Ranjit Singh Gill Menjeet Singh v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Hoo Sheau Peng J
• Judgment Date: 19 March 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] SGHC 75
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 19 of 2016 (Criminal Motion No 5 of 2017)
• Year: 2019
• Published date: 05 May 2020
• Hearing Date: 18 November 2018,12 November 2018,25 September 2018,31 October 2018,26 September 2018
• Plaintiff Counsel: Terence Chua and Jason Chua (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Defendant Counsel: Bachoo Mohan Singh and Too Xing Ji (BMS Law LLC),Thangavelu (Thangavelu LLC) and Syazana Binte Yahya (Eugene Thuraisingam LLP),Edmund Nathan (M/s Tan & Pillai),Dhanaraj James Selvaraj in person,Gino Hardial Singh in person.
• Subject Matter: Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Taking additional evidence
• Citation: [2019] SGHC 75

Hoo Sheau Peng J: Introduction

In the course of the accused’s application to adduce further evidence for his appeal, the matter was remitted to me pursuant to s 392 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) (“CPC”). These are my findings.

Background

The accused was convicted of a charge of trafficking in not less than 35.21 grams of diamorphine, an offence under s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”). He was sentenced to life imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane. My grounds of decision are contained in Public Prosecutor v Ranjit Singh Gill Menjeet Singh and another [2016] SGHC 217 (“GD”).

The case turned on the accused’s knowledge that a plastic bag which he handed to the co-accused contained the drugs. The plastic bag was in the bus which the accused drove from Malaysia to Singapore. The accused’s defence was that he did not know that the plastic bag contained anything illegal or specifically, the drugs. As explained in [37]–[50] of the GD, based on the facts and circumstances, I found that he had failed to rebut the presumption of knowledge of the nature of the drugs contained in s 18(2) of the MDA.

At the trial, the accused was represented by Mr Singa Retnam (“Mr Retnam”), as lead counsel, Mr Dhanaraj James Selvaraj (“Mr Selvaraj”), as assisting counsel and Mr Gino Hardial Singh (“Mr GH Singh”), as junior assisting counsel (“the previous lawyers”). The accused appealed against the decision, and is now represented by a new set of lawyers led by Mr Bachoo Mohan Singh (“Mr BM Singh”).

At the appeal hearing on 12 February 2018, the accused applied, inter alia, for leave to adduce further evidence of his personal and financial circumstances, so as to establish that he had no reason to carry drugs into Singapore. The Court of Appeal observed that the further evidence was available at trial. The further evidence was also directly contrary to many of the statements given and assertions made by the accused at the trial. This would affect the reliability of the evidence. These points militated against the admission of the further evidence. However, the Court of Appeal highlighted that there was a possibility that the position taken below while the accused was represented by the previous lawyers was not the position he had instructed them to take.

Therefore, the Court of Appeal granted the accused leave to file an affidavit setting out his exact instructions to Mr Retnam on the points he has pursued on appeal, and how those instructions varied from the position that Mr Retnam in fact took at the trial. A copy of the affidavit was to be made available to Mr Retnam, with a waiver of privilege to the extent needed to allow Mr Retnam to furnish a written response to the allegations.

In accordance with the directions, the accused filed his affidavit on 12 March 2018.¹ The previous lawyers responded by way of affidavits filed on 20 March 2018.²

At the further hearing on 26 March 2018, pursuant to s 392(1) of the CPC, the Court of Appeal remitted the matter to me to take additional evidence with the following directions:

Having regard to the gravity of the allegations that have been levelled by [the accused] against the lawyers who represented him at the trial, the central thrust of which is that his lawyers below did not represent him in accordance with his instructions, pursuant to s 392 of the Criminal Procedure Code (“CPC”), we remit the matter to the trial judge (“the Judge”) to take additional evidence on the narrow question of whether [the accused’s] case at trial was presented in accordance with his instructions as set out in the affidavits he has filed in [the criminal motion]. [emphasis added]

Once the taking of the evidence is completed, the court is to return the record to the Court of Appeal in accordance with s 392(3) of the CPC, and to state under s 392(4) of the CPC, what effect, if any, the additional evidence has on the earlier verdict.

The remittal proceedings

By [8] above, the remittal proceedings concern “the narrow question of whether [the accused’s] case at trial was presented in accordance with his instructions” as set out in his affidavit. I pause to observe, however, that in his affidavit, the accused also made many other complaints about the previous lawyers’ conduct of the case and their performance at the trial. The previous lawyers disputed these matters and provided explanations on the approach taken by them.

