Munusamy Ramarmurth v Public Prosecutor: Appeal Against Drug Trafficking Conviction
Munusamy Ramarmurth appealed to the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore against his conviction in the High Court for possessing 57.54g of diamorphine for the purpose of trafficking under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The High Court had sentenced him to the mandatory death penalty. Ramarmurth challenged the weight of his statements, the presumption of knowledge, whether he possessed the drugs for trafficking, and the conduct of the investigating officer. The Court of Appeal, comprising Judith Prakash JCA, Tay Yong Kwang JCA, and Steven Chong JCA, dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Munusamy Ramarmurth appeals his conviction for possessing diamorphine for trafficking. The Court of Appeal dismisses the appeal, upholding the conviction and mandatory death penalty.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Chong Yong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Benedict Chan of Attorney-General’s Chambers Chin Jincheng of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Munusamy Ramarmurth | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Judith Prakash | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Steven Chong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Chong Yong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Benedict Chan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Chin Jincheng | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Suresh s/o Damodara | Damodara Ong LLC |
| Josephine Iezu Costan | David Nayar and Associates |
4. Facts
- Appellant was arrested for possessing 57.54g of diamorphine.
- The drugs were found in a red plastic bag in the rear box of his motorcycle.
- Appellant claimed he thought the bag contained stolen handphones.
- Appellant claimed he was storing the bag for Saravanan, who could not enter Singapore.
- Appellant claimed Boy would retrieve the bag later.
- The High Court rejected the appellant's version of events.
- The appellant did not receive a certificate of substantive assistance from the Prosecution.
5. Formal Citations
- Munusamy Ramarmurth v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Appeal No 31 of 2021, [2022] SGCA 70
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant parked his motorcycle at an open-air carpark. | |
| Appellant opened the rear box of the motorcycle and closed it. | |
| CNB officers positioned at Harbourfront Avenue and located the motorcycle. | |
| Appellant was arrested by CNB officers. | |
| Search of the motorcycle was conducted, and a red plastic bag was recovered. | |
| Appellant gave four contemporaneous statements to the CNB. | |
| Appellant gave a cautioned statement to the CNB. | |
| Appellant gave long statements to the CNB. | |
| Appellant gave long statements to the CNB. | |
| Criminal Case No 29 of 2021 between Public Prosecutor and Munusamy Ramarmurth. | |
| High Court Judge recounted the facts of the case in Public Prosecutor v Munusamy Ramarmurth [2021] SGHC 255. | |
| Criminal Appeal No 31 of 2021 between Munusamy Ramarmurth and Public Prosecutor. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Judgment delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Presumption of Knowledge
- Outcome: The court held that the appellant was unable to rebut the presumption of knowledge under s 18(2) of the MDA.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2021] 1 SLR 180
- [2017] 1 SLR 633
- Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking
- Outcome: The court held that the appellant possessed the drugs for the purpose of trafficking.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2019] 1 SLR 1003
- [2022] 1 SLR 535
- [2022] 1 SLR 1152
- Admissibility and Weight of Statements
- Outcome: The court held that the statements were admissible and accorded full weight to them.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2018] 2 SLR 1119
- [1994] 1 SLR(R) 782
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Munusamy Ramarmurth | General Division of the High Court | Yes | [2021] SGHC 255 | Singapore | Recounted the facts of the present case in detail by the High Court Judge. |
| Zainal bin Hamad v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 1119 | Singapore | Cited regarding the right to counsel under Art 9(3) of the Constitution. |
| Jasbir Singh and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 1 SLR(R) 782 | Singapore | Established that the constitutional right afforded to an accused person is that he has a right to consult counsel after a reasonable amount of time has passed since his arrest. |
| Gobi a/l Avedian v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 180 | Singapore | Cited regarding the burden on the appellant to prove that it was more likely than not that he had a positive belief that was incompatible with the presumption of his actual knowledge of the nature of the Drugs. |
| Obeng Comfort v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 633 | Singapore | Cited regarding that a denial of knowledge is not sufficient to rebut the s 18(2) presumption. |
| Mohammad Rizwan bin Akbar Husain v Public Prosecutor and another appeal and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] SGCA 45 | Singapore | Distinguished the effect of a presumption, noting that it allows the court to shift the burden of proof completely. |
| Ramesh a/l Perumal v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 1003 | Singapore | Set out the bailment defence. |
| Roshdi bin Abdullah Altway v Public Prosecutor and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 1 SLR 535 | Singapore | Elaborated on the requirements of the bailment defence. |
| Arun Ramesh Kumar v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 1 SLR 1152 | Singapore | Set out the bailment defence. |
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) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Art 9(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Trafficking
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Presumption of knowledge
- Bailment defence
- Statements
- Red Bag
- Saravanan
- Boy
- Motorcycle
15.2 Keywords
- Drug trafficking
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
- Appeal
- Diamorphine
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Evidence | 80 |
| Criminal Procedure | 75 |
| Constitutional Law | 70 |
| Offences | 65 |
| Evidence Law | 60 |
| Admissibility of evidence | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking