Bala Murugan v PP: Trafficking, Abetment, Mens Rea under Misuse of Drugs Act

Bala Murugan A/L Krishnan and Lim Boon Kiat appealed to the Court of Appeal of Singapore against their conviction and sentencing by Judicial Commissioner Tay Yong Kwang for offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Bala Murugan was charged with abetting the commission of drug trafficking, while Lim was charged with abetting Steven Ang Keng Leong in trafficking diamorphine. The Court of Appeal, composed of Chao Hick Tin JA, MPH Rubin J, and Tan Lee Meng J, dismissed both appeals, finding that the prosecution had proven the guilt of both appellants beyond a reasonable doubt.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeals dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Bala Murugan and Lim Boon Kiat appeal against their conviction for drug-related offences. The court dismissed the appeals, finding them guilty.

1.7 Decision Date

11 July 2002

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Public Prosecutor	Respondent	Government Agency	Appeal Upheld	Won	Bala Reddy of Deputy Public Prosecutors Sia Aik Kor of Deputy Public Prosecutors
Bala Murugan a/l Krishnan	Appellant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Subhas Anandan of Harry Elias Partnership Anandan Nalachandran of Harry Elias Partnership
Lim Boon Kiat	Appellant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Thangavelu of Rajah Velu & Co Paul Chia of Tan Gill & Paul

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Chao Hick Tin	Judge of Appeal	Yes
MPH Rubin	Judge	No
Tan Lee Meng	Judge	No

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Bala Reddy	Deputy Public Prosecutors
Sia Aik Kor	Deputy Public Prosecutors
Subhas Anandan	Harry Elias Partnership
Anandan Nalachandran	Harry Elias Partnership
Thangavelu	Rajah Velu & Co
Paul Chia	Tan Gill & Paul

4. Facts

Steven Ang was found in possession of 37.08 grams of diamorphine.
Bala Murugan handed a haversack to Steven Ang at a bus stop.
Lim drove Steven Ang to Yishun.
Bala Murugan initially denied any involvement with Steven Ang.
Bala Murugan later claimed he was merely delivering the haversack for a friend.
Lim admitted he suspected Steven Ang was either delivering or collecting drugs.
Steven Ang claimed Lim was not aware of the drug transaction.

5. Formal Citations

Bala Murugan a/l Krishnan and Another v Public Prosecutor, Cr App 2/2002, [2002] SGCA 34

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2001-06-27	Steven Ang trafficked drugs in a car along Yishun Avenue 2.
2001-06-27	Bala Murugan conspired with Steven Ang to traffic drugs at a bus stop in front of Block 289 Yishun Avenue 7.
2001-06-27	Lim Boon Kiat abetted Steven Ang to traffic drugs along Yishun Avenue 2.
2001-06-27	Steven Ang was observed leaving the car park of Block 12 York Hill in a car driven by Lim.
2001-06-27	Steven Ang was seen walking towards the bus stop in front of Block 289 Yishun Avenue 7.
2001-06-27	Bala Murugan was seen walking towards the bus stop, carrying a haversack.
2001-06-27	Bala Murugan placed the haversack on the seat and sat down.
2001-06-27	Steven Ang picked up the haversack and made a call using his handphone.
2001-06-27	Lim drove his vehicle to the bus stop to pick up Steven Ang.
2001-06-27	Steven Ang placed the haversack into the boot of the vehicle.
2001-06-27	Bala Murugan was arrested.
2001-06-27	CNB officers intercepted the vehicle and arrested Steven Ang and Lim.

7. Legal Issues

Abetment of Trafficking
- Outcome: The court found that Lim had the requisite mens rea and was a knowing participant in the journey to collect the drugs, thus upholding his conviction for abetment of trafficking.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Intentional aiding
  - Active complicity
- Related Cases:
  - [1993] 2 SLR 14
Requisite Mens Rea
- Outcome: The court found that Lim had the requisite mens rea, either by actual knowledge or by deliberately shutting his eyes to the obvious, thus upholding his conviction.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Knowledge of drug trafficking
  - Intent to facilitate the commission of the crime
  - Blind eye knowledge
- Related Cases:
  - [2001] 1 All ER 743
  - [1976] 3 All ER 243
  - [1977] QB 49
  - [1986] 83 Cr App R 155
  - [1997] 3 SLR 445
Factual Findings of Trial Judge
- Outcome: The court upheld the trial judge's factual findings, stating that an appellate court would generally be slow to disturb such findings unless they were clearly wrong or unsupported by the evidence.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Interference by appellate court
  - Assessment of witness credibility
- Related Cases:
  - (Criminal Appeal No 17 of 2000, unreported)
  - (1891) 4 SLJ 33
  - [1937] MLJ 261
  - [1938] MLJ 95
  - [1956] MLJ 197
  - [1991] 1 SLR 805
  - [1992] 1 SLR 713
  - [1999] 3 SLR 93
  - [2000] 3 SLR 262
Corroboration of Guilt
- Outcome: The court held that Bala Murugan's inconsistent versions of events could be relied on as corroborating evidence of his guilt.
- Category: Evidence
- Sub-Issues:
  - Inconsistent statements
  - Deliberate lies
  - Motive for lying
- Related Cases:
  - [1981] QB 720
  - [1994] 2 SLR 867

