Gobi a/l Avedian v Public Prosecutor: Review of MDA Conviction Based on Wilful Blindness
In Gobi a/l Avedian v Public Prosecutor, the Court of Appeal of Singapore reviewed its earlier decision in CA/CCA 20/2017 following the newly enacted s 394I of the Criminal Procedure Code. The case concerned Gobi's conviction for importing diamorphine under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The key legal issue was whether the court's decision in Adili Chibuike Ejike v Public Prosecutor, regarding wilful blindness and the presumption of possession, should extend to the presumption of knowledge under s 18(2) of the MDA. The court set aside Gobi's conviction on the capital charge and reinstated his conviction on the amended charge of attempting to import a Class C drug.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Applicant's conviction on the capital charge set aside; conviction on the amended charge reinstated.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Review of Gobi a/l Avedian's MDA conviction. Court of Appeal examines wilful blindness and knowledge of drug nature, setting aside the capital charge.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal partially allowed | Partial | Chin Jincheng of Attorney-General’s Chambers Chong Kee En of Attorney-General’s Chambers Mohamed Faizal Mohamed Abdul Kadir of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Gobi a/l Avedian | Applicant | Individual | Conviction on capital charge set aside | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Judge of Appeal | No |
| Judith Prakash | Judge of Appeal | No |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge of Appeal | No |
| Steven Chong | Judge of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Chin Jincheng | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Chong Kee En | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Mohamed Faizal Mohamed Abdul Kadir | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ravi s/o Madasamy | Carson Law Chambers |
4. Facts
- The Applicant claimed trial to a capital charge of importing not less than 40.22g of diamorphine.
- The Applicant claimed he believed the drugs to be a mild form of “disco drugs” mixed with chocolate.
- The High Court acquitted the Applicant of the capital charge but convicted him of attempting to import a Class C controlled drug.
- The Prosecution appealed against the High Court’s decision to acquit the Applicant of the capital charge.
- The Court of Appeal allowed the Prosecution’s appeal and convicted the Applicant of the capital charge.
- The Applicant filed a criminal motion to review the Court of Appeal’s decision.
- The Applicant argued that the continuing correctness of the Court of Appeal’s decision had been called into question by a subsequent decision.
5. Formal Citations
- Gobi a/l Avedian v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 3 of 2020, [2020] SGCA 102
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Applicant approached Guru for part-time job suggestions. | |
| Applicant stopped at Woodlands Checkpoint and arrested. | |
| High Court convicted the Applicant of a reduced non-capital charge. | |
| Applicant obtained leave to make application under s 394H of the CPC. | |
| Applicant filed criminal motion CA/CM 3/2020. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Judgment delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Wilful Blindness
- Outcome: The court held that wilful blindness is irrelevant in the context of the s 18(2) presumption.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2019] 2 SLR 254
- Presumption of Knowledge
- Outcome: The court clarified the nature of the inquiry in considering whether the s 18(2) presumption has been rebutted.
