Public Prosecutor v Prabagaran a/l Srivijayan
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judge | Choo Han Teck J |
| Judgment Date | 03 November 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] SGHC 222 |
| Court | High Court (Singapore) |
| Hearing Date | 23 May 2014,20 May 2014,22 September 2014,14 May 2014,22 July 2014,22 May 2014,15 May 2014 |
| Docket Number | Criminal Case No 20 of 2014 |
| Defendant Counsel | Lim How Khang and Sanjna Rai (Attorney-General's Chambers) |
| Subject Matter | Criminal law,Statutory offences,Misuse of Drugs Act |
| Published date | 11 February 2016 |
The accused is a 26-years old Malaysian who was arrested and charged for importing 22.24g of diamorphine when he drove into Singapore on 12 April 2012 at 5.15am. He was charged under s 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”). The offence is punishable under s 33 of the MDA.
The prosecution adduced evidence, unchallenged by the accused, that at the material time the accused drove a Hyundai Sonata bearing a Malaysian licence number JHY 93 from Malaysia. The car passed through the immigration booths at the Woodlands Checkpoint. SSgt Chan Tim Fatt, an officer from the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (“ICA”) noticed the black-tinted windows of the car and stopped the vehicle. He then told the accused to go to an inspection pit for a thorough check by other ICA officers.
ICA Sergeant Chen Zhongfu Roger searched the accused and his belongings but nothing incriminating was found. He and ICA Sergeant Aidil Rafael then searched the car. Sgt Aidil Rafael lifted the tray inside the centre arm-rest console next to the driver’s seat. He saw a black bundle in the console under the tray. Officers from the Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) were alerted and Sgt Goh Yang Lun went to the inspection pit and took custody of the two black bundles. W/SSSgt Kengadhelagam and SSgt Chew Tai Waif of the CNB went with Sgt Goh.
W/SSSgt Kengadhelagam recorded a statement from the accused at the inspection pit at 5.43am. She asked the accused about the black bundles. The accused stated that he did not know anything about them because the car belonged to his friend ‘Nathan’. The two black bundles were opened and the contents sent to the Health Sciences Authority of Singapore (“HSA”). The contents were examined and analysed by an analyst of the HSA, Miss Lim Jong Lee and she certified that the contents were diamorphine weighing 22.24g.
The accused gave a number of statements to the CNB in the Tamil language through the Tamil interpreter Mr Manickam. None of his statements were directly incriminatory. His cautioned statement was recorded on 12 April 2012 between 3.35pm and 4.46pm. He stated that he had done nothing wrong and that he only came to Singapore to work. He stated that the car belonged to his friend.
The prosecution also adduced the record of the calls made to and from the cell phone used by the accused. The record shows that one ‘Balu’ called at 12.20pm on 11 April 2012. He called again on 12 April 2012 at 1.22am and the accused subsequently called him at 4.15am on the same day. About 40 minutes later at 4.47am the accused received a call from one ‘Nathan’. The accused then called one ‘Batte’ at 5.06am and at the same time also called ‘Nathan’. At 5.12am ‘Batte’ returned call. The accused was arrested about 5.15am. Thereafter, ‘Balu’ called at 5.20am, ‘Batte’ called at 5.38am, ‘Nathan’ called at 6.03am and ‘Balu’ called again at 6.34am. All these calls went unanswered because the accused was in the custody of the ICA officers.
On the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I was satisfied that a case against the accused was sufficiently made out for him to enter upon his defence. The accused elected to testify. His defence was that he had no knowledge that there were two black bundles in the console box, and therefore, there was no knowledge that he was driving a car with the 22.24g of diamorphine into Singapore.
Under ss 18(2) and 21 of the MDA, the law presumes the accused in the circumstances (as here proved by the prosecution) to be in possession of the drugs knowing them to be so. These are rebuttable presumptions and the accused must persuade the court that he did not know that he was in possession of the drugs in question. I now set out these provisions below for ease of reference.
Presumption of possession and knowledge of controlled drugs 18. – …
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Prabagaran a/l Srivijayan v Public Prosecutor and other matters
...of the MDA, and the High Court judge accordingly imposed the mandatory sentence of death: Public Prosecutor v Prabagaran a/l Srivijayan [2014] SGHC 222 at [16]. No finding was made as to whether the applicant satisfied the Courier Requirement. His appeal against his conviction, premised sol......
-
Prabagaran a/l Srivijayan v Public Prosecutor
...his knowledge of the drugs in his possession”. Key threads to the story were missing (see Public Prosecutor v Prabagaran a/l Srivijayan [2014] SGHC 222 (“the GD”) at [14]–[16]): How would leaving the motorcycle in Nathan’s house and taking Nathan’s car help against the repossession of the m......
-
The discretionary death penalty for drug couriers in Singapore
...interest. But is it prudent to further entrench this power by making theconsiderations); Public Prosecutor vPrabagaran a/l Srivijayan [2014] SGHC 222; Public Prosecutor vMohd Jeefrey binJamil [2014] SGHC 255 (whether the Public Prosecutor can predetermine the question of whether the accused......