A Steven s/o Paul Raj v Public Prosecutor: Trafficking in Diamorphine under the Misuse of Drugs Act
A Steven s/o Paul Raj appealed to the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore against his conviction and sentence for trafficking in diamorphine under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The High Court had found him guilty after he failed to prove that the drugs were solely for his personal consumption. The Court of Appeal, comprising Andrew Phang Boon Leong JCA, Judith Prakash JCA, and Steven Chong JCA, dismissed the appeal on May 11, 2022, upholding the conviction and mandatory death sentence, finding that the appellant did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claim that the drugs were for personal use only.
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
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The appellant was convicted of trafficking diamorphine. The court dismissed the appeal, finding he failed to prove the drugs were for personal consumption.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Judgment Upheld | 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 | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Judith Prakash | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Steven Chong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | 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
- Appellant was charged with possessing 35.85g of diamorphine for trafficking.
- Appellant claimed the drugs were solely for his personal consumption.
- The amount of diamorphine exceeded the 2g threshold, engaging the presumption of trafficking.
- Appellant had a history of drug addiction since age 17.
- Appellant possessed drug trafficking paraphernalia, including zip lock bags and weighing scales.
- Appellant made inconsistent statements regarding his rate of drug consumption.
- Appellant provided the Deepavali Explanation for purchasing a large quantity of drugs.
5. Formal Citations
- A Steven s/o Paul Raj v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Appeal No 24 of 2021, [2022] SGCA 39
- Public Prosecutor v A Steven s/o Paul Raj, , [2021] SGHC 218
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant ordered drugs from supplier. | |
| Appellant received drugs at Boon Keng MRT station and was arrested. | |
| First Long Statement recorded from the appellant. | |
| Second Long Statement recorded from the appellant. | |
| Criminal Appeal No 24 of 2021 filed. | |
| Hearing in Court of Appeal. | |
| Judgment reserved and appeal dismissed. |
7. Legal Issues
- Rebuttal of Presumption of Trafficking
- Outcome: The court held that the appellant failed to rebut the presumption of trafficking under s 17(c) of the MDA.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Sufficiency of evidence for personal consumption
- Credibility of consumption rate
- Explanation for possession of large quantity
- Related Cases:
- [2021] 1 SLR 557
- [1995] SGHC 120
- [1996] 2 SLR(R) 706
- [1996] 3 SLR(R) 42
- [2008] 1 SLR(R) 601
- [2016] 5 SLR 636
- [2017] 1 SLR 427
- [2000] 2 SLR(R) 541
- [2017] 5 SLR 564
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction and sentence
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sulaiman bin Jumari v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 557 | Singapore | Cited to contrast cases where the accused claimed only a portion of drugs was for personal consumption. |
| Public Prosecutor v Foong Seow Ngiu and others | High Court | Yes | [1995] SGHC 120 | Singapore | Cited to contrast cases where the accused claimed only a portion of drugs was for personal consumption. |
| Jusri bin Mohamed Hussain v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 2 SLR(R) 706 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the burden is on the appellant to prove on a balance of probabilities that the diamorphine in his possession was not for the purpose of trafficking. |
| Low Theng Gee v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 3 SLR(R) 42 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the burden is on the appellant to prove on a balance of probabilities that the diamorphine in his possession was not for the purpose of trafficking. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mohammed Liton Mohammed Syeed Mallik | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 601 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court will not disturb the trial judge’s findings of fact unless they are clearly arrived at against the weight of the evidence. |
| Haliffie bin Mamat v Public Prosecutor and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 5 SLR 636 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the appellate court is restricted to considering whether the judge’s assessment of witness credibility is plainly wrong or against the weight of evidence. |
| Muhammad bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 427 | Singapore | Cited for the factors to consider when determining whether the appellant has rebutted the presumption in s 17. |
| Sharom bin Ahmad and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR(R) 541 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that possession of drug trafficking paraphernalia is relevant as circumstantial evidence of drug trafficking activities. |
| Public Prosecutor v Tan Lye Heng | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 5 SLR 564 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the sheer amount of drugs found in the appellant’s possession provides additional objective evidence which supports an irresistible inference that the appellant intended to traffic in the Relevant Drugs. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 5(1)(a) Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 5(2) Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 17(c) Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 33(1) Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| ss 33B(1) Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| ss 33B(2) Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 22 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Trafficking
- Consumption defence
- Presumption of trafficking
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Drug paraphernalia
- Deepavali Explanation
15.2 Keywords
- Diamorphine
- Drug Trafficking
- Singapore
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Criminal Appeal
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 100 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Evidence Law | 70 |
| Criminal Procedure | 60 |
| Appeal | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Statutory Interpretation