Saravanan Chandaram v Public Prosecutor: Importation of Cannabis and Cannabis Mixture under the Misuse of Drugs Act
Saravanan Chandaram appealed against his conviction in the High Court for importing cannabis and cannabis mixture under Section 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The charges arose from the discovery of ten bundles containing cannabis and cannabis mixture in a car driven by Chandaram at Woodlands Checkpoint. The Court of Appeal, with Sundaresh Menon CJ delivering the judgment, dismissed the appeal against the conviction for importing cannabis but allowed the appeal against the conviction for importing cannabis mixture, setting aside that conviction. The court also found that the Prosecution's Dual Charging Practice is indefensible and, hence, impermissible.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; conviction for Importation of Cannabis Mixture Charge set aside.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Saravanan Chandaram was convicted of importing cannabis and cannabis mixture. The Court of Appeal revisits interpretations of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent, Applicant | Government Agency | Partial Loss | Partial | Wong Woon Kwong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Anandan Bala of Attorney-General’s Chambers Nicholas Wuan Kin Lek of Attorney-General’s Chambers Lu Zhuoren John of Attorney-General’s Chambers Kristy Tan of Attorney-General’s Chambers Shen Wanqin of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Saravanan Chandaram | Appellant | Individual | Appeal allowed in part | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Judge of Appeal | No |
| Steven Chong | Judge of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Wong Woon Kwong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Anandan Bala | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Nicholas Wuan Kin Lek | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Lu Zhuoren John | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Kristy Tan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Shen Wanqin | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- Saravanan Chandaram was prosecuted for importing cannabis and cannabis mixture.
- Ten wrapped bundles were found in the car that Saravanan Chandaram had driven into Singapore from Malaysia.
- Each of these bundles was analysed by the Health Sciences Authority and reported to contain both cannabis and cannabis mixture.
- Saravanan Chandaram claimed he believed the bundles contained contraband tobacco.
- Saravanan Chandaram was to be paid S$5,000 for delivering the bundles.
- The Health Sciences Authority's testing procedure involves separating plant material into individual plant branches, fragments of plant parts, and observable extraneous matter.
5. Formal Citations
- Saravanan Chandaram v Public Prosecutor and another matter, , [2020] SGCA 43
- Saravanan Chandaram v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Appeal No 46 of 2017, Criminal Appeal No 46 of 2017
- Public Prosecutor v Saravanan Chandaram, Criminal Motion No 15 of 2018, Criminal Motion No 15 of 2018
- Public Prosecutor v Saravanan Chandaram, Criminal Case No 36 of 2017, Criminal Case No 36 of 2017
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Saravanan Chandaram met Aya and accepted offer to be his driver. | |
| Saravanan Chandaram agreed to deliver ten bundles to a client in Singapore. | |
| Saravanan Chandaram arrested at Woodlands Checkpoint. | |
| Criminal Case No 36 of 2017 commenced. | |
| Saravanan Chandaram convicted in the High Court of the Importation of Cannabis Charge and the Importation of Cannabis Mixture Charge. | |
| Court of Appeal heard parties and dismissed appeal against conviction on Importation of Cannabis Charge. | |
| Court of Appeal invited submissions on further questions. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Equal protection of the law
- Outcome: The court considered whether calibrating the sentences according to the gross weight of the cannabis mixture violates Art 12 of the Constitution.
- Category: Constitutional
- Construction of statute
- Outcome: The court determined the correct interpretation of the statutory definition of “cannabis” and “cannabis mixture” set out in s 2 of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
- Category: Substantive
- Importation of controlled drugs
- Outcome: The court considered whether the elements of both the Importation of Cannabis Charge and the Importation of Cannabis Mixture Charge have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Importation of Cannabis
- Importation of Cannabis Mixture
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Manogaran s/o R Ramu | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 3 SLR(R) 390 | Singapore | Revisits the judicial interpretations of the definition and classification of “cannabis” and “cannabis mixture” enacted in the Misuse of Drugs Act. |
| Ng Kwok Chun and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 3 SLR(R) 256 | Singapore | Cited to establish the elements of the offence of importation under s 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. |
| Public Prosecutor v Saravanan Chandaram | High Court | Yes | [2017] SGHC 262 | Singapore | Refers to the High Court decision where the Appellant was convicted of both charges and sentenced under s 33B(1)(a) of the MDA. |
| Harven a/l Segar v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 771 | Singapore | Cited by the Appellant to argue that the court was required to go beyond the duration of the relationship and consider all the surrounding facts and circumstances in considering whether there was a relationship of trust. |
| Adili Chibuike Ejike v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 254 | Singapore | Outlines the analytical framework on wilful blindness. |
| Obeng Comfort v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 633 | Singapore | Sets out the principles on the application of the presumption under s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. |
| Muhammad Nabill bin Mohd Fuad v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] SGCA 25 | Singapore | Cited regarding the evidential burden to rebut a claim. |
| Abdul Raman bin Yusof and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 2 SLR(R) 538 | Singapore | Determined that “cannabis mixture” must mean a mixture of two or more distinct types of vegetable matter. |
| Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 850 | Singapore | Sets out the three-step framework on statutory interpretation. |
| Attorney-General v Ting Choon Meng and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 373 | Singapore | States that different provisions may target different mischiefs. |
| Public Prosecutor v Low Kok Heng | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 183 | Singapore | States that purposive interpretation must be done with a view toward determining the purpose and object of the provision or statute in question. |
| Nam Hong Construction & Engineering Pte Ltd v Kori Construction (S) Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 4 SLR 604 | Singapore | States that where there is genuine ambiguity in the meaning of a provision even after the court has attempted to interpret it purposively, recourse may be had to the strict construction rule as a last resort. |
