PP v Chandroo Subramaniam: Trafficking Cannabis under Misuse of Drugs Act
In Public Prosecutor v Chandroo Subramaniam and others, the High Court of Singapore heard a case against Chandroo Subramaniam, Kamalnathan a/l Muniandy, and Pravinash a/l Chandran for trafficking cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The Prosecution argued that Pravinash and Kamalnathan conspired to deliver drugs to Chandroo, who had ordered them from a Malaysian supplier. All three accused persons claimed trial, denying the charges. After considering the evidence, the court found the Prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt and convicted all three accused persons of their respective charges.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
All three accused persons were convicted of their respective charges.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Chandroo Subramaniam and others were charged for trafficking cannabis. The court found the Prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Prosecution | Government Agency | Judgment for the Prosecution | Won | Etsuko Lim of Attorney-General’s Chambers Chin Jincheng of Attorney-General’s Chambers Jotham Tay of Attorney-General’s Chambers John Lu Zhuoren of Attorney-General’s Chambers Charleston Teo Wei Wen of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Chandroo Subramaniam | Defendant | Individual | Convicted | Lost | |
| Kamalnathan a/l Muniandy | Defendant | Individual | Convicted | Lost | |
| Pravinash a/l Chandran | Defendant | Individual | Convicted | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Seng Onn | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Etsuko Lim | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Chin Jincheng | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Jotham Tay | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| John Lu Zhuoren | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Charleston Teo Wei Wen | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Lim Junchen Xavier | Surian & Partners |
| Uthayasurian s/o Sidambaram | Phoenix Law Corporation |
| Subir Singh Grewal | Aequitas Law LLP |
| A Revi Shanker s/o K Annamalai | ARShanker Law Chambers |
| Allagarsamy s/o Palaniyappan | Allagarsamy & Co |
| Zaminder Singh Gill | Hilborne Law LLC |
| Chitra Balakrishnan | Regency Legal LLP |
4. Facts
- Pravinash and Kamalnathan entered Singapore through Woodlands Checkpoint with drugs.
- The drugs were wrapped in paper foil and secured with transparent adhesive tape.
- Kamalnathan and Pravinash proceeded to Kranji MRT station and placed the drugs into a black Adidas haversack.
- Kamalnathan and Pravinash met Chandroo along Kranji Road.
- Pravinash was arrested at the overhead bridge outside Kranji MRT station, with the Drugs in his possession.
- Kamalnathan was arrested near the bus stop in front of Kranji MRT station.
- Chandroo was arrested in the vicinity of Lian Hup Building.
- Upon analysis, the three blocks were found to contain a total of not less than 1,344.5g of cannabis.
- Kamalnathan’s DNA was found on the adhesive side of the tapes used to secure A1C1A.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Chandroo Subramaniam and others, Criminal Case No 36 of 2018, [2020] SGHC 206
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Kamalnathan and Pravinash entered Singapore through Woodlands Checkpoint | |
| Kamalnathan and Pravinash met Chandroo along Kranji Road | |
| Pravinash was arrested at the overhead bridge outside Kranji MRT station | |
| Kamalnathan was arrested near the bus stop in front of Kranji MRT station | |
| Chandroo was arrested in the vicinity of Lian Hup Building | |
| Station Inspector Yip Lai Peng submitted the three blocks to the Health Sciences Authority for analysis | |
| Senior Station Inspector Ng Tze Chiang Tony recorded a contemporaneous statement from Pravinash | |
| Station Inspector Quah Yong Sen recorded a cautioned statement from Pravinash | |
| Station Inspector Quah Yong Sen recorded a long statement from Pravinash | |
| Station Inspector Quah Yong Sen recorded a long statement from Pravinash | |
| Staff Sergeant Muhammad Fardlie bin Ramlie recorded a contemporaneous statement from Kamalnathan | |
| Station Inspector Yip recorded a cautioned statement from Kamalnathan | |
| Station Inspector Yip recorded a long statement from Kamalnathan | |
| Station Inspector Yip recorded a long statement from Kamalnathan | |
| Station Inspector Yip recorded a long statement from Kamalnathan | |
| Station Inspector Yip recorded a long statement from Kamalnathan | |
| Station Inspector Yip recorded a long statement from Kamalnathan | |
| Sergeant Yogaraj s/o Ragunathan Pillay recorded a contemporaneous statement from Chandroo | |
| Station Inspector Yip recorded a cautioned statement from Chandroo | |
| Station Inspector Yip recorded a long statement from Chandroo | |
| Station Inspector Yip recorded a long statement from Chandroo | |
| Station Inspector Yip recorded a long statement from Chandroo | |
| Trial began | |
| Pravinash alleges that there is a real dispute as to whether he had been taken to the Singapore Turf Club | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Possession of a controlled drug
- Outcome: Pravinash was in possession of the Drugs at the time of his arrest.
