PP v Mohamed Ansari & Murugesan: Voluntariness of Statements in Drug Trafficking Case
In a criminal trial before the High Court of Singapore, Mohamed Ansari bin Mohamed Abdul Aziz and Murugesan a/l Arumugam faced drug trafficking charges. Ansari challenged the admissibility of six statements, alleging they were induced by promises to release his girlfriend, Bella Fadila. The court, presided over by Chan Seng Onn J, conducted a voir dire to determine the voluntariness of the statements. The court ruled some statements inadmissible due to reasonable doubt about whether inducements were made, while others were deemed admissible.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Statements inadmissible in part.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court examines the voluntariness of statements in a drug trafficking case, focusing on inducements related to the accused's girlfriend. Some statements deemed inadmissible.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Prosecution | Government Agency | Statements inadmissible in part | Partial | Terence Chua, Nicholas Wuan, Regina Lim |
| Mohamed Ansari bin Mohamed Abdul Aziz | Defendant | Individual | Statements inadmissible in part | Partial | Ramesh Tiwary, Chenthil Kumar Kumarasingam |
| Murugesan a/l Arumugam | Defendant | Individual | Unknown | Neutral | Michael Chia, Hany Soh, Sankar s/o Saminathan |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Seng Onn | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Terence Chua | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Nicholas Wuan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Regina Lim | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ramesh Tiwary | Ramesh Tiwary |
| Chenthil Kumar Kumarasingam | Oon & Bazul LLP |
| Michael Chia | MSC Law Corporation |
| Hany Soh | MSC Law Corporation |
| Sankar s/o Saminathan | Sterling Law Corporation |
4. Facts
- Ansari and Murugesan were charged with drug trafficking under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
- Ansari challenged the admissibility of six statements, claiming they were induced by promises to release his girlfriend, Bella.
- SSGT Helmi allegedly told Ansari, "it depends on what you say," implying Bella's release depended on Ansari's statements.
- SI Fathli allegedly told Ansari that if he continued cooperating, Bella would be released.
- Ansari later incriminated Bella in some statements, seeking a Certificate of Substantive Assistance.
- The Police Station Diary did not show the movements of SI Fathli or Mr Farhan.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Mohamed Ansari bin Mohamed Abdul Aziz and another, Criminal Case No 37 of 2019, [2019] SGHC 268
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Ansari, Murugesan, Bella, and Jufri arrested. | |
| First contemporaneous statement recorded from Ansari at about 1.20pm. | |
| Second contemporaneous statement recorded from Ansari at about 3.32pm. | |
| Cautioned statement recorded from Ansari at about 3.08am. | |
| Statement recorded from Ansari at about 2.59pm. | |
| Statement recorded from Ansari at about 10.36am. | |
| Statement recorded from Ansari at about 2.40pm. | |
| Trial began. | |
| Trial continues. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Voluntariness of Statements
- Outcome: The court found that some statements were not made voluntarily due to potential inducements, while others were admissible.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Inducement
- Threat
- Promise
- Related Cases:
- [1993] 1 SLR(R) 885
- [1998] 3 SLR(R) 619
- [1995] 2 SLR(R) 806
- [1994] 1 SLR(R) 1037
- [1981–1982] SLR(R) 133
- [1998] 3 SLR(R) 747
- Admissibility of Evidence
- Outcome: The court clarified the extent to which statements and accused's testimony can be considered during a voir dire without prejudicing the accused's right to silence.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Use of statements in voir dire
- Impact of s 279(5) of the CPC on accused's right to silence
8. Remedies Sought
- Exclusion of statements as evidence
9. Cause of Actions
- Drug Trafficking
- Violation of s 5(l)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Evidence
- Voir Dire
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Koh Aik Siew v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1993] 1 SLR(R) 885 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that a statement was made voluntarily. |
| Chai Chien Wei Kelvin v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 619 | Singapore | Cited for the test of voluntariness involving objective and subjective elements. |
| Panya Martmontree v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR(R) 806 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the prosecution needs to remove a reasonable doubt of threat, inducement, or promise. |
| Lu Lai Heng v PP | Unknown | No | [1994] 1 SLR(R) 1037 | Singapore | Cited regarding self-perceived inducement. |
| Haw Tua Tau v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1981–1982] SLR(R) 133 | Singapore | Cited for principles to determine if an accused ought to be called upon to give his defence. |
| Cheng Heng Lee and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 747 | Singapore | Cited as an example of inducement. |
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(l)(a) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 33(1) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act 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 s 258(3) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 279(2) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 279(5) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 230(m) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Voir dire
- Voluntariness
- Inducement
- Contemporaneous statement
- Cautioned statement
- Certificate of Substantive Assistance
- Reasonable doubt
- Right to silence
15.2 Keywords
- Voir dire
- Voluntariness of statements
- Drug trafficking
- Inducement
- Criminal procedure
- Singapore High Court
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Evidence
- Criminal Procedure
- Drug Offences
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Sentencing
- Evidence Law
- Drug Trafficking Law