to have delivered the pink box to the first accused in lift “A” at Block 485B Tampines Avenue 9. The prosecution’s case was that the second accused brought the pink box from his flat in #10-130 Block 485B Tampines Avenue 9 (“the flat”) and left the pink box on the floor of lift “A” and walked out of the lift, signalling to the first accused by gesturing with a nod of his head towards the lift. The first accused went into the lift and walked out with the pink box under his arm. Both accused denied the allegations against them.

The prosecution case against the first accused was that when he was arrested, he was with Sallehuddin bin Mohammad (“Sallehuddin”) and Muhamamad Rizal bin Sumani (“Rizal”) in a Subaru Imprezza SGZ 8653, rented by Sallehuddin. Sallehuddin and Rizal were not involved in the charges against the two accused but testified on behalf of the prosecution. The undisputed evidence was that Sallehuddin drove the first accused at the latter’s request to Block 485B Tampines Avenue 9. There the first accused told Sallehuddin and Rizal to wait in the car while he went to meet a friend. Station Inspector Goh Teck Hock (“SI Goh”) testified that he was watching the first accused at a distance when he saw the first accused enter lift “A” and walking out with the pink box. SI Goh testified that he saw the first accused opening the box and looking into it. Sallehuddin testified that the first accused was not carrying the pink box when he left the car, but returned with the pink box which the first accused placed on the floorboard of the car. Sallehuddin could not see what was in the box. The first accused told Sallehuddin to drive to the “Afghanistan” coffeeshop, but the car was intercepted and the three men arrested at Tampines Avenue 7. They were driven to Tampines Street 21 and there the pink box, which was not sealed, was opened and the contents taken out. Sallehuddin testified that he said to the first accused, “You told me that you were taking contraband cigarettes but what is this?” The first accused did not reply.

The second accused was arrested after he left lift “A” and went to his car. He was brought back to his flat where the Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) officers found a packet of granular substance similar to the nine packets in the pink box. The forensic evidence showed that this packet was roughly the same weight as each of those nine packets. A sealer, aluminium foil, a straw and a rolled-up note were also found in the second accused’s room in the flat.

There was also evidence from the prosecution to show that between 1.24pm and 3.05pm the first accused had called the second accused, both men using their mobile telephones. There was also forensic evidence to show that DNA profiles taken from the pink box and the newspapers used to wrap the nine packets of diamorphine matched the DNA profile of the second accused. The forensic expert testified that the frequency of finding such a match was about one in 14,000. The evidence adduced at the close of the prosecution case showed that if unrebutted, the charges against the first and second accused would warrant a conviction. I therefore called upon the accused to elect...