Public Prosecutor v S K Murugan Subrawmanian

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Foo Chee Hock JC
• Judgment Date: 27 March 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] SGHC 71
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Criminal Case No 66 of 2017
• Published date: 05 March 2019
• Year: 2018
• Hearing Date: 21 September 2017,06 February 2018,08 February 2018,27 September 2017,07 February 2018,01 March 2018,29 January 2018,19 September 2017,05 February 2018,02 February 2018,20 September 2017,14 February 2018,30 January 2018,25 September 2017,13 February 2018
• Plaintiff Counsel: April Phang, Tan Yanying and Rimplejit Kaur (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Defendant Counsel: Thrumurgam s/o Ramapiram, A Sangeetha and Sherrie Han (Trident Law Corporation)
• Subject Matter: Criminal law,Statutory offences,Misuse of Drugs Act,Evidence,Witnesses,Expert evidence
• Citation: [2018] SGHC 71

Foo Chee Hock JC:

The accused, a Malaysian male, claimed trial to the following charge of trafficking in not less than 66.27 grams of diamorphine under s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”) (“Charge”):

That you, S K MURUGAN SUBRAWMANIAN,

on 6 January 2015, sometime between 12.45 pm and 12.55pm, inside the prime mover of a cargo trailer, bearing registration number JNX 4481, along Greenwich Drive, Singapore, did traffic in a Class ‘A’ controlled drug listed in the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“the MDA”), to wit, by giving five packets containing approximately 2270.4 grams of granular/powdery substance, which was analysed and found to contain not less than 66.27 grams of diamorphine, to one Mohamed Hisham Bin Mohamed Hariffin (NRIC No.: xxx ), without authorisation under the MDA or the Regulations made thereunder and you have thereby committed an offence under section 5(1)(a) of the MDA and punishable under section 33(1) read with the Second Schedule of the MDA, and further upon your conviction, you may alternatively be liable to be punished under section 33B of the same Act.

The accused was 43 years old at the time of arrest on 6 January 2015, and was working as a lorry driver for Kong Cheng Sdn Berhad.¹ At the conclusion of the trial, I found that the Prosecution had proved all the elements of the charge beyond reasonable doubt. I therefore found the accused guilty and convicted him on the Charge.

Background facts

On 6 January 2015, at about 12.15pm, a party of Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) officers conducted a drug bust operation at the vicinity of Greenwich Drive.² There, the CNB officers spotted a cargo trailer bearing registration number JNX 4481 (“Cargo Trailer”). They saw a male subject wearing a red polo t-shirt and black pants (“Hisham”) board the Cargo Trailer via the front passenger side door at about 12.47pm.³ After a while, Hisham alighted from the Cargo Trailer and was seen carrying a blue plastic bag.⁴ The Cargo Trailer then drove away.⁵

Thereafter, at about 12.55pm, the CNB officers proceeded to arrest Hisham. With Hisham in tow, the CNB officers found the blue plastic bag on top of some wooden pallets.⁶ Within the blue plastic bag were five bundles wrapped in black tape (“Five Bundles”).⁷ Shortly thereafter, at about 1.10pm, Hisham displayed signs of discomfort and shortness of breath. He was conveyed by ambulance to Changi General Hospital, and was subsequently pronounced dead at about 2.03pm.⁸

At about the same time, another party of CNB officers followed the Cargo Trailer to Prima Tower along Keppel Road.⁹ The driver of the Cargo Trailer was ascertained to be the accused, who was arrested in the toilet near Prima Tower’s security post.¹⁰ A search was conducted on the Cargo Trailer, and two plastic bags were recovered from behind the driver seat: (i) one black plastic bag containing two bundles of cash collectively amounting to S$8,650, and (ii) one red plastic bag containing S$13,000.¹¹

The Five Bundles in the blue plastic bag were later analysed by the Health Sciences Authority,¹² and they were found to collectively contain not less than 66.27 grams of diamorphine.¹³

The Charge

The Prosecution brought the Charge against the accused in respect of the Five Bundles. The elements of the offence of trafficking in a controlled drug under s 5(1)(a) of the MDA were: (i) possession of a controlled drug, (ii) knowledge of the nature of the drug, (iii) proof that possession of the drug was for the purpose of trafficking which was not authorised (Muhammad Ridzuan bin Md Ali v Public Prosecutor and other matters [2014] 3 SLR 721 at [59]). In the course of the trial, an ancillary hearing was also held to determine the admissibility of some of the accused’s statements for reasons that will be elaborated below.

