PP v Purushothaman: Importation of Diamorphine & Wilful Blindness
In Public Prosecutor v Purushothaman a/l Subramaniam, the High Court of Singapore convicted Purushothaman of importing diamorphine into Singapore. The court, presided over by Justice Tan Siong Thye, found that Purushothaman was wilfully blind to the presence of the drugs in his motorcycle. Purushothaman's defense of lacking knowledge was rejected, and he was found guilty on 28 October 2014.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Accused Guilty
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Purushothaman was convicted of importing diamorphine. The court found he was wilfully blind to the drugs hidden in his motorcycle, rejecting his defense of lacking knowledge.
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 | Lau Wing Yum of Attorney-General’s Chambers Seraphina Fong of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Purushothaman a/l Subramaniam | Defendant | Individual | Accused Guilty | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tan Siong Thye | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Lau Wing Yum | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Seraphina Fong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Rengarajoo s/o Rengasamy | B Rengarajoo & Associates |
| Ong Lip Cheng | Templars Law LLC |
4. Facts
- The accused was charged with importing diamorphine into Singapore.
- The accused claimed he did not know the black bundle in his motorcycle contained diamorphine.
- The accused received a RM10,000 loan from Prabha for his mother's heart operation.
- The accused was paid RM500 for each delivery he made for Prabha.
- The accused admitted to being suspicious of Prabha's modus operandi.
- The accused's DNA was found on a screw used to secure the plastic cover hiding the drugs.
- The plastic cover concealing the drugs was secured with only one screw to facilitate easy removal.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Purushothaman a/l Subramaniam, Criminal Case No 27 of 2014, [2014] SGHC 215
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Accused imported diamorphine into Singapore | |
| Accused arrested at Woodlands Checkpoint | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Accused found guilty |
7. Legal Issues
- Importation of Controlled Drugs
- Outcome: The court found the accused guilty of importing diamorphine into Singapore under s 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
- Category: Substantive
- Wilful Blindness
- Outcome: The court found that the accused's failure to check the motorcycle despite suspicious circumstances amounted to wilful blindness, which equates to actual knowledge.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2011] 4 SLR 1156
- [2008] 1 SLR(R) 1
- [2011] 3 SLR 201
- [1997] 2 SLR(R) 233
- [2010] SGHC 196
- [2011] 3 SLR 437
- Presumption of Possession and Knowledge
- Outcome: The court found that the accused failed to rebut the presumption of possession and knowledge under s 18(2) and s 21 of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
- Category: Procedural
- Similar Fact Evidence
- Outcome: The court allowed the Prosecution to cross-examine the accused on facts and events that might appear to be similar fact evidence to ascertain whether the accused was wilfully blind and thus had the mens rea to import diamorphine into Singapore.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [1996] 2 SLR(R) 178
- [2003] SGCA 17
8. Remedies Sought
- Conviction
- Punishment under the Misuse of Drugs Act
9. Cause of Actions
- Importation of a Controlled Drug
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 4 SLR 1156 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the accused has to show on a balance of probabilities that he did not know the nature of the controlled drug referred to in the charge to rebut the presumption of knowledge. |
| Tan Kiam Peng v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 1 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that wilful blindness is equivalent to actual knowledge at law. |
| Khor Soon Lee v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 201 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that wilful blindness should be premised on a strong factual basis and has to meet a high threshold. |
| Chiaw Wai Onn v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR(R) 233 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where the facts obviously point to one result, and the accused must have appreciated it but shuts his eyes to the truth, then together with the other evidence adduced, this can form a very compelling part of the evidence to infer the requisite guilty knowledge. |
| Public Prosecutor v Azman bin Mohamed Sanwan | High Court | Yes | [2010] SGHC 196 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the reasonable person in the circumstances would have suspicions and would have made enquiries or take other steps to allay his suspicions. |
| Public Prosecutor v Sng Chun Heng and another | High Court | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 437 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the assessment of wilful blindness has to be on the basis of a person who has average intelligence and honesty. |
| Tan Meng Jee v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 2 SLR(R) 178 | Singapore | Cited for the principles pertaining to similar fact evidence. |
| Ng Beng Siang and Others v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2003] SGCA 17 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that similar fact evidence was admitted where the probative value of admitting the evidence outweighed its prejudicial value against the accused. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (CAP. 185) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 7 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 33 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 18 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 21 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 23 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act s 14 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act s 15 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Wilful Blindness
- Presumption of Knowledge
- Importation
- Drug Trafficking
- Woodlands Checkpoint
- Motorcycle
- Black Bundle
- Prabha
- Courier
15.2 Keywords
- Diamorphine
- Drug Importation
- Wilful Blindness
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
- Misuse of Drugs Act
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 98 |
| Criminal Law | 95 |
| Drug Trafficking | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 60 |
| Evidence Law | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Offences
- Importation of Drugs
- Wilful Blindness