Sinnappan v Public Prosecutor: Criminal Review Application for Methamphetamine Importation
Sinnappan a/l Nadarajah was convicted in the High Court of Singapore in 2017 for importing not less than 319.37g of methamphetamine. His appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in 2018. He applied to the Court of Appeal in 2021 for leave to make a review application under s 394H of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Court of Appeal, consisting of Andrew Phang Boon Leong JCA, dismissed the application, finding that Sinnappan failed to disclose any legitimate basis for the exercise of the court’s power of review.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Sinnappan seeks review of his conviction for importing methamphetamine. The Court of Appeal dismisses his application, finding no legitimate basis for review.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Application dismissed | Won | Wong Woon Kwong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Jason Chua of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Sinnappan a/l Nadarajah | Applicant | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Wong Woon Kwong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Jason Chua | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- The applicant was convicted of importing not less than 319.37g of methamphetamine.
- The drugs were recovered from a tissue box in a car driven by the applicant.
- The prosecution relied on messages and call records from the applicant's mobile phones.
- The applicant claimed the reports for HP2 are inaccurate and unreliable.
- The applicant alleged discrepancies in the chain of custody of the drugs.
- The applicant claimed he did not know the drugs were methamphetamine.
- The applicant argued the court adopted the wrong translations of certain words.
5. Formal Citations
- Sinnappan a/l Nadarajah v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 7 of 2021, [2021] SGCA 10
- Public Prosecutor v Sinnappan a/l Nadarajah, , [2017] SGHC 25
- Sinnappan a/l Nadarajah v Public Prosecutor, , [2018] SGCA 21
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Drugs recovered from a tissue box in a car driven by the applicant at Woodlands checkpoint. | |
| Applicant convicted by the High Court on the charge of importing methamphetamine. | |
| Applicant’s appeal against his conviction was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. | |
| Applicant filed an application under s 392 of the CPC. | |
| Application processed as an application under s 394H of the CPC. | |
| Application dismissed. |
7. Legal Issues
- Leave for Criminal Review
- Outcome: The court held that the applicant failed to disclose any legitimate basis for the exercise of the court’s power of review and dismissed the application.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2020] 2 SLR 1175
- [2020] 2 SLR 1364
- [2020] SGCA 104
- [2021] SGCA 3
- [2020] SGCA 101
- Accuracy and Reliability of Forensic Reports
- Outcome: The court found the applicant's arguments regarding the inaccuracy and unreliability of the reports for HP2 to be without merit, as many of these arguments had already been canvassed in previous proceedings or were fresh factual arguments that could have been raised earlier.
- Category: Substantive
- Chain of Custody of Evidence
- Outcome: The court found that the applicant's arguments regarding the alleged break in the chain of custody of the drugs were either raised and rejected at trial or were fresh factual arguments that could have been raised earlier.
- Category: Substantive
- Knowledge of the Nature of Drugs
- Outcome: The court found that the applicant's claim that he only suspected the drugs to be cannabis was a bare assertion and contradicted his previous defense.
- Category: Substantive
- Interpretation of Text Messages
- Outcome: The court found that the applicant's alternative translations of the words "keja" and "tauke" could have been raised in previous proceedings and were not compelling as they contradicted his previous positions.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Review of conviction
- Reopening of appeal
9. Cause of Actions
- Importation of controlled drugs
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kreetharan s/o Kathireson v Public Prosecutor and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 1175 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the applicant must show a legitimate basis for the exercise of the court’s power of review. |
| Moad Fadzir bin Mustaffa v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 1364 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the applicant must show a legitimate basis for the exercise of the court’s power of review. |
| Lim Ghim Peow v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] SGCA 104 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the applicant must show a legitimate basis for the exercise of the court’s power of review. |
| Chander Kumar a/l Jayagaran v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] SGCA 3 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the applicant must show a legitimate basis for the exercise of the court’s power of review. |
| Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] SGCA 101 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the material must satisfy all of the requirements under s 394J(3) in order to be regarded as “sufficient”. |
| Kho Jabing v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 135 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the second requirement in s 394J(3)(b) concerns the non-availability of the material. |
| Gopu Jaya Raman v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 499 | Singapore | Cited by the applicant to argue that he should have been given an opportunity to contact Ravindran to prove his innocence. The court distinguished this case. |
| Public Prosecutor v Sinnappan a/l Nadarajah | High Court | Yes | [2017] SGHC 25 | Singapore | The High Court decision where the applicant was convicted. The current judgment is reviewing this decision. |
| Sinnappan a/l Nadarajah v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] SGCA 21 | Singapore | The Court of Appeal decision dismissing the applicant's appeal against his conviction. The current judgment is reviewing this decision. |
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 33B(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 394H of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 392 of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394H(7) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394H(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 21 of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Methamphetamine
- Importation
- Criminal review
- Chain of custody
- Forensic reports
- Mobile phone records
- Miscarriage of justice
- Section 394H CPC
- Section 394J CPC
- Digi Report
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal review
- Methamphetamine
- Drug importation
- Singapore Court of Appeal
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Misuse of Drugs Act
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure | 80 |
| Criminal Revision | 75 |
| Sentencing | 70 |
| Drug Crimes | 60 |
| Statutory Interpretation | 40 |
| Evidence Law | 30 |
| Administrative Law | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Criminal Procedure