- Category: Substantive
- Review of Concluded Criminal Appeals
- Outcome: The court outlined the statutory framework which governs applications to reopen concluded criminal appeals.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2016] 3 SLR 135
8. Remedies Sought
- Review of conviction
- Setting aside conviction
9. Cause of Actions
- Importing diamorphine
- Attempting to import a controlled drug
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adili Chibuike Ejike v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 254 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that wilful blindness cannot be the subject of the presumption of possession under s 18(1) of the MDA. |
| Obeng Comfort v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 633 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the legal effect of the s 18 presumptions is that they reverse the burden of proof. |
| Kho Jabing v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 135 | Singapore | Cited as the framework laid down by this court in Kho Jabing v Public Prosecutor [2016] 3 SLR 135 (“Kho Jabing”) at [77] |
| Regina v Jogee | UK Supreme Court | Yes | [2016] 2 WLR 681 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle underpinning the importance of establishing “substantial injustice” under the English position is reflected in the substantive requirement under s 394J(2) of the CPC that there be a potential “miscarriage of justice” in order to justify a review of an earlier decision in a concluded criminal appeal. |
| Tan Kiam Peng v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the s 18(2) presumption encompasses the doctrine of wilful blindness. |
| Masoud Rahimi bin Mehrzad v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 257 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the s 18(2) presumption encompasses the doctrine of wilful blindness. |
| Harven a/l Segar v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 771 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case where the s 18(2) presumption was rebutted even though the appellant could not give a positive and specific account of what he believed he was carrying, save that he thought it was something innocuous. |
| Khor Soon Lee v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 201 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case where the appellant had a consistent pattern of dealing in drugs of a sort that either were not punishable by the death penalty or were in a quantity that would not attract the death penalty. |
| Saravanan Chandaram v Public Prosecutor and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 95 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case where the s 18(2) presumption was not rebutted. |
| Dinesh Pillai a/l K Raja Retnam v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 2 SLR 903 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that to rebut the s 18(2) presumption, “it is for the [accused person] to prove … that he did not know or could not reasonably be expected to have known that the [thing in his possession] contained diamorphine” |
| Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 4 SLR 1156 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that “[t]o rebut the presumption of knowledge, all the accused has to do is to prove … that he did not know the nature of the controlled drug referred to in the charge” |
| Zainal bin Hamad v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 1119 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that, as a matter of common sense and practical application, an accused person who seeks to rebut the s 18(2) presumption should be able to say what he thought or believed he was carrying, and a claim that he simply did not know what he was carrying would not usually suffice. |
| Gopu Jaya Raman v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 499 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that, in assessing the evidence, the court should bear in mind the inherent difficulties of proving a negative, and the burden on the accused person should not be so onerous that it becomes virtually impossible to discharge. |
| Muhammad Nabill bin Mohd Fuad v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 984 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where an accused person’s defence is found to be patently and inherently incredible, then that will not impose any evidential burden for the Prosecution to rebut. |
| Public Prosecutor v Wee Teong Boo and other appeal and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 533 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Prosecution is not permitted to seek a conviction on a factual premise which it has never advanced, and which it has in fact denied in its case against the accused person. |
| Public Prosecutor v Aishamudin bin Jamaludin | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] SGCA 70 | Singapore | Cited for the importance of ensuring procedural fairness in criminal proceedings. |
| Mohammad Azli bin Mohammad Salleh v Public Prosecutor and another appeal and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 1374 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in the natural course of things, it is reasonable to assume that a person who knows that he is in possession of a thing will take steps to find out what the thing is and will usually be aware of its nature. |
| Browne v Dunn | N/A | Yes | 6 R 67 | N/A | Cited for the rule in Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67, it should have been put to the Applicant so as to give him the opportunity to address it before it was advanced as a submission by the Prosecution. |
| ADF v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 874 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that although an appellate court will be slow to overturn findings of fact that hinge upon the trial judge’s assessment of the witnesses’ credibility and demeanour, appellate intervention may be justified if the trial judge’s findings are found to be “plainly wrong or against the weight of [the] evidence” |
| Public Prosecutor v Gobi a/l Avedian | High Court | Yes | [2017] SGHC 145 | Singapore | The High Court decision being appealed. |
| Public Prosecutor v Gobi a/l Avedian | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 113 | Singapore | The Court of Appeal decision being reviewed. |
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 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 18(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 394I of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 394H of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 33B(2)(a) of the MDA | Singapore |
| Criminal Justice Reform Act 2018 (Act 19 of 2018) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Wilful blindness
- Presumption of knowledge
- Miscarriage of justice
- Diamorphine
- Criminal motion
- Review application
- Actual knowledge
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal Law
- Drug Importation
- Wilful Blindness
- Presumption of Knowledge
- Singapore Law
- MDA
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Review of Criminal Appeals
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 85 |
| Sentencing | 80 |
| Evidence | 40 |
| Statutory Interpretation | 30 |
| Administrative Law | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Offences
- Statutory Interpretation
- Criminal Procedure