Norasharee v Public Prosecutor: Misuse of Drugs Act Appeal - Presumption of Knowledge and Co-Accused Statements
In [2017] SGCA 17, the Singapore Court of Appeal heard appeals by Norasharee bin Gous and Kalwant Singh A/L Jogindar Singh against their conviction under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The High Court had convicted them along with Mohamad Yazid bin Md Yusof, who did not appeal. Kalwant's appeal concerned the presumption of knowledge under s 18(2) of the MDA, while Norasharee's appeal involved the use of a co-accused's statements. The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding that Kalwant had actual knowledge of the drugs and that Norasharee's guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeals dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore Court of Appeal judgment on Misuse of Drugs Act, addressing presumption of knowledge and use of co-accused statements.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Marcus Foo of Attorney-General’s Chambers Ng Cheng Thiam of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Norasharee Bin Gous | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| KALWANT SINGH A/L JOGINDAR SINGH | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Mohamad Yazid bin Md Yusof | Other | Individual | Convicted in High Court | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | No |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Judge of Appeal | No |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Marcus Foo | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ng Cheng Thiam | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Mohamed Baiross | I.R.B Law LLP |
| Anand George | I.R.B Law LLP |
| Amarick Gill | Amarick Gill LLC |
| Satwant Singh | Satwant & Associates |
| Joseph Chen | Joseph Chen & Co |
| Ragbir Singh Bajwa | Bajwa & Co |
| Ravleen Kaur | Satwant & Associates |
4. Facts
- Yazid, Norasharee, and Kalwant were charged under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
- Yazid admitted to possessing diamorphine for trafficking but claimed to be a courier.
- Kalwant claimed he believed he was carrying panparak, not diamorphine.
- Norasharee denied involvement, claiming Yazid was framing him due to gang rivalry.
- Yazid identified Norasharee as 'Boy Ayie,' who instructed him on drug transactions.
- Kalwant's DNA was found on the interior of one of the drug bundles.
- Norasharee's car was recorded entering and leaving VivoCity on the day Yazid claimed they met.
5. Formal Citations
- Norasharee bin Gous v Public Prosecutor and another appeal and another matter, , [2017] SGCA 17
- NORASHAREE BIN GOUS v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, Criminal Appeal No 12 of 2016, CA/Criminal Appeal No 12 of 2016
- KALWANT SINGH A/L JOGINDAR SINGH v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, Criminal Appeal No 13 of 2016, CA/Criminal Appeal No 13 of 2016
- KALWANT SINGH A/L JOGINDAR SINGH v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, Criminal Motion No 22 of 2016, CA/Criminal Motion No 22 of 2016
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Yazid and Kalwant arrested at multi-storey car park in Woodlands. | |
| Yazid made a statement recounting a conversation with Kalwant. | |
| Norasharee was arrested at his home. | |
| Hearing of appeals. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Presumption of Knowledge
- Outcome: The court found that Kalwant had actual knowledge that the bundles contained diamorphine and failed to rebut the presumption of knowledge.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2017] SGCA 12
- [2011] 4 SLR 1156
- [2012] 2 SLR 903
- Admissibility of Co-Accused Statements
- Outcome: The court held that X may be convicted solely on Y’s testimony, but Y’s confession has to be very compelling such that it can on its own satisfy the court of X’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [1993] 3 SLR(R) 566
- [2008] 3 SLR(R) 447
- Abetment by Instigation
- Outcome: The court found that the actus reus of abetment by instigation was satisfied when Norasharee told Yazid about the drug delivery and instructed him to collect the bundles.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Possession of diamorphine for the purpose of trafficking
- Trafficking in diamorphine
- Abetting the trafficking of diamorphine
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Drug Offences
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Mohamad Yazid bin Md Yusof and others | High Court | Yes | [2016] SGHC 102 | Singapore | The High Court's judgment which convicted the three accused persons, including the appellants, under the Misuse of Drugs Act. |
| Obeng Comfort v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] SGCA 12 | Singapore | Cited for the legal principles regarding s 18 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, specifically concerning the presumptions of possession and knowledge. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mohsen bin Na’im | High Court | Yes | [2016] SGHC 150 | Singapore | Disagreement with observations of the High Court regarding knowledge that the item was a controlled drug is necessary to satisfy the requirement of possession. |
| Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 4 SLR 1156 | Singapore | Clarified that the nature of the drug refers to the specific controlled drug found in his possession. |
| Dinesh Pillai a/l K Raja Retnam v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 2 SLR 903 | Singapore | Observed that the accused can rebut the presumption of knowledge by showing that he did not know or could not reasonably be expected to have known the nature of the controlled drug. |
| Masoud Rahimi bin Mehrzad v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] SGCA 69 | Singapore | The court assesses the accused’s evidence as to his subjective knowledge by comparing it with what an ordinary, reasonable person would have known or done if placed in the same situation that the accused was in. |
| Chin Seow Noi and others v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [1993] 3 SLR(R) 566 | Singapore | Held that s 30 of the Evidence Act permitted the Court to convict X solely on the basis of Y’s confession, provided that the evidence emanating from Y’s confession satisfied the court beyond reasonable doubt of X’s guilt. |
| Lee Chez Kee v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 447 | Singapore | Negative treatment by the Court of Appeal regarding the decision in Chin Seow Noi. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lee Chez Kee | High Court | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 1142 | Singapore | The High Court cautioned against placing too much weight on Y’s statement given Y’s interest in incriminating X to exculpate himself and given Y’s unavailability for cross-examination. |
| Haliffie bin Mamat v Public Prosecutor & other appeals | N/A | Yes | [2016] 5 SLR 636 | Singapore | This Court held that a complainant’s testimony could constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt if it was so “‘unusually convincing’ as to overcome any doubts that might arise from the lack of corroboration. |
| AOF v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [2012] 3 SLR 34 | Singapore | In this regard, the relevant considerations would be his or her demeanour and the internal and external consistency of his or her testimony. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mohammed Liton Mohammed Syeed Mallik | N/A | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 601 | Singapore | In this regard, the relevant considerations would be his or her demeanour and the internal and external consistency of his or her testimony. |
| Khoo Kwoon Hain v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR(R) 591 | Singapore | If X alleges that Y has a motive to frame him, then this must be proved as a fact. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 33B of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 12 of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 18(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 23 of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 258(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1990 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 30 of the Evidence Act | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 378(1)(b)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Presumption of knowledge
- Co-accused statement
- Abetment
- Instigation
- Panparak
- Courier
- Gang rivalry
- VivoCity
15.2 Keywords
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Diamorphine
- Trafficking
- Presumption of Knowledge
- Co-Accused
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 90 |
| Appeal | 80 |
| Sentencing | 70 |
| Evidence | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Evidence
- Appeals