Imran v PP; Tamilselvam v PP: Retrial Ordered for MDA Offences After Co-Accused Acquittal
The Court of Appeal of Singapore heard appeals by Imran bin Mohd Arip and Tamilselvam a/l Yagasvranan following their conviction in the High Court for drug offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The appeals arose after the acquittal of their co-accused, Pragas Krissamy. The court allowed the appeals in part, ordering a joint retrial for Imran and Tamilselvam on amended charges before a different judge of the General Division of the High Court. The court addressed the appropriate amendments to the charges against Imran and Tamilselvam and the scope of the court's powers in respect of the altered capital charges.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Joint retrial of both amended charges ordered before a different judge of the General Division of the High Court.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Retrial ordered for Imran and Tamilselvam after co-accused Pragas's acquittal on MDA charges. Amendments made to charges due to Pragas's acquittal.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Partial | Partial | Wong Woon Kwong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Chin Jincheng of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Imran bin Mohd Arip | Appellant | Individual | Retrial Ordered | Remanded | |
| Tamilselvam a/l Yagasvranan | Appellant | Individual | Retrial Ordered | Remanded | |
| Pragas Krissamy | Other | Individual | Acquitted | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | No |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Steven Chong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Wong Woon Kwong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Chin Jincheng | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ker Yanguang | Morgan Lewis Stamford LLC |
| Daniel Chia Hsiung Wen | Morgan Lewis Stamford LLC |
| Prasad s/o Karunakarn | K Prasad & Co |
| Eugene Singarajah Thuraisingam | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
| Johannes Hadi | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
| Koh Wen Rui Genghis | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
4. Facts
- Imran was charged with abetment by conspiracy with Pragas and Tamil to traffic diamorphine.
- Tamil and Pragas were charged with delivering diamorphine with common intention.
- Pragas was acquitted on the basis that it was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he was wilfully blind to the nature of the drugs.
- The charge against Imran refers to a conspiracy between Tamil and Pragas.
- The charge against Tamil refers to a shared common intention with Pragas.
- The court exercised its powers under s 390(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code to frame amended charges against both Imran and Tamil.
- The court ordered a joint retrial of both amended charges before a different judge of the General Division of the High Court pursuant to s 390(7)(a) of the CPC.
5. Formal Citations
- Imran bin Mohd Arip v Public Prosecutor and another appeal, Criminal Appeal Nos 22 and 24 of 2019, [2021] SGCA 91
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Tamil and Pragas entered the carpark of Block 518A Jurong West St 52. | |
| Tamil and Pragas walked towards Block 518 Jurong West St 52. | |
| Tamil took the lift up to the fourth floor of Block 518. | |
| Tamil met Imran who came out of #04-139 of Block 518. | |
| Tamil called Pragas. | |
| Pragas walked up the staircase to the fourth floor of Block 518. | |
| Pragas met Imran, opened his black haversack, and handed over a white plastic bag to Imran. | |
| Pragas and Tamil walked down the staircase and were arrested by CNB officers. | |
| CNB officers seized $6,700 from Tamil. | |
| Imran gave his fifth and final investigative statement. | |
| The Court of Appeal released the CA Judgment, allowing Pragas’s appeal and acquitting him. | |
| Eugene Thuraisingam LLP was instructed to act for Tamil. | |
| Eugene Thuraisingam LLP sought a further four-week extension of time. | |
| Eugene Thuraisingam LLP filed its submissions. | |
| Eugene Thuraisingam LLP informed the court that it had obtained a response from Mr Selvaraj to the Allegations. | |
| Eugene Thuraisingam LLP disclosed Mr Selvaraj’s response. | |
| Hearing of CCA 22 and CCA 24. | |
| Judgment delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Alteration of Charges
- Outcome: The court held that an altered charge should be framed against Tamil and Imran under s 390(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Prejudice to the accused
- Sufficiency of evidence
- Common Intention
- Outcome: The court excised the common intention element of Tamil’s charge.
- Category: Substantive
- Conspiracy
- Outcome: The court amended Imran's charge by deleting the reference to Pragas from the conspiracy.
- Category: Substantive
- Statutory Interpretation
- Outcome: The court analyzed the courses of action open to an appellate court when framing an altered charge which carries the death penalty.
- Category: Procedural
- Professional Conduct
- Outcome: The court addressed the conduct of counsel in making allegations against previous counsel without proper observance of the relevant professional conduct rules.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Acquittal
- Retrial
9. Cause of Actions
- Drug Trafficking
- Abetment by Conspiracy
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Imran bin Mohd Arip v Public Prosecutor and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] SGCA 120 | Singapore | The judgment in this case acquitted Pragas Krissamy, one of the co-accused, which necessitated the amendments to the charges against Imran and Tamil. |
| Public Prosecutor v Koon Seng Construction Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR(R) 112 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the amendment of a charge should not cause any injustice or affect the presentation of evidence. |
| Sim Wen Yi Ernest v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2016] 5 SLR 207 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the amendment of a charge should not cause any injustice or affect the presentation of evidence. |
| GDC v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2020] 5 SLR 1130 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the amendment of a charge should not cause any injustice or affect the presentation of evidence. |
| Moad Fadzir bin Mustaffa v Public Prosecutor and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] SGCA 73 | Singapore | Discusses the application of section 390(7)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code in the context of altered charges. |
| Mui Jia Jun v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 1087 | Singapore | Discusses the application of section 390(7)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code in the context of altered charges. |
| Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 850 | Singapore | Cited for the framework for purposive statutory interpretation. |
| Hong Leong Bank Bhd v Soh Seow Poh | High Court | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 525 | Singapore | Cited for the canon of statutory construction that Parliament is presumed not to have intended an unworkable or impracticable result. |
| Lee Ngin Kiat v Public Prosecutor | Court of Criminal Appeal | Yes | [1993] 1 SLR(R) 695 | Singapore | Cited as the case law codified in section 390 of the Criminal Procedure Code, regarding the appellate court's power to alter charges. |
| Public Prosecutor v Imran bin Arip and others | High Court | Yes | [2019] SGHC 155 | Singapore | Cited to show that the Judge's reasoning was that Tamil did not have a bona fide or legitimate reason for his presence at the Unit. |
| Nazeri bin Lajim v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] SGCA 41 | Singapore | Cited as an example of cases in which accused persons seek to level accusations and allegations against their previous lawyers. |
| Iskandar bin Rahmat v Law Society of Singapore | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] SGCA 1 | Singapore | Cited as an example of cases in which accused persons seek to level accusations and allegations against their previous lawyers. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rule 29 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (S 706/2015) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 12 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 33(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 33B of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 390(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 390(7)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 390(7)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 390(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 390(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 390(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 34 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 18(4) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 10 of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 9A(2) of the Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Altered charge
- Common intention
- Conspiracy
- Retrial
- Diamorphine
- Wilful blindness
- Prejudice
- Professional conduct
15.2 Keywords
- Drug trafficking
- Criminal appeal
- Retrial
- Amendment of charges
- Common intention
- Conspiracy
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Criminal Procedure Code
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Procedure | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Sentencing | 90 |
| Alteration of Charge | 75 |
| Evidence | 70 |
| Statutory Interpretation | 60 |
| Professional Ethics | 40 |
| Legal Profession Act | 40 |
| Affidavits | 10 |
| Contract Law | 10 |
| Equity | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Drug Trafficking
- Appeals
- Sentencing