Ramis a/l Muniandy v Public Prosecutor: Trafficking of Cannabis & Proof of Possession under Misuse of Drugs Act

In Ramis a/l Muniandy v Public Prosecutor, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal against the conviction of Ramis a/l Muniandy for possessing cannabis for the purpose of trafficking, under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The High Court had sentenced Ramis to death. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the prosecution had successfully proven that Ramis had physical control and knowledge of the drugs, thus satisfying the element of possession. The court held that the presumption under s 17 of the Act, regarding the purpose of possession, was not rebutted by Ramis.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Ramis a/l Muniandy was convicted of possessing cannabis for trafficking. The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding sufficient evidence of possession and intent.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Ramis a/l MuniandyAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLostSubhas Anandan, Anand Nalachandran, G Dinagaran
Public ProsecutorRespondentGovernment AgencyAppeal DismissedWonLee Lit Cheng, Seah Kim Ming Glenn

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chao Hick TinJustice of AppealYes
L P TheanJustice of AppealNo
Yong Pung HowChief JusticeNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Subhas AnandanHarry Elias Partnership
Anand NalachandranHarry Elias Partnership
G DinagaranThomas Tham & Co
Lee Lit ChengDeputy Public Prosecutors
Seah Kim Ming GlennDeputy Public Prosecutors

4. Facts

  1. CNB officers received a tip-off about an impending cannabis transaction.
  2. Ramis was spotted riding a motorcycle with a black thing in the front carrier basket.
  3. Ramis was arrested at the carpark along Marsiling Industrial Estate Road 2.
  4. A Puma bag containing cannabis was found in the motorcycle's front carrier basket.
  5. Ramis denied ownership of the bag and knowledge of its contents.
  6. A urine test revealed traces of cannabis and amphetamine in Ramis's urine.
  7. The cannabis weighed 1529.8 grams nett.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Ramis a/l Muniandy v Public Prosecutor, CA 8/2001, [2001] SGCA 51

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Cannabis transaction occurred
Ramis arrested
Ramis charged
Appeal dismissed

7. Legal Issues

  1. Possession of Controlled Drugs for Purpose of Trafficking
    • Outcome: The court found that the prosecution had proven that Ramis had physical control and knowledge of the drugs, thus satisfying the element of possession. The presumption of trafficking under s 17(d) of the Misuse of Drugs Act was not rebutted.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Proof of physical control over drugs
      • Proof of knowledge of drugs
      • Presumption of trafficking
    • Related Cases:
      • [1969] 2 AC 256
      • [1978-1979] SLR 211
      • [1980] 1 MLJ 49
      • [2001] 1 SLR 633
      • [2000] 4 SLR 589
  2. Findings of Fact by Trial Judge
    • Outcome: The court held that an appellate court will not easily disturb findings of fact unless they are clearly reached against the weight of evidence.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [1992] 1 SLR 713
      • [1997] 3 SLR 464
      • [1998] 3 SLR 656
      • [1999] 3 SLR 93

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Appeal against conviction and sentence

9. Cause of Actions

  • Possession of controlled drugs for the purpose of trafficking

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Law
  • Drug Offences

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Warner v Metropolitan Police ComrHouse of LordsYes[1969] 2 AC 256United KingdomCited to define the meaning of 'possession' in relation to controlled substances.
Tan Ah Tee v PPCourt of Criminal AppealYes[1978-1979] SLR 211SingaporeFollowed Warner v Metropolitan Police Comr in defining the elements of possession, specifically physical control and knowledge.
Tan Ah Tee v PPCourt of Criminal AppealYes[1980] 1 MLJ 49SingaporeFollowed Warner v Metropolitan Police Comr in defining the elements of possession, specifically physical control and knowledge.
Zulfikar bin Mustaffah v PPHigh CourtYes[2001] 1 SLR 633SingaporeCited for the principle that the prosecution must prove physical control and knowledge to establish possession of drugs.
Lim Beng Soon v PPHigh CourtYes[2000] 4 SLR 589SingaporeCited for the principle that the prosecution must prove physical control and knowledge to establish possession of drugs.
Lim Ah Poh v PPHigh CourtYes[1992] 1 SLR 713SingaporeCited regarding the role of an appellate court in reviewing a trial judge's findings of fact.
Sundara Moorthy Lankatharan v PPHigh CourtYes[1997] 3 SLR 464SingaporeCited regarding the role of an appellate court in reviewing a trial judge's findings of fact.
Yap Giau Beng Terence v PPHigh CourtYes[1998] 3 SLR 656SingaporeCited regarding the role of an appellate court in reviewing a trial judge's findings of fact.
Tan Hung Yeoh v PPHigh CourtYes[1999] 3 SLR 93SingaporeCited regarding the role of an appellate court in reviewing a trial judge's findings of fact.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 1998 Ed) s 5(1)(a)Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 1998 Ed) s 5(2)Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 1998 Ed) s 17(d)Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) s 122(6)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Cannabis
  • Trafficking
  • Possession
  • Physical Control
  • Knowledge
  • Presumption
  • Misuse of Drugs Act
  • CNB
  • Roke

15.2 Keywords

  • Cannabis
  • Drug Trafficking
  • Possession
  • Misuse of Drugs Act
  • Singapore
  • Criminal Law

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Drug Trafficking

17. Areas of Law

  • Criminal Law
  • Drug Trafficking
  • Criminal Procedure
  • Evidence