PP v Gunasilan Rajenthiran: Drug Importation, Misuse of Drugs Act, Voluntariness of Statements
In Public Prosecutor v Gunasilan Rajenthiran, the High Court of Singapore convicted Gunasilan Rajenthiran, a Malaysian national, of importing cannabis into Singapore in violation of the Misuse of Drugs Act. Rajenthiran was sentenced to life imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane. The primary legal issue was whether the accused knew that the bundles he was carrying contained cannabis. The court found that the accused failed to rebut the presumption that he knew he was importing drugs.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment and caning upheld.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Gunasilan Rajenthiran was convicted of importing cannabis into Singapore. The court found him guilty, sentencing him to life imprisonment and caning.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Prosecution | Government Agency | Conviction Upheld | Won | Sruthi Boppana of Attorney-General’s Chambers Gregory Gan of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Gunasilan Rajenthiran | Defendant | Individual | Conviction and Sentence Upheld | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Valerie Thean | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Sruthi Boppana | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Gregory Gan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| N K Rajarh | K&L Gates Straits Law LLC |
| Sureshan s/o T Kulasingam | Sureshan LLC |
4. Facts
- The accused, a Malaysian national, was charged with importing cannabis into Singapore.
- On 25 July 2018, the accused was found to be carrying five blocks of vegetable matter containing not less than 1,475.3 grams of cannabis.
- The accused claimed he thought the blocks were books and did not know they contained cannabis.
- The accused was promised RM5,000 for delivering the items.
- The Prosecution argued that the accused knew the blocks contained cannabis and that his claims were afterthoughts and lies.
- The accused made several statements after his arrest, some of which were later deemed inadmissible due to inducements by officers.
- The accused had frequent phone calls with a person named Pandian prior to his arrest.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Gunasilan Rajenthiran, Criminal Case No 55 of 2019, [2021] SGHC 164
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Accused imported cannabis into Singapore at Tuas Checkpoint | |
| Accused arrested | |
| First contemporaneous statement recorded | |
| Second contemporaneous statement recorded | |
| Cautioned statement recorded | |
| Statements recorded under s 22 of the CPC began | |
| Statements recorded under s 22 of the CPC ended | |
| Psychiatric evaluation of accused began | |
| Psychiatric evaluation of accused | |
| Psychiatric evaluation of accused | |
| Dr Phang’s report dated | |
| Statement of Agreed Facts dated | |
| Trial began | |
| Trial | |
| Trial | |
| Trial | |
| Trial | |
| Trial | |
| Trial | |
| Trial | |
| Defendant’s Written Submissions dated | |
| Accused convicted on the charge | |
| Plaintiff’s Skeletal Reply Submissions dated | |
| Accused sentenced to life imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane | |
| Grounds of decision |
7. Legal Issues
- Importation of Controlled Drugs
- Outcome: The court found the accused guilty of importing cannabis into Singapore.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2019] 2 SLR 254
- Knowledge of the Nature of Drugs
- Outcome: The court found that the accused failed to rebut the presumption that he knew he was importing drugs.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2019] 2 SLR 254
- [2021] 1 SLR 180
- Admissibility of Statements
- Outcome: The court admitted the first contemporaneous statement but not the remainder of the statements.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [1998] 3 SLR(R) 619
- Disclosure of Witness Statements
- Outcome: The court found that the Prosecution's late disclosure of witness statements did not prejudice the accused's case.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2011] 3 SLR 1205
- [2020] 1 SLR 984
8. Remedies Sought
- Conviction
- Imprisonment
- Caning
9. Cause of Actions
- Importation of Controlled Drugs
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
- Drug Trafficking
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adili Chibuike Ejike v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 254 | Singapore | Set out the elements of drug importation into Singapore under s 7 of the MDA. |
| Saravanan Chandaram v Public Prosecutor and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 95 | Singapore | Relevant to the issues of the weight of the cannabis in the charge and whether the accused should have been charged separately in respect of each block of cannabis. |
| Sim Mai Tik v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1988] 2 SLR(R) 262 | Singapore | Considered that the manner of packing of a controlled drug was not relevant. |
| Chai Chien Wei Kelvin v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 619 | Singapore | Burden of proof was on the Prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the statements were made voluntarily. |
| Muhammad bin Kadar v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 1205 | Singapore | The Prosecution must disclose to the Defence any material which takes the form of unused material that is likely to be admissible and that might reasonably be regarded as credible and relevant to the guilt or innocence of the accused. |
| Muhammad Nabill bin Mohd Fuad v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 984 | Singapore | The Prosecution is obliged to disclose any statements of material witnesses to the Defence. |
| Beh Chai Hock v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1996] 3 SLR(R) 112 | Singapore | Noted the need to weigh two principles, one being fairness to the accused, and the other being the need to ensure that guilty persons do not “escape scot-free merely because of some technical blunder”. |
| Public Prosecutor v Wee Teong Boo | High Court | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 533 | Singapore | The medical report that was disclosed late was relevant to the accused’s defence that he suffered from severe erectile dysfunction. |
| Chan Kin Choi v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1991] 1 SLR(R) 111 | Singapore | The accused faced a charge of murder for stabbing the victim in the neck at a restaurant. |
| Mui Jia Jun v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 1087 | Singapore | Where the Prosecution’s case rests on several distinct factual bases, they must make it clear to the accused that they are also seeking a conviction on any one of those factual bases, if this objective is not already clear on its face. |
| Gobi a/l Avedian v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 180 | Singapore | Highlighted that procedural fairness required alternative cases where two distinct cases were being advanced against an accused person. |
| Zainal bin Hamad v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 1119 | Singapore | An accused person who seeks to rebut the s 18(2) presumption should be able to say what he thought or believed he was carrying, and a claim that he simply did not know what he was carrying would not usually suffice. |
| Obeng Comfort v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 633 | Singapore | The court will generally consider the nature, the value and the quantity of the purported item and any reward for transporting such an item. |
| Gopu Jaya Raman v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 499 | Singapore | In assessing the evidence, the court should bear in mind the inherent difficulties of proving a negative, and the burden on the accused person should not be so onerous that it becomes virtually impossible to discharge. |
| Public Prosecutor v Saridewi Bte Djamani and another | High Court | Yes | [2018] SGHC 204 | Singapore | Another piece of evidence pointing towards [the accused’s] knowledge of the true nature of the substance was the use of the word “heroin” in the psychiatric report. |
| Anita Damu v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2020] 3 SLR 825 | Singapore | Suggests doubt that an accused’s account to a psychiatrist could be treated as a statement under s 258(1) of the CPC. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 7 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 33(1) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 33B | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 18(2) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2008 Rev Ed) s 23 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2008 Rev Ed) s 22 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 258(3) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Cannabis
- Importation
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Presumption of Knowledge
- Voluntariness of Statements
- Controlled Drugs
- Courier
- Substantive Assistance
15.2 Keywords
- Drug Importation
- Cannabis
- Singapore
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Criminal Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 90 |
| Criminal Law | 75 |
| Criminal Procedure | 75 |
| Evidence Law | 70 |
| Sentencing | 70 |
| Statutory Interpretation | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Offences
- Evidence
- Criminal Procedure