Public Prosecutor v Sivanantha A/L Danabala

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Low Wee Ping
• Judgment Date: 26 November 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] SGDC 452
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: DAC 33739 of 2013, Magistrate’s Appeal Number—MA 200/2014/01
• Published date: 11 December 2014
• Year: 2014
• Hearing Date: Invalid date
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ms Teo SiQi and Mr Muhammad Faizal
• Defendant Counsel: Mr S K Kumar
• Citation: [2014] SGDC 452

District Judge Low Wee Ping:IntroductionAccused pleaded not guilty

Sivanantha A/L Danabala (“the accused”) was 18 years old at the time of the alleged offence. He is a Malaysian National. He is now 20 years old. He was represented by a defence counsel, Mr S K Kumar. The accused was charged for the “unauthorised import” of diamorphine – under s 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Chapter 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (MDA). He pleaded not guilty before this court.

Accused remanded since 4 February 2013

On 4 February 2013, the accused was first charged with a capital offence. He was not granted any bail. On 2 September 2013, the capital charge was reduced to the present charge. The accused was offered bail. He has not been able to provide the bail. When this trial concluded on 18 September 2014, the accused had been remanded for more than one year and seven months.

Accused acquitted

After, a seven-day trial, this court found the accused not guilty. He was granted a discharge amounting to an acquittal.

The prosecution’s appeal

The Public Prosecutor has filed a notice of appeal against the accused’s acquittal. I now give my reasons.

The charge

The charge was as follows:-

“You, Sivanantha A/L Danabala … are charged that you, on 2 February 2013, at or about around 4.25 pm, at ICA Arrival Pax Office, 21 Woodlands Crossing, Woodlands Checkpoint, Singapore, did import into Singapore a Class A Controlled Drug… to wit, one packet containing 225.7 grams of granular/powdery substance which was analysed and found to contain not less than 3.03 grams of diamorphine at a confidence level of 99.9999%, without authorisation… and you have thereby committed an offence under s 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act… punishable under s 33(1) of the said Act”.

The prosecution’s witnesses

The prosecution’s fourteen witnesses were:-PW1 – SSgt Rahim Bin Bakhtiar – ICA officer;PW2 – Cpl Mohd Azmin Bin Mohd Amin – AETOS officer;PW3 – Sgt Sebastian See – CNB officer;PW4 – W/Sgt Queenie Ting – CNB officer;PW5 – W/Sgt Michellee Kwok – CNB officer;PW6 – Asst Supt Dinesh Kumar – first investigating officer;PW7 – Sgt Suhan S/O Sukumaran – recorder of first statement;PW8 – SSgt Sudin Bin Mamat – CNB officer;PW9 – Insp Jigar Lalitkumar – senior ICA duty officer;PW10 – Ms Munawwarah Binte Hamdi – CNB photographer;PW11 – SSSgt Alvin Yang – CNB officer;PW12 – Ms Charmaine Hu – HSA analyst;PW13 – Mr V I Ramanathan – freelance interpreter; andPW14 – SSSgt Adrian Phoon – investigating officer.

The prosecution’s case

The prosecution’s case can be summarised in the following paragraphs.

Accused searched by ICA officers

On 2 February 2013, at about 4.25pm, the accused was at the Woodlands Checkpoint. PW2 Cpl Mohd Azmin was an auxiliary police officer. He was on duty. He stopped the accused for a routine check. He brought the accused into a room for a body search. PW1 SSgt Rahim was an officer from the Immigration and Checkpoint Authority (ICA). He witnessed the search. PW9 Inspector Jigar was the senior ICA duty officer. He also witnessed the search. They found a packet inside the accused’s undergarment.

Accused gave a statement (P3) to PW7 Sgt Suhan

PW7 Sgt Suhan was a Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) officer. He was informed about the case. He arrived at the ICA search room. At about 5.15pm, he recorded a statement (P3) from the accused. PW8 SSgt Sudin was another CNB officer. He witnessed the recording.

Defence counsel objected to admissibility of statement (P3)

The defence counsel, Mr S K Kumar, objected to the admissibility of the above statement (P3). He stated the following reasons. First, the accused “was interviewed for more than half an hour”. Second, the accused “was made to believe (by the recorder) if he doesn’t cooperate, he will probably end up hanging”. Third, the accused “was told (by the recorder) to cooperate so as to be treated lightly, or go off free”. This court, therefore, ordered that an ancillary hearing be held to determine the admissibility of the statement (P3).

