Khartik Jasudass v Public Prosecutor: Review of Conviction for Drug Trafficking under Misuse of Drugs Act
Khartik Jasudass and Puniyamurthy A/L Maruthai applied to the Court of Appeal of Singapore on 27 July 2020 for leave to review their conviction for drug trafficking, an offence under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) and read with s 34 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed). The original conviction was upheld in CA/CCA 26/2015 and CA/CCA 27/2015. Tay Yong Kwang JCA dismissed the application, finding no legitimate basis for review and no miscarriage of justice.
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
Application for review of conviction for drug trafficking. Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding no miscarriage of justice.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Motion Dismissed | Won | Marcus Foo of Attorney-General’s Chambers Anandan Bala of Attorney-General’s Chambers Sarah Siaw of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Khartik Jasudass | Applicant | Individual | Application dismissed summarily | Lost | |
| Puniyamurthy A/L Maruthai | Applicant | Individual | Application dismissed summarily | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tay Yong Kwang | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Marcus Foo | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Anandan Bala | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Sarah Siaw | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Suang Wijaya | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
4. Facts
- Applicants were convicted of trafficking diamorphine.
- Applicants claimed they did not know the type of drugs they were carrying.
- The High Court found the presumption in s 18(2) of the MDA was not rebutted.
- The Court of Appeal dismissed the Applicants’ appeals against conviction.
- Applicants sought leave to review the Court of Appeal’s decision based on a change in the law.
- The Prosecution argued that there was no miscarriage of justice.
5. Formal Citations
- Khartik Jasudass and another v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No. 19 of 2020, [2021] SGCA 13
- Public Prosecutor v Khartik Jasudass and Puniyamurthy A/L Maruthai, , [2015] SGHC 199
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Applicants arrested for drug trafficking. | |
| Applicants convicted by the High Court. | |
| Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals. | |
| Criminal Motion filed by Applicants. | |
| Judgment delivered in Gobi a/l Avedian v Public Prosecutor. | |
| Case Management Conference held. | |
| Applicants filed revised submissions. | |
| Prosecution filed its submissions. | |
| Applicants filed an affidavit affirmed by their counsel. | |
| Applicants filed revised submissions. | |
| Applicants filed revised submissions. | |
| Applicants filed revised submissions. | |
| Applicants filed revised submissions. | |
| Applicants filed revised submissions. | |
| Applicants filed revised submissions. | |
| Applicants filed revised submissions. | |
| Applicants filed revised submissions. | |
| Applicants filed revised submissions. | |
| Applicants filed revised submissions. | |
| Applicants filed revised submissions. | |
| Applicants filed revised submissions. | |
| Applicants filed revised submissions. | |
| Applicants filed revised submissions. | |
| Applicants filed revised submissions. | |
| Applicants filed revised submissions. | |
| Judgment delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Whether there was a change in the law that justifies the re-opening of concluded criminal appeals.
- Outcome: The Court held that there was no change in the law that justified the re-opening of the concluded criminal appeals.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2020] SGCA 102
- Whether the Applicants had rebutted the presumption of knowledge under s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
- Outcome: The Court held that the Applicants had not rebutted the presumption of knowledge under s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2012] 2 SLR 903
8. Remedies Sought
- Review of Conviction
9. Cause of Actions
- Drug Trafficking
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dinesh Pillai a/l Raja Retnam v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 2 SLR 903 | Singapore | Cited for the interpretation and application of s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. |
| Kreetharan s/o Kathireson v Public Prosecutor and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 1175 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an application for leave to make a review application must disclose a legitimate basis for the exercise of the court’s power of review. |
| Gobi a/l Avedian v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] SGCA 102 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the mere fact that there has been a change in the law does not in itself justify the re-opening of concluded appeals and for the relevance of an accused’s indifference in rebutting the presumption under s 18(2) of the MDA. |
| Masoud Rahimi bin Mehrzad v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | N/A | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 257 | Singapore | Cited by the Applicants as a case constituting a change in the law. |
| Obeng Comfort v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 633 | Singapore | Cited by the Applicants as a case constituting a change in the law. |
| Adili Chibuike Ejike v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 254 | Singapore | Cited by the Applicants as a case constituting a change in the law. |
| Moad Fadzir bin Mustaffa v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 1364 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an applicant was in fact advocating a change in the law rather than relying on a change in the law. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Criminal Procedure Rules 2018 |
| r 11(5) and r 11(6) of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2018 |
| r 11(1) of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2018 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 394H(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 394H(6)(a) 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 394J(2) 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(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J(7) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 33B(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 34 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Criminal Motion
- Review Application
- Miscarriage of Justice
- Change in the Law
- Presumption of Knowledge
- Wilful Blindness
- Indifference
- Section 394H CPC
- Section 394J CPC
- Section 18(2) MDA
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal Motion
- Review of Conviction
- Drug Trafficking
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Singapore Court of Appeal
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 85 |
| Criminal Revision | 75 |
| Penal Code | 70 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Criminal Procedure
- Review of Criminal Appeals