Kanesan s/o Ramasamy v Public Prosecutor: Appeal Against Drug Consumption and Possession Conviction
Kanesan s/o Ramasamy appealed to the General Division of the High Court against his conviction and sentence in the District Court for one charge of drug consumption under s 8(b)(ii) of the Misuse of Drugs Act and another charge of possession of drug utensils under s 9 of MDA. The High Court, presided over by Justice Vincent Hoong, dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments regarding the unconstitutionality of the proceedings and the credibility of his defenses. The court upheld the original sentence of the mandatory minimum of 5 years’ imprisonment in respect of the drug consumption charge and 4 months’ imprisonment in respect of the possession of drug utensils charge, with both sentences to run concurrently.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Kanesan s/o Ramasamy appeals against his conviction and sentence for drug consumption and possession, arguing constitutional and evidentiary issues. The High Court dismisses the appeal.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Judgment for Respondent | Won | Angela Ang of Attorney-General’s Chambers Kavitha Uthrapathy of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Kanesan s/o Ramasamy | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Vincent Hoong | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Angela Ang | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Kavitha Uthrapathy | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ravi s/o Madasamy | K K Cheng Law LLC |
4. Facts
- Appellant was arrested on 13 September 2016 at Tiong Bahru Plaza.
- Appellant was found to have two outstanding warrants.
- Appellant was carrying a cigarette box containing a burnt aluminium foil and TOTO betting slip with residue.
- Urine samples collected from the appellant contained morphine.
- Appellant claimed the drug utensils belonged to his roommates.
- Appellant argued the morphine in his urine was due to cough medication or passive inhalation.
- Appellant had two prior drug consumption convictions.
5. Formal Citations
- Kanesan s/o Ramasamy v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9342 of 2020, [2021] SGHC 269
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant arrested at Tiong Bahru Plaza | |
| Criminal motion filed in High Court (CM 6/2018) | |
| Appellant convicted and sentenced | |
| Suit 1157 of 2020 (S 1157/2020) commenced against the Attorney-General | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Admissibility of Statement
- Outcome: The court found that the statement was made voluntarily and was admissible.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Voluntariness of statement
- Alleged threat and oppression
- Inducement
- Related Cases:
- [1998] 3 SLR(R) 619
- [2019] 3 SLR 749
- [2006] 1 SLR(R) 319
- [1999] 1 SLR(R) 498
- Breach of Constitutional Rights
- Outcome: The court found no merit in the appellant's arguments on the unconstitutionality of the criminal proceedings.
- Category: Constitutional
- Related Cases:
- [2015] 2 SLR 1129
- [2015] 1 SLR 26
- Rebuttal of Statutory Presumption
- Outcome: The court found that the appellant had not rebutted the presumption under s 22 of the MDA.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1995] 3 SLR(R) 719
- [2014] 3 SLR 1100
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Drug Consumption
- Possession of Drug Utensils
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
- Constitutional Law
- Drug Law
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Kanesan s/o Ramasamy | District Court | Yes | [2020] SGDC 144 | Singapore | The District Judge's grounds of decision which convicted the appellant of drug consumption and possession of drug utensils. |
| Goh Nellie v Goh Lian Teck and others | N/A | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 453 | Singapore | Cited for the principles of res judicata, including cause of action estoppel, issue estoppel, and abuse of process. |
| Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 1129 | Singapore | Cited for the interpretation of Article 9(1) of the Constitution regarding deprivation of personal liberty. |
| Lim Meng Suang and another v Attorney-General and another appeal and another matter | N/A | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 26 | Singapore | Cited for the 'reasonable classification' test applied to analyze whether a legislative provision is consistent with an individual’s right to equal protection under Art 12(1). |
| Chai Chien Wei Kelvin v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 619 | Singapore | Cited for the test for determining the admissibility of a statement where voluntariness is challenged. |
| Public Prosecutor v Yue Roger Jr | N/A | Yes | [2019] 3 SLR 749 | Singapore | Cited for the test for determining the admissibility of a statement where voluntariness is challenged. |
| Lim Thian Lai v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 319 | Singapore | Cited for the assessment of the effect of any words or threats in the context of the individual case. |
| Gulam bin Notan Mohd Shariff Jamalddin and another v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR(R) 498 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that self-perceived inducement does not amount to an inducement in law. |
| Vadugaiah Mahendran v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR(R) 719 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that once a controlled drug is found in the urine of the appellant, s 22 of the MDA presumes that the actus reus and mens rea of consumption are proven. |
| Zheng Jianxing v Attorney-General | N/A | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 1100 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that once a controlled drug is found in the urine of the appellant, s 22 of the MDA presumes that the actus reus and mens rea of consumption are proven. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) O 18 r 19(1)(a) |
| Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) O 18 r 19(1)(b) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 8(b)(ii) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 9 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 22 | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) Art 9(1) | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) Art 12(1) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Confidential Informant
- Voluntariness of Statement
- Passive Inhalation
- Cough Medication
- Res Judicata
- Issue Estoppel
- Reasonable Classification Test
15.2 Keywords
- drug consumption
- drug possession
- misuse of drugs act
- constitutional rights
- criminal appeal
- singapore
- informant
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Drug Crimes | 90 |
| Statutory offences | 80 |
| Criminal Law | 75 |
| Constitutional Law | 70 |
| Civil Rights | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Constitutional Law
- Drug Offences
- Criminal Procedure