| Yuen Ye Ming v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 5 SLR 225 | Singapore | States that the strict construction rule has also been referred to as the principle against doubtful penalisation, and it typically results in a construction that favours leniency to the accused. |
| Kong Hoo (Pte) Ltd and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 1131 | Singapore | States that the principle against doubtful penalisation is brought into play where penal consequences attach to a person’s liability under a provision of a statute and there are two plausible ways of interpreting the provision even after it has been purposively interpreted. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lam Leng Hung and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 659 | Singapore | States that the court cannot arrogate to itself the legislative function that belongs exclusively to Parliament by adding to or taking away from language in a statutory provision in a manner that goes beyond the boundaries of what is permissible in statutory construction. |
| Richard L Chapman, John M Schoenecker and Patrick Brumm v United States | United States Supreme Court | Yes | 111 S Ct 1919 (1991) | United States | Held that the word “mixture” in its ordinary meaning meant “a portion of matter consisting of two or more components that do not bear a fixed proportion to one another and that however thoroughly commingled are regarded as retaining a separate existence” |
| Meirl Gilbert Neal v United States | United States Supreme Court | Yes | 116 S Ct 763 (1996) | United States | Followed the interpretation of “mixture” in Chapman v US. |
| Public Prosecutor v Chandrasekran s/o Elamkopan | District Court | Yes | [2016] SGDC 20 | Singapore | Set out indicative starting points for sentencing a first-time offender for trafficking in cannabis mixture in quantities of up to 600g. |
| Vasentha d/o Joseph v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 122 | Singapore | States that sentencing under the MDA for trafficking, importation and exportation offences is generally influenced primarily by the type and the quantity of the drugs involved. |
| Attorney General v Chan Chi-man | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1987] HKLR 221 | Hong Kong | In Hong Kong, the courts have held that the sentencing ranges are to be calibrated according to the weight of the cannabis oil, cannabis resin or herbal cannabis involved, as the case may be. |
| Attorney General v Tuen Shui-ming and Another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 2 HKCLR 129 | Hong Kong | In Hong Kong, the courts have held that the sentencing ranges are to be calibrated according to the weight of the cannabis oil, cannabis resin or herbal cannabis involved, as the case may be. |
| Regina v Martin Francis Cooper | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] EWCA Crim 558 | England and Wales | Affirmed the position under the Guideline that the primary consideration in determining harm in drug trafficking cases was the weight of the drug involved, regardless of its purity. |
| Ong Ah Chuan and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1979–1980] SLR(R) 70 | Singapore | States that Article 12(1) is concerned with equality of treatment, and embodies the principle that “like should be compared with like”. |
| Public Prosecutor v Taw Cheng Kong | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR(R) 489 | Singapore | States that it is permissible to group individuals into classes as long as the grouping is based on intelligible differentia that bear a rational or reasonable connection to the object of the impugned legislation. |
| Lim Meng Suang and another v Attorney-General and another appeal and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 26 | Singapore | Affirmed the reasonable classification test. |
| Johari bin Kanadi and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 422 | Singapore | States that legislation attracts a presumption of constitutionality. |
| Quek Hock Lye v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 563 | Singapore | States that legislation attracts a presumption of constitutionality. |
| Suventher Shanmugam v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 115 | Singapore | States that the weight of the drugs trafficked had a direct correlation with the degree of harm to society, and that the quantity of drugs trafficked served as a reliable indicator of the seriousness of the offence. |
| Raman Selvam s/o Renganathan v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] 1 SLR(R) 550 | Singapore | States that for the offence of trafficking in a controlled drug under s 5(1)(a) of the MDA to be made out, the Prosecution must prove the act of trafficking in a controlled drug without any authorisation, and knowledge of the nature of the controlled drug. |
| Public Prosecutor v Abdul Haleem bin Abdul Karim and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 734 | Singapore | States that for the offence of trafficking in a controlled drug under s 5(1)(a) of the MDA to be made out, the Prosecution must prove the act of trafficking in a controlled drug without any authorisation, and knowledge of the nature of the controlled drug. |
| Tan Kiam Peng v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 1 | Singapore | States that in order to make out a charge of importation or exportation of a controlled drug under s 7 of the MDA, the element of importation or exportation (as the case may be) and the element of knowledge of the nature of the controlled drug must be proved. |
| Public Prosecutor v Chijioke Stephen Obioha | High Court | Yes | [2008] SGHC 243 | Singapore | States that the type of knowledge that must be established for both a trafficking offence and an importation or exportation offence is knowledge of the specific nature of the drug (cannabis or cannabis mixture in this context), and not just knowledge that the drug is a controlled drug. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 7 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 33(1) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 33B(1) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 2 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 267(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 22 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 23 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 18(1) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 18(2) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 261(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 328(6) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Act 1993 (Act 40 of 1993) | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) Art 12(1) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 5(1)(a) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Cannabis
- Cannabis mixture
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Importation
- Dual Charging Practice
- Tetrahydrocannabinol
- Cannabinol
- Health Sciences Authority
- Woodlands Checkpoint
- Presumption of knowledge
15.2 Keywords
- Cannabis
- Cannabis mixture
- Importation
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 90 |
| Criminal Law | 80 |
| Constitutional Law | 75 |
| Statutory Interpretation | 70 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Offences
- Statutory Interpretation
- Constitutional Law