A pillar of the Prosecution’s case was the accused’s statements (“P78”–“P84”)¹⁴ recorded under s 22 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) (“CPC”) (“Long Statements”).¹⁵ The Long Statements showed that the accused had received the Five Bundles from one “Kumar” in Malaysia. The accused then hid the Five Bundles in the Cargo Trailer before driving to Singapore. And upon reaching Singapore, the accused met up with Hisham at Greenwich Drive, where Hisham handed the accused S$13,000 in exchange for the Five Bundles.¹⁶

At this juncture, I noted that the Prosecution also sought to rely on the surveillance evidence of the CNB officers to show that Hisham collected the Five Bundles from the accused in the Cargo Trailer.¹⁷ The Defence pointed out that¹⁸ none of the CNB officers could be certain that Hisham was not in possession of the Five Bundles when he boarded the Cargo Trailer.¹⁹ Therefore, I found that on the evidence of the CNB officers alone, the Prosecution failed to prove that the CNB officers saw Hisham board the Cargo Trailer without the Five Bundles.

Accused’s statements

In his contemporaneous (“P67”) and cautioned (“P77”) statements, the accused denied that he had given Hisham the Five Bundles. He stated that he had merely collected S$13,000 from Hisham, and that he had only provided the blue plastic bag to Hisham.²⁰

However, his Long Statements painted a vastly different picture. Sometime around Christmas in 2014, the accused met up with Kumar. The accused needed money to pay for his children’s school fees, and Kumar offered to pay the accused RM1,000 for every bundle of “porul”²¹ that he delivered to Singapore.²²Porul is a street name for heroin, of which diamorphine is a known active ingredient.²³ The accused agreed, and thereafter helped Kumar to bring porul into Singapore from Malaysia on a number of occasions prior to the incident that led to his arrest on 6 January 2015.²⁴

On 6 January 2015, at about 6.00am, the accused drove the Cargo Trailer to deliver prefabricated concrete walls to a company located at Sungei Kadut Street 5, Singapore.²⁵ While he was driving to the Johore Cargo Customs, he received a call from Kumar, who arranged to meet the accused.²⁶ A while later, Kumar met up with the accused and boarded the passenger side of the Cargo Trailer.²⁷ Kumar was carrying a black plastic bag containing the Five Bundles. Kumar then instructed the accused to deliver the Five Bundles to a person at Greenwich Drive, Singapore, to collect an unspecified amount of money from the same person,²⁸ and to call Kumar after that was done.²⁹ The accused was also instructed to collect money from somebody else at Woodlands.³⁰

The accused then travelled into Singapore. At about 11.00am, he delivered the concrete walls at Sungei Kadut Street 5.³¹ Thereafter, the accused drove to Turf Club Avenue,³² where he collected money from one “Pirakashkon”.³³ The accused then left for Greenwich Drive before calling Hisham to inform the latter that he was reaching the destination.³⁴

Hisham came to the front passenger seat and passed the accused several bundles of money.³⁵ The accused told Hisham that the Five Bundles were in a black plastic bag under the front passenger seat. As Hisham was retrieving the plastic bag, it tore slightly.³⁶ The accused handed Hisham a blue plastic bag, which Hisham then transferred the Five Bundles into. Hisham threw away the empty black plastic bag onto the ground before closing the passenger door.³⁷

The accused then left Greenwich Drive for Keppel Road where he was to collect animal feed from Prima Flour Mills.³⁸ As he was reaching Prima Flour Mills, he received a call from Kumar, who advised the accused to be careful of the authorities.³⁹ After the call, the accused became more alert as he drove to his destination. Upon reaching Prima Flour Mills, he alighted from the Cargo Trailer to go to the toilet.⁴⁰ There, he was arrested by a number of CNB officers.⁴¹

Admissibility of the statements

The Defence submitted that the accused’s Long Statements were inadmissible under s 258(3) of the CPC. The Defence contended that the statements were given involuntarily and were induced by the recorder.⁴² First, Investigation Officer Shafiq Basheer (“IO Basheer”) told the accused that he would be allowed to make a phone call once the statements had been recorded.⁴³ Second, IO Basheer represented to the accused that the Cargo Trailer had been returned to the accused’s employers after the accused had requested for the lorry to be returned, thereby gaining the accused’s trust.⁴⁴ Third, the accused asked IO Basheer to bring Hisham before him to be questioned, and IO Basheer said, “You admit first. You admit first, then I will bring him.”⁴⁵

The Defence also argued that the Long Statements ought to be excluded because they were taken under oppressive circumstances where the recorder, IO Basheer, refused to record the accused’s denials of having committed the offence.⁴⁶ At trial, much was also made about the statement taking process being so lengthy as to impugn its integrity.⁴⁷

The Defence further sought to invoke the court’s discretion to exclude the Long Statements on the basis that their prejudicial effect exceeded their probative value. It essentially did so on the basis that the accused allegedly suffered from mild intellectual disability and interrogative suggestibility, which put him at risk of giving false confessions.⁴⁸

At the conclusion of the ancillary hearing to determine the admissibility of the Long Statements, I held that they were admissible. I found that the accused was not suffering from mild intellectual disability or interrogative suggestibility, and there was also no room for me to exercise my discretion to exclude the Long Statements on the basis that their prejudicial effect exceeded their probative value. In my judgment, the Prosecution had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the Long Statements were given voluntarily in the absence of oppression, and without any threat, inducement or promise (“TIP”) within the...