- Category: Substantive
- Knowledge of the nature of the drug
- Outcome: Pravinash had actual knowledge of the nature of the Drugs. He knew that the three blocks comprising the Drugs were cannabis.
- Category: Substantive
- Possession of drugs for the purpose of unauthorised trafficking
- Outcome: Pravinash shared an intention with Kamalnathan to traffic the Drugs to Chandroo.
- Category: Substantive
- Abetment by conspiracy
- Outcome: Kamalnathan did intend to traffic the Drugs to Chandroo, and that he shared this intention with Pravinash.
- Category: Substantive
- Joint possession of drugs
- Outcome: Kamalnathan had joint possession of the three blocks with Pravinash.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Punishment under s 33(1) of the MDA
- Death penalty
9. Cause of Actions
- Drug Trafficking
- Abetment by Conspiracy
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Muhammad Ridzuan bin Md Ali v Public Prosecutor and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 721 | Singapore | Restated the elements of the offence under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the MDA. |
| Chai Chien Wei Kelvin v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 619 | Singapore | Stated the essential elements of abetment by conspiracy. |
| Ali bin Mohamad Bahashwan v Public Prosecutor and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 610 | Singapore | Stated the mens rea elements for abetment of drug trafficking by way of a conspiracy. |
| Liew Zheng Yang v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [2017] 5 SLR 611 | Singapore | Addressed the elements applicable in cases of a person abetting the trafficking of drugs to himself/herself. |
| Harven a/l Segar v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 771 | Singapore | Addressed the issue of challenging the statement recording process. |
| Chan Kin Choi v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [1991] 1 SLR(R) 111 | Singapore | Addressed the weight of incriminating parts of a statement. |
| Thong Sing Hock v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [2009] 3 SLR(R) 47 | Singapore | Concerned the evidence of public servants such as investigation officers. |
| Registrar of Vehicles v Komoco Motors Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 340 | Singapore | Addressed the justification for not believing a sworn statement from a state official. |
| Mohammad Azli bin Mohammad Salleh v Public Prosecutor and another appeal and other matters | Unknown | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 1374 | Singapore | Addressed when an accused may be deemed to be in joint possession of drugs. |
| Obeng Comfort v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 633 | Singapore | Addressed rebutting the s 18(2) presumption by claiming that he did not know the proper name of the drug that he had been carrying. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”) | Singapore |
| s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”) | Singapore |
| s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”) | Singapore |
| s 12 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”) | Singapore |
| s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”) | Singapore |
| s 33(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”) | Singapore |
| s 33B(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”) | Singapore |
| s 33B(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) (“CPC”) | Singapore |
| s 23 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) (“CPC”) | Singapore |
| s 22 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) (“CPC”) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Cannabis
- Drugs
- Trafficking
- Abetment
- Conspiracy
- Possession
- Ganja
- Courier
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Cannabis
- Singapore
- High Court
- Conviction
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 80 |
| Sentencing | 60 |
| Criminal Procedure | 50 |
| Criminal conspiracy | 40 |
| Civil Procedure | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Statutory Offences