Raman Selvam s/o Renganathan v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chao Hick Tin JA
• Judgment Date: 09 January 2004
• Neutral Citation: [2004] SGCA 1
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 11 of 2003
• Date: 09 January 2004
• Year: 2004
• Published date: 15 January 2004
• Plaintiff Counsel: Peter Fernando and Raymond Lim Kuan Yew (Leo Fernando)
• Citation: [2004] SGCA 1
• Defendant Counsel: Eddy Tham (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Sections 17 and 18 Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2001 Rev Ed),Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2001 Rev Ed),Statutory offences,Whether Prosecution required to prove when drugs placed on premises for presumption under s 18(1) of Act to operate,Whether Prosecution proved that drugs in appellant's possession were for trafficking,Conditions of law necessary for conviction for offence under Act,Criminal Law

Choo Han Teck J (delivering the judgment of the court):

1 The appeal arose from a decision dated 16 September 2003 by Tay Yong Kwang J in Criminal Case No 33 of 2003. The appellant Raman Selvam s/o Renganathan (“the appellant”) was found guilty of an offence under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2001 Rev Ed) (“MDA”) and s 34 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) and sentenced to suffer death under s 33 of the MDA. He appealed against his conviction.

Facts

2 The appellant was tried and convicted on the following charge:

That you, Raman Selvam s/o Renganathan together with one Dhanabalan s/o A Gopalkrishnan, on the 24th day of February 2003, at about 8.35pm, at Block 52 Teban Gardens Road #13-588, Singapore, in furtherance of the common intention of you both, did traffic in a controlled drug specified in Class A of the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185, to wit, by having in your possession for the purpose of trafficking, 27 blocks of vegetable matter, containing not less than 2715.6g of cannabis, without any authorisation under the Act or the Regulations made thereunder, and you have thereby committed an offence under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185 and section 34 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224 and punishable under s 33 of the Misuse of Drugs Act.

A second charge, relating to 794.4g of cannabis mixture, a non-capital charge, was withdrawn upon the conviction on the first charge.

3 The events that led to the appellant’s arrest were as follows. Just after noon on 24 February 2003, a Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) team was briefed on a case concerning two Indian males suspected to be cannabis traffickers. They were the appellant and one Dhanabalan (named in the charge above and who also goes by the name “Bala”). They were believed to have stored a large quantity of cannabis in a flat in one of three blocks along Teban Gardens Road – namely Blocks 52, 53 and 54. The two were said to be working in the vicinity of Teban Gardens – the appellant ran a flower shop with his wife and Bala ran a roti prata shop with two other workers.

4 The CNB operation to ambush and capture the two suspects was divided into two teams. The first team was tasked to capture the appellant and the second team was tasked to capture Bala. The two teams set off on their mission at 12.45pm on 24 February 2003. The first team went to the appellant’s flat in Block 24 Teban Gardens Road. The CNB officers knocked on the main door of the flat and identified themselves but there was no response. The officers then decided that it would be more effective to find the appellant’s wife since she would be able to help the officers gain access to the flat. They knew that she would be working at the flower shop that was within the vicinity. She was duly found, and thereafter agreed to follow the officers back to the flat. She opened the door with her set of keys. The door, however, could still not be opened because it was latched shut from the inside. The team of officers then kicked the door open, entered the flat and arrested the appellant. A thorough search of the flat was conducted and a Dunhill cigarette box containing two rolled-up papers of vegetable matter was found on top of the basin in the toilet. The Heath Sciences Authority certified on 6 June 2003 that the vegetable matter contained tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabinol.

5 In the meantime, the second team searched for Bala. They believed that he might be at his roti prata shop. He was indeed found there and duly arrested. A bunch of four keys was found in his pocket. Bala was then escorted to Block 52. CNB officers believed that the drugs would be hidden in a flat in that block although they were not sure which flat in the block it would be. When questioning Bala on a staircase landing in Block 52, an Indian lady walked up the staircase. When she saw the team of officers questioning Bala, she turned and attempted to walk away. The CNB officers instructed her to proceed to her destination. It was later ascertained that the Indian lady’s name was Indra d/o K Ramasamy (“Indra”), the owner of #13-588 (a flat in Block 52) and that Bala was her tenant. She brought the CNB officers to her flat. The officers then used the bunch of keys found on Bala’s person to unlock the padlock and the main door of the flat. The officers entered the flat and soon ascertained that Bala occupied the room next to the corridor. Indra did not rent out the other two bedrooms. The officers, together with Bala, then waited for the appellant’s arrival.

