Public Prosecutor v V Shanmugam a/l Veloo and another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 03 February 2015
• Neutral Citation: [2015] SGHC 33
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Criminal Case No 6 of 2014
• Year: 2015
• Published date: 28 January 2016
• Hearing Date: 13 March 2014,25 February 2014,19 February 2014,27 October 2014,11 March 2014,22 April 2014,27 February 2014,08 May 2014,04 March 2014,23 July 2014,29 January 2015,05 March 2014,18 March 2014
• Plaintiff Counsel: Terence Chua, Jasmine Chin-Sabado and Tan Yanying (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Defendant Counsel: Singa Retnam (Aziz, Tayabali & Associates) and M Nedumaran (M Nedumaran & Co),Johan bin Ismail (Johan Ismail & Company) and Zaminder Singh Gill (Hilborne Law LLC)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Statutory Offences,Misuse of Drugs Act,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Sentencing,Principles
• Citation: [2015] SGHC 33

Choo Han Teck J:

The two accused persons were separately charged for trafficking in diamorphine on 28 October 2011 but with committing their respective offences in furtherance of the common intention of both. The first accused is a 30-year old Malaysian. The second accused is a 46-year old Singaporean. The drugs were packed in ten packets and the total weight was 4497.7g and the contents were analysed and found to be diamorphine weighing not less than 28.5g.

The two accused were charged under s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“the Act”), read with s 34 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed), and punishable under s 33 and s 33B of the Act. Section 5(1)(a) provides as follows –

Except as authorised by this Act, it shall be an offence for a person, on his own behalf or on behalf of any other person, whether or not that other person is in Singapore – (a) to traffic in a controlled drug…

Section 33 provides that any person convicted of an offence of trafficking in a controlled drug shall be punished according to the relevant provision in the Second Schedule. Diamorphine is a Class “A” controlled drug as defined in s 2 of the Act, (under “Specified Drug”). The Second Schedule provides that for offences involving more than 15g of diamorphine, the punishment is death – unless s 33B applies. Section 33B provides that the court may impose a sentence other than death in certain circumstances. On conviction, both accused persons would thus face the death penalty unless s 33B applies to them.

On 28 October 2011, officers from the Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) saw the second accused carrying a haversack to a bus stop outside the Haw Par Villa at about 11.25am. About five minutes later, the first accused drove a car (a Perodua “Kenari”) with the number plate JLT 8467, to the bus stop and the second accused got into the car.

The first accused then drove along Pasir Panjang Road, making several turns on the way before arriving at a hilltop car park at the National University of Singapore. The car stopped there for about five minutes before going back onto Pasir Panjang Road from South Buona Vista Road. The Kenari was then seen going into an Esso petrol station along Pasir Panjang Road.

The car was parked near the air pumps in the petrol station. CNB officers observing the car reported that a man came out of the car and walked into the convenience store. Inspector Sea Hoon Cheng testified that it was the second accused who went into the convenience store. The car left the petrol station about 12.12pm and drove along Pasir Panjang Road and the West Coast Highway. It stopped finally at a car park at Block 405, Pandan Gardens.

The second accused was seen leaving the car and walking to Block 405. He was carrying a black plastic bag with a golden logo. CNB officers moved in and arrested both accused persons. The first accused was arrested in the car. The haversack carried by the second accused when he first entered the Kenari along Pasir Panjang Road was found on the floor mat of the front passenger seat. Three black plastic bundles were found in the haversack. Two black plastic bags were also found in it as well as one newspaper wrapped bundle. The black plastic bundles and the newspaper wrapped bundles were found to contain granular substances analysed to be diamorphine.

The second accused was arrested outside his mother’s flat, unit #13-34 of Block 405 Pandan Gardens. The officers searched the Block for the black plastic bag that the second accused was carrying when he went to Block 405, and eventually found it among some flower pots on the staircase landing between the seventh and eighth floors. It was searched and found to contain three newspaper wrapped bundles containing granular substances. In total, the ten drug exhibits were analysed and found to contain not less than 28.5g of diamorphine.

The forensic evidence from Dr Alaric Koh of the Health Sciences Authority showed that the newspaper wrapping found in the haversack could have been from the same set of newspapers as those used to wrap the diamorphine found in the black plastic bag on the staircase landing. The observations and conclusion are found in paragraph 6 of the report marked as P83. The observations of Dr Alaric Koh were based on a “comparison of characteristics, manufacturing cut edges and possible ink transfers”. Forensic evidence also showed that the clear plastic bags containing the ten packets of diamorphine were manufactured by the same machine. The heat seals on the clear plastic bags were also from the same sealing machine.

The DNA of the first accused was found on both sides of the tapes used to bundle one of the black plastic bundles in the haversack. His DNA was also found on the interior surface of the black plastic bag of one of the three black plastic bundles in the haversack. In his statements to the police, he admitted helping to put the black plastic bundles into the haversack. However, he denied that he knew what were in those bundles. He also referred to the person with the haversack who got into his car, and whom he helped, as “Ah Boy”. The second accused testified that he got into the car driven by an Indian man at the date and time stipulated in the charge. He admitted that he was given a black plastic bag by that Indian man and told to put it along the staircase of the 6th or 7th storey of Block 405. He opened the black plastic bag and saw three bundles wrapped in newspapers. He denied knowing what were in the three bundles and stated that he did not ask the Indian man what they contained.

On the evidence adduced above, I was satisfied that the prosecution had proved its case against both accused as charged. The identity of the two persons in the Kenari car were not disputed and I thus find that the prosecution had proven the fact that the diamorphine were in the possession of both accused when they were in the car and that they transported the diamorphine from the Esso Station to Pandan Gardens with the common intention of trafficking in the drugs. I thus called upon both accused to enter upon their defence. They elected to testify.

The first accused raised the defence of ignorance. He claimed that he did not know that the plastic bags contained drugs and that he had no common intention of trafficking drugs with the second accused. His case was that the drug trafficking transaction that day was carried out by the second accused and coordinated by one Puni. The first...