PP v S K Murugan: Voluntariness of Statements & Admissibility in Drug Trafficking Retrial

In Public Prosecutor v S K Murugan Subrawmanian, the High Court of Singapore addressed the admissibility of seven statements made by the accused, S K Murugan Subrawmanian, in a retrial for a drug trafficking charge under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Murugan was accused of trafficking not less than 66.27g of diamorphine. The court, presided over by Chan Seng Onn J, determined that the statements were made involuntarily due to an inducement by the investigating officer and therefore ruled them inadmissible as evidence. The court found that the Defence had raised a reasonable doubt that the statements were voluntary.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Statements made involuntarily and should not be admitted into evidence.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

High Court retrial on drug trafficking charge. The court found the accused's statements were involuntary due to inducement and inadmissible.

1.7 Decision Date

29 July 2021

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Public Prosecutor	Prosecution	Government Agency	Statements made involuntarily and should not be admitted into evidence.	Lost	Rimplejit Kaur of Attorney-General’s Chambers Keith Jieren Thirumaran of Attorney-General’s Chambers April Phang Suet Fern of Attorney-General’s Chambers
S K Murugan Subrawmanian	Defendant	Individual	Statements inadmissible	Won	Balakrishnan Chitra of Regency Legal LLP Jerrie Tan Qiu Lin of K&L Gates Straits Law LLC Thangavelu of Trident Law Corporation

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Chan Seng Onn	Judge of the High Court	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Rimplejit Kaur	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Keith Jieren Thirumaran	Attorney-General’s Chambers
April Phang Suet Fern	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Balakrishnan Chitra	Regency Legal LLP
Jerrie Tan Qiu Lin	K&L Gates Straits Law LLC
Thangavelu	Trident Law Corporation

4. Facts

Murugan was charged with trafficking not less than 66.27g of diamorphine.
Murugan claimed trial to the charge.
Murugan challenged the admissibility of seven long statements.
Murugan claimed the statements were not voluntarily made because of an inducement.
Murugan alleged that SI Shafiq promised to bring Hisham to him if he made the statements.
Murugan gave a contemporaneous statement and a cautioned statement denying the offence.
The seven statements painted a different picture, with Murugan admitting to the offence.

5. Formal Citations

Public Prosecutor v S K Murugan Subrawmanian, Criminal Case No 66 of 2017, [2021] SGHC 185

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2015-01-06	Murugan and Hisham met at Greenwich Drive in Singapore
2015-01-06	Hisham was arrested by Central Narcotic Bureau officers
2015-01-06	Murugan was arrested
2015-01-07	Murugan gave a cautioned statement
2015-01-09	SI Shafiq recorded statement from Murugan
2015-01-10	SI Shafiq recorded statement from Murugan
2015-01-11	SI Shafiq recorded statement from Murugan
2015-01-11	SI Shafiq recorded statement from Murugan
2015-01-12	SI Shafiq recorded statement from Murugan
2015-01-13	SI Shafiq recorded statement from Murugan
2015-01-14	SI Shafiq recorded statement from Murugan
2015-04-13	Murugan reported to Dr Sarkar that SI Shafiq told him there was sufficient evidence against him
2015-04-27	Dr Sarkar's Report
2015-09-21	Murugan was assigned a lawyer under the Legal Assistance Scheme for Capital Offences
2018-01-27	Dr Jacob Rajesh’s report
2018-12-09	Dr Rajesh’s report
2020-01-21	Statement of Agreed Facts
2020-01-28	Voir dire hearing
2020-01-28	Voir dire hearing
2020-01-29	Voir dire hearing
2020-01-30	Voir dire hearing
2020-01-31	Voir dire hearing
2020-02-04	Voir dire hearing
2020-02-05	Voir dire hearing
2020-02-25	Voir dire hearing
2020-02-26	Voir dire hearing
2020-02-27	Voir dire hearing
2020-02-28	Voir dire hearing
2020-03-03	Voir dire hearing
2020-03-04	Voir dire hearing
2020-03-05	Voir dire hearing
2020-08-25	Voir dire hearing
2020-08-26	Voir dire hearing
2020-08-27	Voir dire hearing
2020-09-01	Voir dire hearing
2020-09-02	Voir dire hearing
2020-09-03	Voir dire hearing
2020-09-04	Voir dire hearing
2021-02-16	Voir dire hearing
2021-02-17	Voir dire hearing
2021-02-18	Voir dire hearing
2021-02-19	Voir dire hearing
2021-02-22	Voir dire hearing
2021-02-23	Voir dire hearing
2021-02-24	Voir dire hearing
2021-02-25	Voir dire hearing
2021-02-26	Voir dire hearing
2021-04-19	Voir dire hearing
2021-04-20	Voir dire hearing
2021-04-21	Voir dire hearing
2021-04-22	Voir dire hearing
2021-04-23	Voir dire hearing
2021-04-04	Voir dire hearing
2021-05-05	Voir dire hearing
2021-06-04	Defence and Prosecution written submissions
2021-06-14	Defence and Prosecution reply submissions
2021-07-05	Voir dire hearing
2021-07-30	Judgment delivered

7. Legal Issues

Admissibility of Statements
- Outcome: The court held that the statements were made involuntarily and should not be admitted into evidence.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Voluntariness of statements
  - Inducement
  - Threat
  - Promise
Voluntariness of Statements
- Outcome: The court held that the statements were made involuntarily and should not be admitted into evidence.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Effect of inducement on accused's mind
  - Intellectual disability
  - Adaptive functioning

8. Remedies Sought

Exclusion of Statements
Acquittal

9. Cause of Actions

Drug Trafficking

10. Practice Areas

Criminal Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Public Prosecutor v S K Murugan Subrawmanian	High Court	Yes	[2018] SGHC 71	Singapore	Refers to the first trial where the High Court found Murugan guilty and convicted him on the Charge.
Muhammad bin Kadar and another v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2011] 3 SLR 1205	Singapore	Cited for the principle of exclusionary discretion, regarding the balance between prejudicial effect and probative value of evidence.
Sulaiman bin Jumari v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2021] 1 SLR 557	Singapore	Cited for the approach to disputes over admissibility of statements.
Chia Chien Wei Kelvin v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1998] 3 SLR(R) 619	Singapore	Cited for the test of voluntariness.
Sakthivel Punithavathi v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2007] 2 SLR(R) 983	Singapore	Cited for principles relating to conflicting expert evidence.
Azman bin Mohamed Sanwan v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2012] 2 SLR 733	Singapore	Cited regarding the need for interpreters to keep meticulous notes.
Public Prosecutor v Gan Lim Soon	High Court	Yes	[1993] 2 SLR(R) 67	Singapore	Cited for the principle that courts must not lose sight of the wood for the trees but focus on the essentials of the case.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Diamorphine
Drug trafficking
Voluntariness
Inducement
Voir dire
Statements
Admissibility
Intellectual disability
Adaptive functioning

15.2 Keywords

Drug trafficking
Statements
Admissibility
Voluntariness
Inducement
Voir dire
Criminal Law
Singapore
High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Misuse of Drugs Act	90
Criminal Procedure	90
Evidence Law	80
Admissibility of evidence	70
Evidence	70
Sentencing	60

16. Subjects

Criminal Law
Evidence
Criminal Procedure
Drug Offences