Public Prosecutor v A Steven s/o Paul Raj: Trafficking in Diamorphine under the Misuse of Drugs Act

In Public Prosecutor v A Steven s/o Paul Raj, the High Court of Singapore convicted A Steven s/o Paul Raj of trafficking in diamorphine under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The accused's defense of personal consumption was rejected, and he was sentenced to death. The court found that the accused failed to rebut the presumption that his possession of the drugs was for the purpose of trafficking.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Accused convicted of trafficking in diamorphine and sentenced to death.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

A Steven s/o Paul Raj was convicted of trafficking diamorphine under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The court rejected his defense of personal consumption and sentenced him to death.

1.7 Decision Date

21 September 2021

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Public Prosecutor	Prosecution	Government Agency	Judgment for Prosecution	Won	Teo Siu Ming of Attorney-General’s Chambers Lee Zu Zhao of Attorney-General’s Chambers Rimplejit Kaur of Attorney-General’s Chambers
A Steven s/o Paul Raj	Defendant	Individual	Convicted	Lost	Lau Kah Hee of BC Lim & Lau LLC Amolat Singh of Amolat & Partners

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Aedit Abdullah	Judge of the High Court	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Teo Siu Ming	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Lee Zu Zhao	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Rimplejit Kaur	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Lau Kah Hee	BC Lim & Lau LLC
Amolat Singh	Amolat & Partners

4. Facts

The accused was arrested on 24 October 2017 while riding a motorized bicycle.
901.5g of granular/powdery substance was found in the bicycle basket.
The substance contained not less than 35.85g of diamorphine.
The accused admitted to ordering two "batu" of "panas" (diamorphine) from his supplier.
The accused claimed he was a heavy user of diamorphine, consuming 16g to 24g per day.
The accused possessed zip lock bags and weighing scales.
The accused's DNA was found on an exhibit containing the diamorphine.

5. Formal Citations

Public Prosecutor v A Steven s/o Paul Raj, Criminal Case No 54 of 2019, [2021] SGHC 218

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2017-10-24	Accused arrested for drug-related activities.
2017-10-26	Accused examined by Dr. Tan Chong Hun.
2017-10-28	Drug withdrawal assessment of the accused by Dr. Sahaya Nathan.
2017-10-30	Accused's long statement recorded.
2017-11-01	Accused examined by Dr. Jaydip Sarkar.
2018-02-22	Accused's further long statement recorded.
2019-10-01	Dr. Munidasa Winslow testified.
2019-10-04	Hearing date.
2020-06-30	Hearing date.
2020-07-01	Hearing date.
2020-07-28	Hearing date.
2021-04-14	Hearing date.
2021-04-15	Hearing date.
2021-08-10	Hearing date.
2021-09-22	Judgment date.

7. Legal Issues

Trafficking in Controlled Drugs
- Outcome: The court convicted the accused of trafficking in diamorphine.
- Category: Substantive
Rebuttal of Presumption of Trafficking
- Outcome: The court found that the accused failed to rebut the presumption that his possession of diamorphine was for the purpose of trafficking.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [1996] 3 SLR(R) 42
  - [2017] 1 SLR 427
  - [2018] SGHC 67
Defence of Personal Consumption
- Outcome: The court rejected the accused's defense that the diamorphine was solely for his personal consumption.
- Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

Conviction
Death penalty

9. Cause of Actions

Trafficking in a controlled drug

10. Practice Areas

Criminal Law
Drug Trafficking

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Low Theng Gee v PP	High Court	Yes	[1996] 3 SLR(R) 42	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the accused has the burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that he was not trafficking.
Muhammad bin Abdullah v PP and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2017] 1 SLR 427	Singapore	Cited for factors to consider when an accused relies on a defence of own consumption to rebut the presumption in s 17.
PP v Tan Kay Yong and another	High Court	Yes	[2018] SGHC 67	Singapore	Cited for factors to consider when an accused relies on a defence of own consumption to rebut the presumption in s 17.
Jusri bin Mohamed Hussain v PP	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1996] 2 SLR(R) 706	Singapore	Cited for the principle that possession of drug paraphernalia is relevant as circumstantial evidence of an accused’s intentions as to drugs in his possession.
Sharom bin Ahmad and another v PP	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2000] 2 SLR(R) 541	Singapore	Cited for the principle that possession of drug paraphernalia is relevant as circumstantial evidence of an accused’s intentions as to drugs in his possession.
Sulaiman bin Jumari v PP	Court of Appeal	No	[2021] 1 SLR 557	Singapore	Cited as a case where COWS assessment has been considered.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 5(1)	Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 5(2)	Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 17(c)	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(1)	Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 33B(2)	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 267	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Diamorphine
Trafficking
Personal consumption
Presumption of trafficking
Misuse of Drugs Act
Batu
Panas
Drug paraphernalia
Rate of consumption
Withdrawal symptoms

15.2 Keywords

Diamorphine
Drug trafficking
Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act
Criminal law

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Misuse of Drugs Act	95
Criminal Law	90
Sentencing	60
Evidence	50

16. Subjects

Criminal Law
Drug Trafficking
Statutory Interpretation