Public Prosecutor v S K Murugan: Trafficking of Diamorphine under the Misuse of Drugs Act

In the High Court of Singapore, S K Murugan Subrawmanian was charged with trafficking not less than 66.27 grams of diamorphine under s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The court, presided over by Foo Chee Hock JC, found the accused guilty based on his statements and objective evidence, including the recovery of drugs and money. The accused's defense of intellectual disability and involuntariness of statements was rejected. The court convicted him on the charge.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Guilty

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

S K Murugan was convicted of trafficking diamorphine under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The court found him guilty based on his statements and objective evidence.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorProsecutionGovernment AgencyConvictionWon
April Phang of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Rimplejit Kaur of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Tan Yanying of Attorney-General’s Chambers
S K Murugan SubrawmanianDefendantIndividualGuiltyLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Foo Chee HockJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
April PhangAttorney-General’s Chambers
Rimplejit KaurAttorney-General’s Chambers
Tan YanyingAttorney-General’s Chambers
Thrumurgam s/o RamapiramTrident Law Corporation
A SangeethaTrident Law Corporation
Sherrie HanTrident Law Corporation

4. Facts

  1. The accused was arrested on 6 January 2015 for drug trafficking.
  2. The accused was found to be in possession of five bundles containing not less than 66.27 grams of diamorphine.
  3. The accused received the drugs from one Kumar in Malaysia.
  4. The accused met with Hisham at Greenwich Drive to exchange the drugs for S$13,000.
  5. Hisham died shortly after the exchange.
  6. The accused's long statements indicated his involvement in the drug trafficking.
  7. The accused initially denied giving Hisham the drugs in his contemporaneous and cautioned statements.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Public Prosecutor v S K Murugan Subrawmanian, Criminal Case No 66 of 2017, [2018] SGHC 71

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Accused arrested for drug trafficking
Trial began
Trial continued
Trial continued
Trial continued
Trial continued
Trial continued
Trial continued
Trial continued
Trial continued
Trial continued
Trial continued
Trial continued
Trial continued
Accused applied to discharge counsel and give evidence
Judgment pronounced
Grounds of Decision issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Trafficking of Controlled Drugs
    • Outcome: The court found the accused guilty of trafficking diamorphine.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2014] 3 SLR 721
  2. Admissibility of Statements
    • Outcome: The court held that the accused's long statements were admissible.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [2000] 2 SLR(R) 541
      • [2014] 2 SLR 1189
  3. Mental Capacity of Accused
    • Outcome: The court found that the accused was not suffering from an intellectual disability or abnormality of mind.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Conviction
  2. Death Penalty

9. Cause of Actions

  • Drug Trafficking

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Litigation
  • Drug Trafficking

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Muhammad Ridzuan bin Md Ali v Public Prosecutor and other mattersHigh CourtYes[2014] 3 SLR 721SingaporeCited for the elements of the offence of trafficking in a controlled drug under s 5(1)(a) of the MDA.
Browne v DunnN/AYes(1893) 6 R 67N/ACited regarding the rule of fairness in cross-examination.
Hong Leong Singapore Finance Ltd v United Overseas Bank LtdN/AYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 292SingaporeCited for the interpretation of the rule in Browne v Dunn.
Sharom bin Ahmad and another v Public ProsecutorN/AYes[2000] 2 SLR(R) 541SingaporeCited for the test of voluntariness of a statement.
Tey Tsun Hang v Public ProsecutorN/AYes[2014] 2 SLR 1189SingaporeCited for the litmus test for oppression.
Azman bin Mohamed Sanwan v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2012] SGCA 19SingaporeCited regarding best practices when recording long statements.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 33(1) read with the Second Schedule of the Misuse of Drugs ActSingapore
s 33B of the Misuse of Drugs ActSingapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 22 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 258(3) of the Criminal Procedure CodeSingapore
s 230(j) of the Criminal Procedure CodeSingapore
s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs ActSingapore
s 279(5) of the Criminal Procedure CodeSingapore
s 33B(3)(b) of the MDASingapore
s 33B(2)(a) of the MDASingapore
s 33B(2)(b) of the MDASingapore
s 230(1)(p) of the CPCSingapore
s 230(1)(m) of the CPCSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Diamorphine
  • Trafficking
  • Misuse of Drugs Act
  • Long Statements
  • Intellectual Disability
  • Inducement
  • Oppression
  • Voluntariness
  • Courier
  • Greenwich Drive

15.2 Keywords

  • Drug Trafficking
  • Diamorphine
  • Singapore
  • Criminal Law
  • MDA
  • CPC
  • Statements
  • Evidence
  • Conviction

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Misuse of Drugs Act95
Criminal Law90
Evidence Law70
Evidence60
Admissibility of evidence60
Witnesses60
Criminal Procedure50
Sentencing40

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Drug Trafficking
  • Evidence
  • Criminal Procedure