Public Prosecutor v Haridass: Conspiracy to Traffic Diamorphine & Inadequate Legal Assistance

In Public Prosecutor v Haridass s/o Mohan, Haridass was charged in the General Division of the High Court of Singapore with abetting by way of conspiracy with Babu s/o Suppiah to traffic in diamorphine. The trial involved allegations of inadequate legal assistance and potential misconduct by Haridass's previous counsel. The court allowed Haridass to recall Prosecution witnesses for further cross-examination and to give further evidence-in-chief.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

GENERAL DIVISION OF THE high court of the republic of singapore

1.2 Outcome

Accused allowed to recall Prosecution witnesses and give further evidence.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Haridass was charged with conspiracy to traffic diamorphine. The case examines allegations of inadequate legal assistance and potential misconduct.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorProsecutionGovernment Agency
Kwang Jia Min of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Nicholas Wuan Kin Lek of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Terence Chua Seng Leng of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Haridass s/o MohanDefendantIndividualApplication AllowedOther
Mohamed Baiross of Independent Practitioner
Sunil Sudheesan of Independent Practitioner
Nandwani Manoj Prakash of Independent Practitioner
Low Cheong Yeow of Independent Practitioner
Dhanaraj James Selvaraj of Independent Practitioner
Singa Retnam of Independent Practitioner
Krishna Sharma of Independent Practitioner
Johan Ismail of Independent Practitioner
A Revi Shanker of Independent Practitioner
Melvin Loh of Independent Practitioner
B Rengarajoo of Independent Practitioner
Maheswari Rani d/o Krishna of Independent Practitioner
Babu s/o SuppiahOtherIndividual
Ramesh Tiwary of Independent Practitioner
Satwant Singh of Independent Practitioner

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chan Seng OnnSenior JudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Kwang Jia MinAttorney-General’s Chambers
Nicholas Wuan Kin LekAttorney-General’s Chambers
Terence Chua Seng LengAttorney-General’s Chambers
Mohamed BairossIndependent Practitioner
Balakrishnan ChitraRegency Legal LLP
Sunil SudheesanIndependent Practitioner
Nandwani Manoj PrakashIndependent Practitioner
Hassan Esa AlmenoarR. Ramason & Almenoar
Low Cheong YeowIndependent Practitioner
Dhanaraj James SelvarajIndependent Practitioner
Singa RetnamIndependent Practitioner
Krishna SharmaIndependent Practitioner
Johan IsmailIndependent Practitioner
A Revi ShankerIndependent Practitioner
Melvin LohIndependent Practitioner
B RengarajooIndependent Practitioner
Maheswari Rani d/o KrishnaIndependent Practitioner
Ramesh TiwaryIndependent Practitioner
Satwant SinghIndependent Practitioner

4. Facts

  1. Haridass was charged with conspiring with Babu to traffic diamorphine.
  2. Haridass alleged inadequate legal assistance from previous counsel.
  3. Accused had multiple changes of assigned counsel during trial.
  4. Accused alleged previous counsel failed to follow instructions.
  5. Accused's previous counsel discharged themselves mid-trial.
  6. Accused claimed previous counsel improperly engaged with co-accused's counsel.
  7. Accused suffered from depression during the period.

5. Formal Citations

    6. Timeline

    DateEvent
    Accused took possession of drugs at Commonwealth Crescent.
    Accused made further voluntary statement to Investigating Officer.
    Mr Nandwani Manoj Prakash assigned as main counsel.
    Mr Dhanaraj James Selvaraj assigned as assisting counsel.
    Accused discharged Mr Nandwani Manoj Prakash and Mr Dhanaraj James Selvaraj.
    Accused acting in person.
    Accused created handwritten statement that exonerated Babu.
    Accused no longer acting in person.
    Mr Low Cheong Yeow assigned as main counsel.
    Mr Satwant Singh assigned as assisting counsel.
    Mr Satwant Singh discharged himself as assisting counsel.
    Mr Low Cheong Yeow discharged himself as main counsel.
    Mr Singa Retnam assigned as main counsel.
    Mr Krishna Sharma assigned as junior assisting counsel.
    Mr Mohamed Baiross assigned as assisting counsel.
    Mr Sunil Sudheesan assigned as main counsel.
    Accused discharged Mr Singa Retnam as main counsel.
    Mr Krishna Sharma discharged himself as junior assisting counsel.
    Mr Sunil Sudheesan discharged himself as main counsel.
    Accused acting in person.
    Accused no longer acting in person.
    Mr Johan Ismail assigned as main counsel.
    Mr A Revi Shanker assigned as assisting counsel.
    Mr Melvin Loh assigned as junior assisting counsel.
    Main trial began.
    Mr Johan Ismail and Mr A Revi Shanker discharged themselves from acting for the accused.
    Accused acting in person.
    Accused no longer acting in person.
    Mr B Rengarajoo assigned as main counsel.
    Ms Maheswari Rani d/o Krishna assigned as junior assisting counsel.
    Mr B Rengarajoo and Ms Maheswari Rani d/o Krishna discharged themselves as counsel.
    Accused acting in person.
    Accused no longer acting in person.
    Mr Hassan Esa Almenoar assigned as main counsel.
    Ms Balakrishnan Chitra assigned as junior assisting counsel.
    Babu pleaded guilty to reduced charge.
    Judgment reserved.

    7. Legal Issues

    1. Inadequate Legal Assistance
      • Outcome: The court allowed the accused to recall Prosecution witnesses and give further evidence-in-chief due to concerns about potential prejudice from inadequate legal assistance.
      • Category: Procedural
      • Related Cases:
        • [2020] 1 SLR 907

    8. Remedies Sought

    1. Recall of Prosecution witnesses
    2. Opportunity to give further evidence

    9. Cause of Actions

    • Conspiracy to traffic in diamorphine

    10. Practice Areas

    • Criminal Law
    • Drug Trafficking

    11. Industries

    • No industries specified

    12. Cited Cases

    Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
    Mohammad Farid bin Batra v Public Prosecutor and another appeal and other mattersCourt of AppealYes[2020] 1 SLR 907SingaporeCited for the principle that the Court of Appeal remitted the matter back to the trial judge to take further evidence to determine whether or not instructions that were given to the counsel were carried out or not carried out as the case might be.

    13. Applicable Rules

    Rule Name
    No applicable rules

    14. Applicable Statutes

    Statute NameJurisdiction
    Criminal Procedure CodeSingapore

    15. Key Terms and Keywords

    15.1 Key Terms

    • Inadequate legal assistance
    • Diamorphine
    • Conspiracy
    • Miscarriage of justice
    • Inadequate representation

    15.2 Keywords

    • criminal law
    • drug trafficking
    • inadequate legal assistance
    • singapore
    • high court

    17. Areas of Law

    Area NameRelevance Score
    Misuse of Drugs Act90
    Inadequate Legal Assistance80
    Criminal Law75
    Deficient Legal Services70
    Abetment60
    Criminal Procedure60
    Evidence Law50
    Evidence40
    Criminal conspiracy40
    Duty of Candour30
    Witnesses30
    Professional Ethics25
    Affidavits20
    Civil Procedure20

    16. Subjects

    • Criminal Procedure
    • Drug Trafficking
    • Legal Representation