Murugesan a/l Arumugam v Public Prosecutor: Review of Drug Trafficking Conviction
Murugesan a/l Arumugam applied to the Court of Appeal of Singapore on 19 November 2021 for a review of his conviction for trafficking diamorphine under the Misuse of Drugs Act. He claimed his guilty plea was coerced by his former counsel. The Court of Appeal, led by Andrew Phang Boon Leong JCA, dismissed the application, finding no basis for review and no miscarriage of justice. The court found that the applicant had ample opportunity to raise his concerns earlier and that his claims were unsubstantiated.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Criminal motion dismissed summarily.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court of Appeal dismissed Murugesan's application for review of his drug trafficking conviction, finding no miscarriage of justice. He claimed pressure from counsel to plead guilty.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Murugesan a/l Arumugam | Applicant | Individual | Criminal motion dismissed summarily | Lost | |
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Motion Dismissed | Won | Terence Chua, Regina Lim |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Terence Chua | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Regina Lim | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- The Applicant pleaded guilty to trafficking not less than 14.99g of diamorphine.
- The Applicant claimed he was pressured by his former counsel to plead guilty.
- The Applicant claimed his former counsel conspired with the Prosecution.
- The Applicant admitted to collecting illicit drugs from an Indian man at Jurong Bird Park.
- The Applicant admitted to passing the collected drugs to a Malay man at Block 106 Lengkong Tiga.
- The Applicant was promised RM500 for delivering the drugs.
5. Formal Citations
- Murugesan a/l Arumugam v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 27 of 2021, [2021] SGCA 118
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Applicant rode a motorcycle into the HDB carpark located at Lengkong Tiga. | |
| Applicant sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane by the High Court judge. | |
| Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal in CA/CCA 23/2020, affirming the sentence imposed by the Judge. | |
| Court of Appeal extended the period within which a leave application must be fixed for hearing to 28 January 2022. | |
| Review application brought under s 394H of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) (“CPC”). | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Miscarriage of Justice
- Outcome: The court found no miscarriage of justice.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Inadequate legal assistance
- Coerced guilty plea
- Review of Criminal Conviction
- Outcome: The court held that the application did not meet the requirements for review.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Requirements for review application
- Sufficiency of material for review
8. Remedies Sought
- Review of conviction and sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Review of Criminal Conviction
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
- Drug Trafficking
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Murugesan a/l Arumugam | High Court | Yes | [2020] SGHC 203 | Singapore | Cited for the sentencing decision in the initial trial. |
| Murugesan a/l Arumugam v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] SGCA 32 | Singapore | Cited as the prior appeal where the applicant challenged his sentence, which was dismissed. |
| Kreetharan s/o Kathireson v Public Prosecutor and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 1175 | Singapore | Cited for the legal principle that if an application for leave fails to meet any of the cumulative requirements above (as set out in s 394J(3) of the CPC and, in respect of new legal arguments, the additional requirement in s 394J(4) of the CPC), leave will not be granted. |
| Moad Fadzir bin Mustaffa v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 1364 | Singapore | Cited for the legal principle that if an application for leave fails to meet any of the cumulative requirements above (as set out in s 394J(3) of the CPC and, in respect of new legal arguments, the additional requirement in s 394J(4) of the CPC), leave will not be granted. |
| Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 159 | Singapore | Cited for the legal principle that if an application for leave fails to meet any of the cumulative requirements above (as set out in s 394J(3) of the CPC and, in respect of new legal arguments, the additional requirement in s 394J(4) of the CPC), leave will not be granted. |
| Chander Kumar a/l Jayagaran v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] SGCA 3 | Singapore | Cited for the legal principle that if an application for leave fails to meet any of the cumulative requirements above (as set out in s 394J(3) of the CPC and, in respect of new legal arguments, the additional requirement in s 394J(4) of the CPC), leave will not be granted. |
| Sinnappan a/l Nadarajah v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] SGCA 10 | Singapore | Cited for the legal principle that if an application for leave fails to meet any of the cumulative requirements above (as set out in s 394J(3) of the CPC and, in respect of new legal arguments, the additional requirement in s 394J(4) of the CPC), leave will not be granted. |
| Karthik Jasudass and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] SGCA 13 | Singapore | Cited for the legal principle that if an application for leave fails to meet any of the cumulative requirements above (as set out in s 394J(3) of the CPC and, in respect of new legal arguments, the additional requirement in s 394J(4) of the CPC), leave will not be granted. |
| Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] SGCA 30 | Singapore | Cited for the legal principle that if an application for leave fails to meet any of the cumulative requirements above (as set out in s 394J(3) of the CPC and, in respect of new legal arguments, the additional requirement in s 394J(4) of the CPC), leave will not be granted. |
| Mohammad Yusof bin Jantan v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2021] SGHC 82 | Singapore | Cited for the legal principle that if an application for leave fails to meet any of the cumulative requirements above (as set out in s 394J(3) of the CPC and, in respect of new legal arguments, the additional requirement in s 394J(4) of the CPC), leave will not be granted. |
| Nazeri bin Lajim v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] SGCA 41 | Singapore | Cited for the legal principle that if an application for leave fails to meet any of the cumulative requirements above (as set out in s 394J(3) of the CPC and, in respect of new legal arguments, the additional requirement in s 394J(4) of the CPC), leave will not be granted. |
| Mohammad Farid bin Batra v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] SGCA 58 | Singapore | Cited for the legal principle that if an application for leave fails to meet any of the cumulative requirements above (as set out in s 394J(3) of the CPC and, in respect of new legal arguments, the additional requirement in s 394J(4) of the CPC), leave will not be granted. |
| Rahmat bin Karimon v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 2 SLR 860 | Singapore | Cited for the legal principle that if an application for leave fails to meet any of the cumulative requirements above (as set out in s 394J(3) of the CPC and, in respect of new legal arguments, the additional requirement in s 394J(4) of the CPC), leave will not be granted. |
| Mohammad Farid bin Batra v Public Prosecutor and another appeal and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 907 | Singapore | Cited for the two-step approach to allegations of inadequate legal assistance. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 394H of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 394H(7) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 394H(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 394H(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 394J(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 394J(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 394J(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 394J(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 394J(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Trafficking
- Miscarriage of justice
- Coerced guilty plea
- Review application
- Statement of Facts
- Certificate of Cooperation
- Legal Assistance Scheme for Capital Offences
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal review
- Drug trafficking
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Coerced plea
- Singapore Court of Appeal
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Drug Trafficking
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Law
- Statutory Offences
- Criminal Procedure
- Sentencing
- Criminal Review
- Misuse of Drugs Act