Mervin Singh v Public Prosecutor: Drug Trafficking, Presumption of Knowledge, and Rebuttal

Mervin Singh and another appealed against the High Court's decision regarding drug trafficking. The Court of Appeal, with Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA delivering the judgment, allowed Mervin Singh's appeal, finding he successfully rebutted the presumption of knowledge under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The court dismissed the second appellant's appeal, concluding the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the second appellant was in possession of the pink box for the purposes of trafficking, and that he had knowledge that the pink box contained diamorphine.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

First Appellant's appeal allowed; Second Appellant's appeal dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding drug trafficking. The court allowed Mervin Singh's appeal, finding he rebutted the presumption of knowledge, but dismissed the second appellant's appeal.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorRespondentGovernment AgencyAppeal DismissedLost
Marcus Foo of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Anandan Bala of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Kenneth Wong of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Mervin SinghAppellantIndividualAppeal AllowedWon
Second AppellantAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chao Hick TinJustice of the Court of AppealYes
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJustice of the Court of AppealYes
V K RajahJustice of the Court of AppealYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Marcus FooAttorney-General’s Chambers
Anandan BalaAttorney-General’s Chambers
Kenneth WongAttorney-General’s Chambers
Amarick GillAmrick Gill & Co
Selva K NaiduLiberty Law Practice LLP
Tan Chuan ThyeStamford Law Corporation
Daniel ChiaStamford Law Corporation
M. LukshumayehCentral Chambers Law Corporation
Loh Jien LiStamford Law Corporation

4. Facts

  1. First Appellant was found in possession of a pink box containing diamorphine.
  2. First Appellant claimed he believed the box contained contraband cigarettes.
  3. Second Appellant's DNA was found on the pink box and newspaper wrapping the drugs.
  4. Second Appellant claimed he was holding the drugs for a friend named Kacong.
  5. Telephone records showed contact between the First and Second Appellants.
  6. The First Appellant had a history of dealing with contraband cigarettes.
  7. The Second Appellant gave conflicting accounts of his involvement with the pink box.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Mervin Singh and another v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Appeal No 18 of 2011, [2013] SGCA 20
  2. Public Prosecutor v Mervin Singh and another, , [2011] SGHC 222

6. Timeline

DateEvent
First Appellant caught by customs officers for possession of contraband cigarettes and paid a $500 fine.
CNB trailed a black Subaru Impreza car from about 2.20pm.
First Appellant alighted the vehicle at Block 485B Tampines Avenue 9 at about 2.50pm.
First Appellant received an incoming call on his white Samsung mobile phone from the Second Appellant’s mobile phone at 3.04pm.
Second Appellant was arrested by CNB officers at around 3.05pm.
First Appellant received a call on his black Samsung mobile phone from Sopak at 3.07pm.
The trio were arrested by CNB officers at about 3.10pm.
The Second Appellant was escorted back to his residence at Block 485B Tampines Avenue 9 #10-130 at about 4.15pm.
The pink box and the sheets of newspaper wrapped around the nine packets were sent to the Health Science Authority for DNA analysis.
The nine packets were sent to the HSA for analysis.
The brownish granular substance found in the pink plastic bag in the Second Appellant’s room was also sent to the HSA for testing.
High Court decision in [2011] SGHC 222.
Judgment reserved.
Court of Appeal decision.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Rebuttal of Presumption of Knowledge
    • Outcome: The Court of Appeal found that the First Appellant successfully rebutted the presumption of knowledge on a balance of probabilities.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Sufficiency of evidence to rebut presumption
      • Credibility of witnesses
  2. Possession of Controlled Drugs for Trafficking
    • Outcome: The Court of Appeal found that the Prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the Second Appellant was in possession of the pink box for the purposes of trafficking, and that he had knowledge that the pink box contained diamorphine.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Knowledge of the nature of the drug
      • Intent to traffic
  3. Credibility of Witness Testimony
    • Outcome: The Court of Appeal found that the Judge's treatment of Station Inspector Goh Teck Hock's evidence was problematic and did not accord it much weight.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Inconsistencies in statements
      • Distance and visibility of witness
      • Reliability of witness recollection

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Appeal against conviction

9. Cause of Actions

  • Drug Trafficking

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Public Prosecutor v Mervin Singh and anotherHigh CourtYes[2011] SGHC 222SingaporeThe judgment being appealed from.
Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2011] 4 SLR 1156SingaporeCited for the applicable legal principles regarding the presumption of possession and knowledge of controlled drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
Tan Kiam Peng v PPCourt of AppealYes[2008] 1 SLR(R) 1SingaporeCited for the discussion of the narrow interpretation of 'controlled drug' in s 18(2) of the MDA.
Warner v Metropolitan Police CommissionerHouse of LordsYes[1969] 2 AC 256England and WalesCited as an example of rebutting the presumption of knowledge by proving a genuine belief that the possessed item was innocuous.
Khor Soon Lee v PPCourt of AppealYes[2011] 3 SLR 201SingaporeCited as an example of rebutting the presumption of knowledge by proving a genuine belief that the possessed item was a different controlled drug.
Thong Ah Fat v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2012] 1 SLR 676SingaporeCited for the principle that a judge must explicate how they arrived at a particular conclusion.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2004 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2004 Rev Ed)Singapore
Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (Cap 67, 2000 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Diamorphine
  • Contraband cigarettes
  • Presumption of knowledge
  • Rebuttal
  • DNA evidence
  • Telephone records
  • Credibility of witnesses
  • Possession
  • Trafficking
  • Balance of probabilities

15.2 Keywords

  • Drug trafficking
  • Presumption of knowledge
  • Rebuttal
  • Singapore
  • Criminal appeal

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Drug Crimes95
Criminal Law90
Criminal Procedure70
Evidence Law60

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Drug Trafficking
  • Evidence