6 In the meantime, the appellant was escorted to flat #13-588 of Block 52 by the first team of officers. When they arrived at the flat, the CNB officers unlocked the room occupied by Bala using one of the keys they had earlier found on Bala’s person. This was done in the presence of both the appellant and Bala.

7 The CNB officers found packets of cannabis in the top left shelf and in the bottom right drawer of the wardrobe in Bala’s room. They were left in their original positions until the Investigating Officer and members of the Forensic Management Branch of the Criminal Investigation Department arrived to take the necessary photographs and to seize the exhibits from the room. It was ascertained that there were nine large blocks of cannabis in the top left shelf of the wardrobe. In a drawer of the wardrobe, the officers found nine small bocks of vegetable matter, one small block in a black bag, a plastic packet containing nine small blocks and a stained chopper. The officers searched the bedside drawers and found a large and a small weighing scale, one stained chopping board, four paper cutters and a lighter. Rolls of masking tape were also found in the room.

8 The investigating officer weighed the seized bundles of vegetable matter at CNB headquarters in the presence of Bala and the appellant. The blocks of cannabis and the smaller portions of vegetable matter found in the room were then sent for analysis to the Health Sciences Authority and were found to contain a total of not less than 2,715.6g of cannabis.

9 Bala pleaded guilty in a separate court to the offences which the appellant was charged with, but with the amount of cannabis in the first charge reduced to below 500g. The trial judge sentenced Bala to 20 years’ imprisonment and ordered the maximum 24 strokes of the cane. Bala then testified on behalf of the Prosecution in the trial of the appellant.

The Prosecution’s case at trial

10 It was the Prosecution’s case that the appellant was the “gatekeeper” of the room where the drugs were found and that Bala was merely an occupier. It was the appellant who had control of Bala’s access to the flat and to the said room. Every time Bala wanted to use the room, he had to get the keys from the appellant. After Bala had used the room, he had to return the keys to the appellant. The appellant’s control of the keys was therefore an important fact, which the Prosecution needed to prove. If the keys to the flat and the room were proved to be in the appellant’s possession, custody or control at the material times, s 18(1)(c) of the MDA would apply and the appellant would be presumed to be in possession of the cannabis found in the rented room. Section 18(2) of the MDA would then apply to a second presumption, that is, that the appellant would be presumed to know the nature of the drug (ie that it was cannabis).

11 It was also the Prosecution’s case that the appellant was the mastermind who rented the room. It was the appellant who negotiated with Indra for the room. It was the appellant who secured the rent of $300 per month. It was also the appellant who paid the monthly rent. The appellant was the one who quizzed Indra about the security of the rented room and it was he who sought Indra’s assurance that the room, if rented, would be secure enough for Bala’s expensive computer. Thus, the Prosecution contended that it was the appellant (and not Bala) who was testing the waters to assess if the room was a safe enough haven to conduct his drug trafficking activities.

12 The Prosecution further contended that it was the appellant who offered Bala a way out of his (Bala’s) financial difficulties. Bala was in debt as a result of the money he borrowed to set up his roti prata stall in the coffee shop nearby and to purchase a car. The appellant took advantage of Bala’s vulnerability when Bala came to ask the appellant for a loan. The appellant had previously worked with Bala at a company called Natferrous and they had become fast friends. Evidence was adduced at trial to show that the two had progressed from just being fellow employees to buddies. Some of the activities the two did together included social smoking of cannabis and drinking beer. It was shown that their friendship went beyond just the social level – the appellant had offered to be a guarantor for Bala’s car loan and Bala had secured some contracts for the appellant’s flower business. When Bala asked him for a loan in the last week of January 2003, the appellant said that he could not lend him cash. However, he said that he would give Bala some money if Bala would work for him.

13 Bala asked the appellant what sort of work he had in mind. The appellant said that he would show him and instructed Bala to meet him at the void deck of Block 24. Bala complied and the appellant arrived shortly after with a plastic bag in hand. The appellant took Bala to his flat in Block 24. When inside the flat, the appellant showed Bala the contents of the plastic bag he had been carrying. These included a block of cannabis wrapped in aluminium foil and plastic, a small weighing scale, a chopper, a cutting board and some masking tape. The appellant then proceeded to show Bala how to cut the block weighing one kilogram into 20 smaller pieces. The appellant then offered Bala $100 for every block he cut and packed. Bala was at first hesitant...