Public Prosecutor v Vignes: Drug Trafficking Conspiracy Case
In Public Prosecutor v Vignes s/o Mourthi & Another, the High Court of Singapore convicted Vignes s/o Mourthi and Moorthy A/L Angappan on 15 October 2002. Vignes was charged with drug trafficking for delivering diamorphine, while Moorthy was charged with conspiring with Vignes to commit the offense. The court found both accused guilty and sentenced them to death.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Both accused persons were convicted and sentenced to suffer death.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Vignes and Moorthy were convicted of drug trafficking. Vignes was found guilty of delivering diamorphine, while Moorthy was found guilty of conspiring to traffic drugs.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Prosecution | Government Agency | Judgment for Prosecution | Won | |
| Vignes s/o Mourthi | Defendant | Individual | Convicted | Lost | |
| Moorthy A/L Angappan | Defendant | Individual | Convicted | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|
4. Facts
- Vignes delivered a packet containing not less than 27.65 grams of diamorphine to Sergeant S Rajkumar.
- Moorthy conspired with Vignes to deliver the drugs.
- Vignes was to receive S$8,000 for the drugs.
- Vignes claimed he thought he was delivering 'sambrani kallu' (incense stones).
- Moorthy allegedly handed the drugs to Vignes in Johor Bahru.
- Vignes was arrested after handing over the drugs and receiving the money.
- Moorthy was arrested at Woodlands Centre Road.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Vignes s/o Mourthi & Another, CC No 25 of 2002, [2002] SGHC 240
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Vignes had an accident while riding his motorcycle back to Johor Baru. | |
| Moorthy visited Vignes' home. | |
| Moorthy handed Vignes a plastic bag of 'stones'. | |
| Vignes delivered a packet of drugs to Sergeant S Rajkumar. | |
| Vignes and Moorthy were arrested. | |
| A long statement was recorded from Vignes by the investigating officer. | |
| A further statement was recorded from Vignes. | |
| Judgment was delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Drug Trafficking
- Outcome: The court found Vignes guilty of drug trafficking.
- Category: Substantive
- Conspiracy to Traffic Drugs
- Outcome: The court found Moorthy guilty of conspiring to traffic drugs.
- Category: Substantive
- Admissibility of Co-Accused Statements
- Outcome: The court held that Vignes' statements amounted to confessions and were admissible against Moorthy.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [1999] 1 SLR 25
- [1994] 1 SLR 119
- [1998] 2 SLR 843
- [1995] 3 SLR 305
8. Remedies Sought
- Conviction
- Death Penalty
9. Cause of Actions
- Drug Trafficking
- Conspiracy to Commit Drug Trafficking
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chai Chien Wei Kelvin v PP | High Court | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR 25 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that statements need only suggest an inference that the accused committed the offence to be considered confessions. |
| Abdul Rashid v PP | High Court | Yes | [1994] 1 SLR 119 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that statements connecting the accused in some way with the offence are sufficient. |
| Tong Chee Kong v PP | High Court | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR 843 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that statements connecting the accused in some way with the offence are sufficient. |
| Goh Joon Tong and Anor v PP | High Court | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR 305 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that Section 30 Evidence Act applied to joint trials for the same offence, abetment of that offence and attempts to commit that offence |
| Ng Theng Shuang v PP | High Court | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR 36 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that only a minimum evaluation of the evidence was required at the close of the Prosecution’s case |
| Abdul Rashid & Anor v PP | High Court | Yes | [1994] 1 SLR 119 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there is no rule of law that the testimony of a witness must either be believed in its entirety or not at all |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act, Cap 185, Section 5 (1) (a) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act, Cap 185, Section 33 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act, Cap 185, Section 12 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act, Section 30 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act, section 17 (2) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act, section 116 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code, section 122 (6) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act, sections 17 (c) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act, section 18 (2) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Drug Trafficking
- Conspiracy
- Controlled Drug
- CNB
- Undercover Operation
- Sambrani Kallu
- Kallu
15.2 Keywords
- Drug Trafficking
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
- Diamorphine
- Conspiracy
- Misuse of Drugs Act
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Offences
- Evidence
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Conspiracy