Public Prosecutor v Azman: Drug Trafficking - Misuse of Drugs Act
In Public Prosecutor v Azman bin Mohamed Sanwan and others, the High Court of Singapore heard the case against Azman, Tamil, and Bala, who were charged with drug trafficking under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The court, presided over by Justice Kan Ting Chiu, found Azman guilty of possessing cannabis for the purpose of trafficking, while Tamil and Bala were acquitted due to insufficient evidence linking them to the drugs. The judgment was delivered on 2010-07-09.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
First Accused Guilty; Second and Third Accused Acquitted
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Azman, Tamil, and Bala were charged with drug trafficking. The High Court found Azman guilty, but acquitted Tamil and Bala due to lack of evidence.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Prosecution | Government Agency | Guilty | Won | Chay Yuen Fatt, Shahla Iqbal, Hon Yi, Adeline Ee |
| Azman bin Mohamed Sanwan | Defendant | Individual | Guilty | Lost | Sunil Sudheesan |
| Tamil Salvem | Defendant | Individual | Acquitted | Won | Ramesh Tiwary, Pratap Kishan |
| Balasubramaniam s/o Murugesan | Defendant | Individual | Acquitted | Won | Ramesh Tiwary, Sarindar Singh |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Kan Ting Chiu | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Chay Yuen Fatt | Deputy Public Prosecutors |
| Shahla Iqbal | Deputy Public Prosecutors |
| Hon Yi | Deputy Public Prosecutors |
| Adeline Ee | Deputy Public Prosecutors |
| Sunil Sudheesan | KhattarWong |
| Ramesh Tiwary | Ramesh Tiwary |
| Pratap Kishan | Kishan & V Suria Partnership |
| Sarindar Singh | Singh & Co |
4. Facts
- Azman, Tamil, and Bala traveled to Johor Baru with others.
- Cannabis was found in a blue paper bag in the boot of Azman's car.
- Azman, Tamil, and Bala were observed at a carpark with two cars.
- Azman made statements to CNB officers, some of which were disputed.
- Tamil and Bala claimed they did not know about the drugs.
- Azman claimed he did not know why the drugs were in his car.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Azman bin Mohamed Sanwan and others, Criminal Case No 11 of 2008, [2010] SGHC 196
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Azman and Tamil drove to Johor in a rented car. | |
| Bala went to Johor Baru in another car with Sundram, Kumar, and Kumaran. | |
| Azman, Tamil, and Bala were arrested at Yishun Ring Road. | |
| CNB officers seized cannabis from Azman's car. | |
| Cautioned statements were recorded from each of the accused persons. | |
| Adam Tan recorded statements from Azman. | |
| Adam Tan recorded statements from Azman. | |
| Adam Tan saw Azman and spoke to him about his wife and family. | |
| Adam Tan served Azman with a charge for trafficking of the drug Ecstasy. | |
| Adam Tan recorded a cautioned statement from Azman. | |
| An engineer examined and tested the car. | |
| Adam Tan recorded a statement from Azman. | |
| Adam Tan saw Azman in Queenstown Remand Prison. | |
| Adam Tan collected a DNA specimen from Azman. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Drug Trafficking
- Outcome: Azman was found guilty of drug trafficking.
- Category: Substantive
- Possession of Controlled Drugs
- Outcome: The court considered whether the accused persons had possession of the cannabis.
- Category: Substantive
- Common Intention
- Outcome: The court found that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused persons had a common intention to traffic drugs.
- Category: Substantive
- Admissibility of Statements
- Outcome: The court ruled on the admissibility of statements made by Azman, considering compliance with s 121 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- Category: Procedural
- Wilful Blindness
- Outcome: The court considered the principle of wilful blindness in relation to Tamil and Bala's knowledge of the drugs.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Conviction
- Imprisonment
9. Cause of Actions
- Drug Trafficking
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Mazlan bin Maidun and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 3 SLR(R) 968 | Singapore | Cited for the ruling that a suspect or an accused need not be expressly informed of a right to remain silent whenever any statement is recorded from him pursuant to s 121(2) of the CPC. |
| Vasavan Sathiadew & 2 Ors v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] SGCA 26 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that non-compliance with s 121 of the CPC does not render the statement inadmissible under s 122(5) of the CPC. |
| Panya Martmontree and others v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR(R) 806 | Singapore | Cited for the holding that a statement that was neither read back nor signed was admissible in evidence. |
| Tan Kiam Peng v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 1 | Singapore | Cited for the view that the required knowledge goes beyond knowledge that it is a controlled drug, and is knowledge that it is the specific controlled drug in question. |
| Jones v Gordon | N/A | Yes | Jones v Gordon (1877) 2 App Cas 616 | N/A | Cited for explaining the mental elements necessary to support a finding of wilful blindness. |
| Compania Maritima San Basilo S A v Oceanus Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1977] 1 QB 49 | N/A | Cited for the principle that if a man, suspicious of the truth, turns a blind eye to it, and refrains from inquiry - so that he should not know it for certain - then he is to be regarded as knowing the truth. |
| Manifest Shipping Co Ltd v Uni-Polaris Insurance Co Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2003] 1 AC 469 | N/A | Cited for the principle that blind-eye knowledge requires a conscious reason for blinding the eye. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Chapter 185) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act, section 5(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act, section 5(2) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act, section 33 | Singapore |
| Penal Code, Chapter 224, section 34 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed), section 121 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed), section 32 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act, section 18(1) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act, section 21 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act, section 18(2) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act, section 17 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Cannabis
- Drug Trafficking
- Common Intention
- Wilful Blindness
- Possession
- Blue Paper Bag
- Statements
- Presumption
- Controlled Drug
15.2 Keywords
- Drug Trafficking
- Cannabis
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
- Misuse of Drugs Act
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Offences
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Misuse of Drugs Act