8. Remedies Sought

Appeal against conviction
Appeal against sentence

9. Cause of Actions

Drug Trafficking
Abetment

10. Practice Areas

Criminal Law
Appeals

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Public Prosecutor v Sugianto & Anor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1994] 2 SLR 1	Singapore	Cited for the principle that direct evidence of a conspiracy is rarely available and must be inferred from the evidence and surrounding circumstances.
Lai Kam Loy & Ors v PP	Court of Appeal	No	[1994] 1 SLR 787	Singapore	Cited for the essential ingredient of a conspiracy is agreement.
Khalid Bin Abdul Rashid v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	(Criminal Appeal No 17 of 2000, unreported)	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an appellate court would generally be slow to disturb the findings of the trial court.
Opium Farm v Chin Ah Quee	N/A	No	(1891) 4 SLJ 33	Singapore	Cited regarding the circumstances in which an appellate court can interfere with the findings of a trial court.
Chia Han Kiat v R	N/A	No	[1937] MLJ 261	Malaysia	Cited regarding the circumstances in which an appellate court can interfere with the findings of a trial court.
Goh Ah San v R	N/A	No	[1938] MLJ 95	Malaysia	Cited regarding the circumstances in which an appellate court can interfere with the findings of a trial court.
In re AB Ltd	N/A	No	[1956] MLJ 197	Malaysia	Cited regarding the circumstances in which an appellate court can interfere with the findings of a trial court.
Tan Choon Huat v Public Prosecutor	N/A	No	[1991] 1 SLR 805	Singapore	Cited regarding the circumstances in which an appellate court can interfere with the findings of a trial court.
Lim Ah Poh v Public Prosecutor	N/A	No	[1992] 1 SLR 713	Singapore	Cited regarding the circumstances in which an appellate court can interfere with the findings of a trial court.
Tan Hung Yeoh v Public Prosecutor	N/A	No	[1999] 3 SLR 93	Singapore	Cited regarding the circumstances in which an appellate court can interfere with the findings of a trial court.
Chng Gim Huat v Public Prosecutor	N/A	No	[2000] 3 SLR 262	Singapore	Cited regarding the circumstances in which an appellate court can interfere with the findings of a trial court.
R v Lucas (Ruth)	N/A	Yes	[1981] QB 720	N/A	Cited for the conditions which must apply before a lie can qualify as corroboration.
Public Prosecutor v Yeo Choon Poh	N/A	Yes	[1994] 2 SLR 867	Singapore	Cited for approving the conditions which must apply before a lie can qualify as corroboration.
Tan Siew Chay & Ors v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1993] 2 SLR 14	Singapore	Cited for the essential elements which must be established for abetment of drug trafficking.
Shri Ram v State of UP	N/A	No	[1975] 81 Cr LJ 240	N/A	Cited for the principle that there must be active complicity which is the gist of the offence.
Manifest Shipping Co Ltd v Uni-Polaris Shipping Co Ltd and Others	N/A	No	[2001] 1 All ER 743	N/A	Cited for the concept of 'blind eye' knowledge.
The Eurysthenes	N/A	No	[1976] 3 All ER 243	N/A	Cited for the description of 'blind eye' knowledge.
The Eurysthenes	N/A	No	[1977] QB 49	N/A	Cited for the description of 'blind eye' knowledge.
Westminster City Council v Croyalgrange Ltd And Another	N/A	No	[1986] 83 Cr App R 155	N/A	Cited for the principle that a finding of knowledge can be based on evidence that the defendant deliberately shut his eyes to the obvious.
Chiaw Wai Onn v Public Prosecutor	N/A	No	[1997] 3 SLR 445	Singapore	Cited for the principle that if the appellant had deliberately shut his eyes to the obvious, then it could be inferred that he had the requisite guilty knowledge.
Thiruselvam s/o Nagaratnam v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	No	[2001] 2 SLR 125	Singapore	Cited for the principle that exoneration of an accused by a co-accused would not necessarily relieve the accused of his culpability.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185)	Singapore
s 5(1)(a) Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185)	Singapore
s 5(2) Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185)	Singapore
s 12 Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2001 Ed)	Singapore
s 33 Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Diamorphine
Drug trafficking
Abetment
Mens rea
Haversack
Inconsistent statements
Blind eye knowledge
Corroboration
Factual findings
Guilty knowledge

15.2 Keywords

Drug trafficking
Abetment
Mens rea
Singapore
Criminal Law

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Misuse of Drugs Act	95
Criminal Law	90
Criminal Procedure	70
Evidence Law	60
Appeal	50

16. Subjects

Criminal Law
Drug Offences
Appeals