The ancillary hearingPW7 Sgt Suhan’s testimony – the recorder of the statement (P3)On how he recorded the statement (P3)

In this ancillary hearing, PW7 Sgt Suhan testified that “the statement was recorded on 2 February 2013 at 1715 hours… I recorded the statement at ICA Woodlands Checkpoint… The recording of this statement concluded at 1745 hours… The entire process took half an hour … the accused chose to speak in Tamil language… I spoke to the accused in Tamil language… The statement was written in English… I interpreted the statement… SSgt Sudin was the witnessing officer while I recorded the statement… no, I did not interview the accused prior, before I recorded the statement… I told him that I’m going to ask him a few questions based on the oral statement, the set of basic questions. And it’s a question and answer form kind of oral statement… I asked the accused in Tamil language… He replied to me in Tamil language… the accused did not make any complaints to me… there was nothing unusual about the accused, he was very calm during the statement recording”.

On whether he had made any inducement, threat or promise

PW7 Sgt Suhan further testified: “Your Honour, I did not display any violent gestures to the accused… there was no physical contact at any time during the recording of the statement… I did not threaten him in any way during the statement… (Q: Did you at any time tell the accused that if he does not cooperate, he will be hanged?)… no… (Q: Did you at any time tell the accused that if he does not cooperate, he will be facing the death penalty?)… no… (Q: Did you at any time tell the accused or represent to him any consequences if he does not cooperate?)… no. No promise or threat or inducement. Nothing was made… (Q: Did you at any time, during the recording of the statement or at the start of the statement, told the accused to cooperate and as a consequence of the cooperation be treated lightly or be set free?)… No… (Q: Was there any inducement, threat or promise made before, or in the course of the recording of this statement?)… No… (Q: Was this statement given voluntarily by the accused?)… Yes… (Q: Can you tell the Court if the accused acknowledged that the statement was given voluntarily and that there was no threat, inducement or promise made before, during, or after the statement?)… Yes… the accused has signed on the left bottom corner of the page… (Q: Did the accused at any point in time during the recording of the statement ask you what would happen if he did not cooperate with you?)… No, the accused did not say anything like that.”

PW8 SSgt Sudin’s testimony – a witness to the recording of statement (P3)On what he had observed

PW8 SSgt Sudin was another CNB officer. He witnessed the recording of the statement (P3). He testified: “I’m the witness... (Q: Did you witness the entire process of the recording of this statement?)… Yes… The accused seemed to be in a normal state… (Q: Now, when this statement was recorded, is there any point in time where you witness Sgt Suhan raising his voice or having physical contact with the accused?)… No… (Q: Now, how would you describe the tone of Sgt Suhan when he was questioning the accused?)… Just normal tone… (Q: Now, when Sgt Suhan was asking the question and the accused was answering the question, did you notice anything unusual from the accused behaviour?)… No… (Q: Did the accused appear to be cooperative in the course of recording this statement?)… Yes… (Q: … I understand that you don’t understand the language, but when Sgt Suhan was speaking to the accused and when the accused responded, was the response forthcoming?)… Yes… (Q: Now, after the signatures were appended on the second page of exhibit P3M, was there any further conversation between yourself, Sgt Suhan and the accused?)… No...”

During cross-examination – on whether he knew what PW7 Sgt Suhan, the recorder, had said to the accused in Tamil

PW8 SSgt Sudin was cross-examined. He admitted that he “had no part in the recording of the statement” and that “his presence was there” only. He further admitted: “(Q: So if Sgt Suhan… had told the accused in Tamil, ‘You better cooperate, or if you cooperate, you will not hang”, would have known of that?)… No… (Q: If he had told the accused, ‘If you cooperate, we will let you go’, or words to that effect, would you have known of that?)… No… (Q: And if he had told the accused, you cooperate in Tamil, “cooperate”, you wouldn’t know also, right?)… Yes, Sir, I wouldn’t know.”

The accused’s testimonyAbout what PW7 Sgt Suhan had told him

The accused testified that, before his statement (P3) was recorded, PW7 Sgt Suhan spoke to him for about 20 minutes. This conversation took place in the same room where the statement was later recorded. He further testified that “during the time this conversation between myself and Mr Suhan, other officers came by and left”. The accused further stated: “Suhan was enquiring as to what this object was. He also asked me if I was admitting. The object at hand was a drug and that at the age of 18, I was going to be hanged and my life was coming to an end…. That’s about it… I told him I don’t even know what this object is all about… He said if you don’t admit, you’re going to face hanging… I broke down, I cried, I begged him… the fact that my life was coming to an end at 18, it very much worried me… I just about finished with my basic education. I have thoughts and dreams about my future. Everything was like shattered… I don’t know the laws in Singapore, and here is an officer who tells me, there’s a sentence that I was expected to face. It was death penalty. How else could I have felt... He told me to admit, he said he will do all his best. He asked me to cooperate… I did, I believed him… I was faced with Singapore officer and have told, Your Honour, earlier I’m not familiar with Singapore...