Public Prosecutor v Saridewi Binte Djamani: Remittal Hearing on Methamphetamine Withdrawal & Reliability of Statements
In [2022] SGHC 150, the General Division of the High Court heard the remitted case of Public Prosecutor v Saridewi Binte Djamani, concerning Saridewi's conviction for drug trafficking under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The Court of Appeal remitted the case to determine if Saridewi suffered methamphetamine withdrawal during statement-taking. See Kee Oon J. considered additional evidence, including expert testimonies and Saridewi's own account. The court found that while Saridewi likely experienced mild to moderate withdrawal, it did not significantly impair her ability to provide reliable statements. The court upheld the original conviction and sentence, finding no reason to depart from its initial conclusion regarding Saridewi's guilt, even if the statements were excluded.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Original conviction and sentence upheld.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Findings on Remittal
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
High Court remittal hearing for Saridewi Binte Djamani's drug trafficking conviction, focusing on methamphetamine withdrawal symptoms and statement reliability. Conviction upheld.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Prosecution | Government Agency | Conviction and sentence upheld | Won | Marcus Foo of Attorney-General’s Chambers Lim Shin Hui of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Saridewi Binte Djamani | Defendant, Appellant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| See Kee Oon | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Marcus Foo | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Lim Shin Hui | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Koh Choon Guan Daniel | Eldan Law LLP |
| Wong Hong Weng Stephen | Matthew Chiong Partnership |
| Chenthil Kumar Kumarasingam | Withers KhattarWong LLP |
4. Facts
- Saridewi was arrested on 17 June 2016 for drug trafficking.
- Saridewi was found to be in possession of six packets and seven straws containing not less than 30.72 grams of diamorphine.
- Saridewi gave four statements to the police between 21 and 23 June 2016.
- Saridewi claimed to have experienced methamphetamine withdrawal symptoms during the statement-taking period.
- Saridewi admitted to lying in her statements to downplay her involvement in drug trafficking.
- Saridewi sought to introduce fresh evidence regarding her methamphetamine withdrawal symptoms during her appeal.
- Saridewi claimed she was hoping to get bail and therefore did not inform doctors of her withdrawal symptoms.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Saridewi bte Djamani, Criminal Case No 28 of 2018, [2022] SGHC 150
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Saridewi arrested | |
| Saridewi observed at Changi Women’s Prison | |
| Drug withdrawal assessment form used by SPS | |
| First statement recorded under s 23 of the Criminal Procedure Code | |
| Statement recorded under s 22 of the Criminal Procedure Code | |
| Statement recorded under s 22 of the Criminal Procedure Code | |
| Saridewi examined by Dr Cheok | |
| Dr Lee interviewed and examined Saridewi | |
| Dr Lee interviewed and examined Saridewi | |
| Dr Lee interviewed and examined Saridewi | |
| Trial of Saridewi | |
| Saridewi convicted after trial | |
| Saridewi sentenced to death penalty | |
| Dr Rajesh interviewed Saridewi | |
| Dr Rajesh interviewed Saridewi | |
| Dr Rajesh interviewed Saridewi | |
| Dr Rajesh interviewed Saridewi | |
| Dr Rajesh interviewed Saridewi | |
| Dr Rajesh interviewed Saridewi | |
| Remitted hearing | |
| Remitted hearing | |
| Remitted hearing | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Whether Saridewi suffered from methamphetamine withdrawal during the statement-taking period
- Outcome: The court found that Saridewi likely experienced mild to moderate withdrawal, but it did not significantly impair her ability to provide reliable statements.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Severity of withdrawal symptoms
- Impact of withdrawal on reliability of statements
- Credibility of self-reported symptoms
- Related Cases:
- [2018] SGHC 204
- [2021] 1 SLR 67
- [2022] SGCA 10
- [2016] SGHC 191
- Admissibility and reliability of statements taken during alleged methamphetamine withdrawal
- Outcome: The court ruled that Saridewi's statements were admissible and reliable, as her ability to provide intentional, detailed, and lucid accounts was not impaired by the alleged withdrawal symptoms.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Voluntariness of statements
- Impact of mental state on statement reliability
- Assessment of expert testimony
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction and sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Drug Trafficking
- Possession of Controlled Drugs
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
- Appeals
11. Industries
- Law Enforcement
- Judiciary
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Saridewi Bte Djamani and another | High Court | Yes | [2018] SGHC 204 | Singapore | Original grounds of decision for the trial where Saridewi was convicted. This judgment is the basis for the appeal and subsequent remittal hearing. |
| Ilechukwu Uchechukwu Chukwudi v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 67 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that when expert medical opinion is based almost entirely on an accused person’s self-reported symptoms, the court also has to consider “the cogency and limits of the medical evidence complemented by, where appropriate, an understanding of human experience and common sense” |
| Teo Ghim Heng v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] SGCA 10 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an accused person’s self-reported symptoms should be considered in light of the additional information from people who would ordinarily interact with the accused person, as it is not uncommon for accused persons to exaggerate or malinger symptoms. |
| Public Prosecutor v Irwan bin Ali | High Court | Yes | [2016] SGHC 191 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an expert’s evidence may be accepted even where he did not interview the accused. |
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) read with s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 17 of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 22 of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 23 of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 392 of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 95(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Methamphetamine withdrawal
- Diamorphine
- Drug trafficking
- Statement reliability
- Expert testimony
- Self-reported symptoms
- Withdrawal symptoms
- Amphetamine withdrawal questionnaire
- DSM-V
- Remittal hearing
15.2 Keywords
- Drug trafficking
- Methamphetamine withdrawal
- Statement reliability
- Singapore
- Criminal law
- Appeal
- Expert evidence
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 90 |
| Methamphetamine Withdrawal | 85 |
| Criminal Procedure and Sentencing | 80 |
| Criminal Law | 75 |
| Criminal Procedure | 75 |
| Sentencing Appeals | 60 |
| Appeal | 50 |
| Evidence | 40 |
| Evidence Law | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Offences
- Evidence
- Appeals