Gunasilan Rajenthiran v Public Prosecutor: Importation of Cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act
Gunasilan Rajenthiran appealed to the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore against his conviction and sentence for importing not less than 1,475.3 grams of cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The High Court had sentenced him to life imprisonment with 15 strokes of the cane after the Prosecution issued a certificate of substantive assistance. The Court of Appeal, comprising Judith Prakash JCA, Steven Chong JCA, and Chao Hick Tin SJ, dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence, finding that the appellant failed to rebut the presumption of knowledge under Section 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Ex Tempore Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal against conviction and sentence for importing cannabis. The court upheld the conviction, finding the appellant failed to rebut the presumption of knowledge.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gunasilan Rajenthiran | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Conviction and Sentence Upheld | Won | Yvonne Poon, Teo Pei Rong Grace |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Judith Prakash | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Steven Chong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Chao Hick Tin | Senior Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Yvonne Poon | Attorney-General’s Chamber |
| Teo Pei Rong Grace | Attorney-General’s Chamber |
4. Facts
- The appellant was arrested at Tuas Checkpoint while riding a motorcycle.
- The appellant was found to be carrying 1,475.3 grams of cannabis.
- The cannabis was found in the front storage box of the motorcycle and strapped to the appellant's body.
- The appellant admitted in his first statement that the vegetable matter was 'ganja'.
- The appellant communicated with Pandian and Jo after his arrest.
- The appellant told Dr. Phang that he knew the delivery job was related to drugs.
- The appellant was promised RM5,000 for delivering the drugs.
5. Formal Citations
- Gunasilan Rajenthiran v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Appeal No 18 of 2021, [2022] SGCA 15
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant entered Singapore via Tuas Checkpoint | |
| Appellant arrested by Central Narcotics Bureau officers | |
| Appellant's first contemporaneous statement recorded | |
| Criminal Appeal No 18 of 2021 filed | |
| Judgment delivered |
7. Legal Issues
- Importation of Cannabis
- Outcome: The court upheld the conviction for importing cannabis, finding the appellant failed to rebut the presumption of knowledge.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2020] 2 SLR 95
- [2021] 1 SLR 1390
- [2021] 1 SLR 180
- Admissibility of Statements
- Outcome: The court found no merit in the appellant's submission that the Mandatory Death Penalty notice constituted a threat, inducement, or promise.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2021] SGCA 113
- Presumption of Knowledge
- Outcome: The court found that the appellant failed to rebut the presumption of knowledge under s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2021] 1 SLR 180
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against Conviction
- Appeal against Sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Importation of Cannabis
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Drug Offences
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Saravanan Chandaram v Public Prosecutor and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 95 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the purity of cannabis is irrelevant in charges concerning pure cannabis and that the charge correctly dealt with the gross weight of the cannabis. |
| Abdul Karim bin Mohamed Kuppai Khan v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 1390 | Singapore | Cited to support the HSA's amendment of certificates to clarify 'cannabis mixture' as fragments of vegetable matter containing THC and CBN. |
| Gobi a/l Avedian v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 180 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that to rebut the presumption of knowledge under s 18(2) of the MDA, the accused must prove they believed they possessed something innocuous or a different contraband item. |
| Jumadi bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] SGCA 113 | Singapore | Cited to clarify that the Mandatory Death Penalty notice itself does not constitute a threat, inducement, or promise. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| 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(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) s 258(3) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 18(2) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Cannabis
- Importation
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Presumption of Knowledge
- Mandatory Death Penalty notice
- Tuas Checkpoint
- Ganja
15.2 Keywords
- Cannabis
- Importation
- Drugs
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Offences
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Law
- Statutory Offences
- Misuse of Drugs Act