Ramesh v Public Prosecutor: Drug Trafficking, Misuse of Drugs Act, Statutory Interpretation
Ramesh a/l Perumal and Chander Kumar a/l Jayagaran appealed against their convictions for drug trafficking. They were jointly tried in the High Court of Singapore, and the judge found them guilty on charges relating to diamorphine. The Court of Appeal allowed Ramesh's appeal in part, amending his conviction to possession simpliciter and sentencing him to ten years' imprisonment. Chander's appeal was dismissed, upholding his conviction for drug trafficking.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal allowed in part for Ramesh; conviction amended to possession simpliciter. Appeal dismissed for Chander.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Ramesh and Chander appeal drug trafficking convictions. The court revisits the definition of trafficking under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal allowed in part | Partial | Francis Ng Yong Kiat of Attorney-General’s Chambers Shana Poon of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Chander Kumar A/L Jayagaran | Appellant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| Ramesh A/L Perumal | Appellant | Individual | Conviction amended to possession simpliciter | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Francis Ng Yong Kiat | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Shana Poon | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- Ramesh and Chander worked as drivers for Millennium Transport Agency in Malaysia.
- Chander transported nine bundles of diamorphine into Singapore from Malaysia.
- Ramesh received four bundles of diamorphine (D bundles) from Chander.
- Chander delivered three bundles of diamorphine (E bundles) to Harun.
- CNB officers arrested Chander and Ramesh.
- Ramesh's DNA was found on the tape of one of the D bundles.
- Chander initially claimed he thought the bundles contained betel nuts.
5. Formal Citations
- Ramesh a/l Perumal v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Appeal No 57 of 2017, [2019] SGCA 17
- Chander Kumar a/l Jayagaran v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Appeal No 58 of 2017, [2019] SGCA 17
- Public Prosecutor v Ramesh a/l Perumal and another, , [2017] SGHC 290
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Ramesh and Chander drove into Singapore in a lorry. | |
| Ramesh received a bag containing diamorphine from Chander. | |
| Chander delivered bundles containing diamorphine to Harun. | |
| Ramesh and Chander were arrested. | |
| Trial began | |
| Trial concluded | |
| Certificates of Substantive Assistance issued to Chander and Ramesh | |
| Ramesh and Chander were convicted and sentenced. | |
| Ramesh and Chander appealed against their convictions and sentences. | |
| Hearing of appeals | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Drug Trafficking
- Outcome: The court found that Ramesh's possession was not proven to be for the purpose of trafficking, amending his conviction to possession simpliciter. Chander's conviction for trafficking was upheld.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Possession of controlled drug
- Knowledge of the nature of the drug
- Possession for the purpose of trafficking
- Related Cases:
- [1979–1980] SLR(R) 710
- [2011] 2 SLR 1189
- [2006] 4 SLR(R) 45
- [2018] 2 SLR 1087
- [2012] 3 SLR 527
- [2017] 1 SLR 633
- [1995] 3 SLR(R) 689
- [2018] 1 SLR 610
- [2006] 1 SLR(R) 548
- [2011] SGCA 38
- [2017] SGCA 41
- [1999] 2 SLR(R) 314
- [2018] 2 SLR 1119
- [2017] 1 SLR 257
- [2011] 4 SLR 1156
- [1994] 3 SLR(R) 375
- [1995] 1 SLR(R) 778
- [2001] SGCA 32
- (1990) 20 NSWLR 292
- (1995) 79 A Crim R 213
- [2017] 2 SLR 850
- [1894] 1 QB 710
- [2012] SGCA 18
- [2016] 1 SLR 753
- [2017] 5 SLR 1160
- [1987] 2 WLR 765
- Statutory Interpretation
- Outcome: The court clarified the interpretation of 'traffic' and 'deliver' under the Misuse of Drugs Act, considering the legislative policy and purpose.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Purposive interpretation of statutes
- Interpretation of 'traffic' and 'deliver' under the Misuse of Drugs Act
- Related Cases:
- [2017] 2 SLR 850
- Presumptions under the Misuse of Drugs Act
- Outcome: The court clarified the application of presumptions under the Misuse of Drugs Act, particularly regarding trafficking and knowledge.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Presumption of possession
- Presumption of knowledge
- Rebutting the presumptions
- Related Cases:
- [1995] 3 SLR(R) 689
- [2018] 1 SLR 610
- [2006] 1 SLR(R) 548
- [2011] SGCA 38
- [2017] SGCA 41
- [1999] 2 SLR(R) 314
- [2018] 2 SLR 1119
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Drug Trafficking
- Possession of Controlled Drugs
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Drug Offences
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ong Ah Chuan v Public Prosecutor | Privy Council | Yes | [1979–1980] SLR(R) 710 | Singapore | Cited for the fundamental rule of natural justice in criminal law that a person should not be punished for an offence unless proven guilty. |
| Yong Vui Kong v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 1189 | Singapore | Cited in relation to the fundamental rule of natural justice in criminal law. |
| Jagatheesan s/o Krishnasamy v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 45 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an accused cannot be found guilty if there are gaps in the evidence. |
| Mui Jia Jun v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 1087 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a trial court should not resolve a vital weakness in the Prosecution’s case against the accused when the Prosecution has not addressed that weakness. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mas Swan bin Adnan | High Court | Yes | [2012] 3 SLR 527 | Singapore | Cited in relation to an 'all or nothing' defence. |
| Obeng Comfort v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 633 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where the accused seeks to rebut the presumption of knowledge, he should be able to say what he thought or believed he was carrying. |