During the proceedings, the witnesses’ evidence touched on some of the other complaints. This was inevitable as some aspects provided the background and context for the determination of the narrow question. Nonetheless, the parties were agreed that such complaints are beyond the scope of these proceedings. They pertain to the competency of the previous lawyers and the level of assistance they provided at the trial, and fall to be dealt with on appeal.

Therefore, as far as possible, the parties sought to confine themselves to the accused’s allegations of failure of the previous lawyers to act in accordance with his instructions. By way of overview, these allegations may broadly be categorised into four areas. These shall be the areas I deal with below.

The accused’s evidence

According to the accused, the previous lawyers did not visit him very often. Mr Retnam interviewed him twice via video-link and went to prison to visit him about five to six times. During one of those visits, Mr Retnam was accompanied by Mr Selvaraj. He did not see Mr GH Singh at all prior to the start of the trial.³ Oral instructions were given to Mr Retnam during the interview sessions.

In addition, the accused gave three sets of “written instructions” to Mr Retnam dated 21 May 2015, 15 October 2015 and 3 December 2015. These were handwritten notes.

The notes dated 21 May 2015 comprised seven pages. In them, the accused provided an account of how he was asked to perform the delivery into Singapore, and the circumstances of the delivery.⁴ Sometime in or around October 2015, the accused received copies of his statements to the Central Narcotics Bureau, as well as the statements of the co-accused.⁵ In the notes dated 15 October 2015 comprising eight pages, the accused commented on the contents of his statements, as well as the contents of the co-accused’s statements.⁶ In the notes dated 3 December 2015 comprising three pages, again, the accused commented on the co-accused’s statements.⁷ In these proceedings, the accused did not rely on the third set of notes.

To summarise, in his affidavit, the accused contended that contrary to his instructions, the previous lawyers failed to do the following: First, the previous lawyers did not object to the admissibility of his statements, on the ground that they were made involuntarily. In the notes dated 21 May 2015, the accused said he wanted to “write again all the statements that had given [sic]”, and that he would like to “do some corrections of those statements that…can be useful for [his] defense in the trial [sic]”. He said that on the day of his arrest, he was in disbelief, and could not concentrate on giving his statement. He gave his statements “out of fear”, and without much thinking, “as many negative thoughts were going through [his] mind”.⁸ In his notes dated 21 October 2015, he claimed that on a Sunday, the investigation officer met him in the interview room, and asked him not to “worry about these statements”. The investigation officer said that he knew the accused was “innocent”, told the accused that “these statements would help him in court”, and asked the accused to sign them. Believing the investigation officer, the accused signed the statements, and the investigation officer gave him food to eat. The accused added that he “had been induce(d)”, and that “[he] was sapped by [the investigation officer], force to do the detector test, force to sign voluntary lie detector test paper [sic]”.⁹ During a subsequent visit by Mr Retnam and Mr Selvaraj, Mr Selvaraj questioned him briefly about his statements. Mr Selvaraj said that they would challenge his statements in accordance with the second set of notes. Mr Retnam also said they would raise the matters set out in his written instructions. However, they did not question him in detail about the contents of his statements, or how they were recorded.¹⁰ At the trial, the previous lawyers did not challenge the admissibility of the statements.¹¹ Second, the previous lawyers did not present evidence to show that he was not in financial difficulties, and to dispute portions of his statement which state that he was in financial difficulties. For clarity, I should state that the relevant statement is Exh P130, a statement recorded from the accused on 11 February 2014, and the pertinent portions are paras 10–12.¹² Contrary to the contents of paras 10–12 of Exh P130, the accused pointed out that in his notes dated 15 October 2015, he denied selling his buses due to financial difficulties. He also denied that he was working for a man named Siva, and said that he was “self-employed”. He said that his friend named Sarr had requested for a loan of RM6,000 from him and not RM12,000.¹³ Further, during the prison interviews, he informed Mr Retnam that he was a legitimate businessman operating a tourist bus business and that he had business records to prove this. After selling two old buses, he did not have to pay the monthly instalments and the drivers’ salaries. He ordered a new bus as a replacement; he owned the bus he drove into Singapore. He also owned a house and a car.¹⁴ He also arranged for his business associate based in Singapore, one Rani, to hand three log books recording details of his business to Mr Retnam.¹⁵ Therefore, the portions of his statement which stated that he was in financial difficulties were incorrect, and he said he wished to challenge them. However, Mr Retnam did not ask him...