PP v Ranjit Singh Gill: Trafficking of Diamorphine under Misuse of Drugs Act
In [2016] SGHC 217, the High Court of Singapore heard the case of Public Prosecutor v Ranjit Singh Gill Menjeet Singh and Mohammad Farid Bin Batra, involving charges of trafficking in diamorphine under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Ranjit was accused of giving drugs to Farid, while Farid was accused of possessing drugs for trafficking. The court convicted both defendants. Ranjit was sentenced to life imprisonment and caning after meeting the requirements under s 33B of the MDA, while Farid received the mandatory death sentence for failing to meet those requirements.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Ranjit Singh Gill Menjeet Singh was sentenced to life imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane. Mohammad Farid Bin Batra was sentenced to death.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Ranjit Singh Gill and Mohammad Farid Bin Batra were charged with drug trafficking. Ranjit received life imprisonment, while Farid received the death penalty.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Prosecution | Government Agency | Partial Victory | Partial | Han Ming Kuang of Attorney-General’s Chambers Jason Chua of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Mohammad Farid bin Batra | Defendant | Individual | Lost | Lost | |
| Ranjit Singh Gill Menjeet Singh | Defendant | Individual | Partial Loss | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Hoo Sheau Peng | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Han Ming Kuang | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Jason Chua | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Mahesh Rai | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Amarjit Singh | Donaldson & Burkinshaw LLP |
| Gino Hardial Singh | Prestige Legal LLP |
| Dhanaraj James Selvaraj | James Selvaraj LLC |
| Singa Retnam | Aziz Tayabali & Associates |
4. Facts
- Ranjit gave Farid a Robinsons bag containing not less than 1,359.9 grams of a substance containing not less than 35.21 grams of diamorphine.
- Farid possessed the Robinsons bag and knew it contained heroin.
- Ranjit had been delivering illegal items into Singapore for Siva since December 2013.
- Farid had been making deliveries for "Abang" twice a week for about two to three weeks.
- Empty sachets and weighing scales were found in Farid's unit.
- Ranjit claimed he did not know the Robinsons bag contained anything illegal, or at any rate, that it contained heroin specifically.
- Farid claimed he acted as a courier and cooperated with CNB by providing valuable information.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Ranjit Singh Gill Menjeet Singh and another, Criminal Case No 21 of 2016, [2016] SGHC 217
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| CNB officers began surveillance in Choa Chu Kang Way. | |
| Ranjit and Farid met and exchanged the Robinsons bag and the red-and-yellow package. | |
| Farid was arrested near Yew Tee MRT. | |
| Ranjit was arrested along Seletar Expressway Exit 3. | |
| Trial began. | |
| Trial continued. | |
| Trial continued. | |
| Trial continued. | |
| Trial continued. | |
| Judgment delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Trafficking in Controlled Drugs
- Outcome: The court found both defendants guilty of trafficking in controlled drugs.
- Category: Substantive
- Presumption of Knowledge
- Outcome: The court found that Ranjit failed to rebut the presumption of knowledge.
- Category: Substantive
- Alternative Sentencing Regime
- Outcome: The court exercised its discretion to impose life imprisonment on Ranjit but not on Farid.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Death penalty
- Life imprisonment and a minimum of 15 strokes of the cane
9. Cause of Actions
- Trafficking in a Class-A controlled drug under s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act
- Trafficking in a Class-A controlled drug under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Makin v Attorney-General for New South Wales | Privy Council | Yes | [1894] AC 64 | New South Wales | Cited regarding the use of similar fact evidence to rebut an attempt to disprove intent or to raise a defence. |
| Tan Meng Jee v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR(R) 178 | Singapore | Cited for the common law balancing test of weighing the probative force of a piece of evidence against its prejudicial value. |
| Boardman v Director of Public Prosecutions | House of Lords | Yes | [1975] AC 421 | England and Wales | Cited for the common law balancing test of weighing the probative force of a piece of evidence against its prejudicial value. |
| Ng Beng Siang and others v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2003] SGCA 17 | Singapore | Cited for guidance in the application of the factors to determine whether a piece of evidence is sufficiently probative to be admitted. |
| Muhammad Ridzuan bin Md Ali v Public Prosecutor and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 721 | Singapore | Cited for the elements to be established in a charge of trafficking under s 5(1) read with s 5(2) of the MDA. |
| Public Prosecutor v Abdul Haleem bin Abdul Karim and another | High Court | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 734 | Singapore | Cited regarding the determination of whether an offender was a courier. |
| Public Prosecutor v Christeen d/o Jayamany and another | High Court | Yes | [2015] SGHC 126 | Singapore | Cited regarding the determination of whether an offender was a courier. |
| Muhammad Ridzuan bin Mohd Ali v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 1222 | Singapore | Cited regarding the Public Prosecutor's decision on substantive assistance. |
| Public Prosecutor v Chum Tat Suan and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 834 | Singapore | Cited regarding the role of a courier. |
| Public Prosecutor v Yogaras Poongavanam | High Court | Yes | [2015] SGHC 193 | Singapore | Cited regarding the role of a courier. |
| Public Prosecutor v Siva a/l Sannasi | High Court | Yes | [2015] SGHC 73 | Singapore | Cited regarding the role of a courier. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 5(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 5(2) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 33(1) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 33B | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 33B(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 33B(2)(a) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 33B(2)(b) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 33B(4) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 2 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 18(1) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 18(2) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 267(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 23 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 22 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) ss 14 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act ss 15 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act ss 6 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act ss 9 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Trafficking
- Courier
- Substantive assistance
- Presumption of knowledge
- Robinsons bag
- Air Batu
- Barang
- Makan
15.2 Keywords
- Drug trafficking
- Diamorphine
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
- Trafficking
- Controlled drugs
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 75 |
| Evidence | 60 |
| Sentencing | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Sentencing