| Lim Lye Huat Benny v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR(R) 689 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the presumptions of trafficking and possession cannot run together. |
| Ali bin Mohamad Bahashwan v Public Prosecutor and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 610 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the presumptions of trafficking and possession cannot run together. |
| Mohd Halmi bin Hamid and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 548 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the presumptions in sections 17 and 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act cannot be applied in the same case. |
| Tang Hai Liang v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] SGCA 38 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the presumptions in sections 17 and 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act cannot be applied in the same case. |
| Hishamrudin bin Mohd v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] SGCA 41 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the presumptions in sections 17 and 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act cannot be applied in the same case. |
| Aziz bin Abdul Kadir v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR(R) 314 | Singapore | Cited as obiter dicta to the contrary regarding the application of presumptions in sections 17 and 18(2). |
| Zainal bin Hamad v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 1119 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the presumptions in sections 17 and 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act cannot be applied in the same case. |
| Masoud Rahimi bin Mehrzad v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 257 | Singapore | Cited for the elements of the offence of possession of a controlled drug for the purpose of trafficking. |
| Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 4 SLR 1156 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that knowledge of the nature of the drugs refers to knowledge of the actual controlled drug. |
| Public Prosecutor v Goh Hock Huat | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR(R) 375 | Singapore | Discusses whether returning drugs to their owner constitutes trafficking. |
| Lee Yuan Kwang and others v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 1 SLR(R) 778 | Singapore | Discusses whether returning drugs to their owner constitutes trafficking. |
| Jingga bin Md Selamat alias Kwan Ah Chiam v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] SGCA 32 | Singapore | Discusses whether returning drugs to their owner constitutes trafficking. |
| R v Carey | New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal | Yes | (1990) 20 NSWLR 292 | Australia | Cited for the argument that the return of drugs to their owner would not amount to trafficking. |
| Cosimo Antonio Manisco v the Queen | Supreme Court of Western Australia | Yes | (1995) 79 A Crim R 213 | Australia | Discusses whether a bailee’s act of returning drugs to a bailor would come within the meaning of the term 'supply'. |
| Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 850 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the terms 'traffic' and 'deliver' must be interpreted purposively, in light of the legislative policy underlying the Misuse of Drugs Act. |
| R v Tyrrell | Queen's Bench Division | Yes | [1894] 1 QB 710 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle of statutory interpretation under which a person was exempt from being held liable for being an accessory to a statutory offence if he was a person whom the legislature did not intend to make liable for committing the statutory offence in question. |
| Chan Heng Kong and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] SGCA 18 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the term 'abet' in section 12 of the Misuse of Drugs Act carries the same meaning as that word in section 107 of the Penal Code. |
| Koh Peng Kiat v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 753 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the alleged abettor must have had knowledge of the essential matters constituting the primary offence. |
| Liew Zheng Yang v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2017] 5 SLR 1160 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in the context of a charge for possession of a controlled drug, it would not be appropriate for the court to take what is known as a 'multiple starting points' approach. |
| R v Maginnis | House of Lords | Yes | [1987] 2 WLR 765 | United Kingdom | Cited to show that it is inappropriate to draw any analogy with bailment because such comparisons to bailment suggest that the person who deposited the drugs with the “bailee” or custodian has a right to ownership or immediate possession of the drugs, which, given the illegal subject matter, he does not. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 2 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 5(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 5(2) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 8(a) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 12 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 17 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 18(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 18(2) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 33B(2)(b) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 22 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 23 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 258(5) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 258(7) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 107 | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) s 9A | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Trafficking
- Possession
- Presumption of knowledge
- Presumption of trafficking
- Bailee
- Bailor
- Delivery
- Wilful blindness
- Betel nuts
15.2 Keywords
- Drug trafficking
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Statutory interpretation
- Possession
- Diamorphine
- Singapore
- Criminal law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 75 |
| Statutory Interpretation | 60 |
| Offences | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Statutory Interpretation