Public Prosecutor v Gunalan Goval: Trafficking of Cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act

In Public Prosecutor v Gunalan Goval, the High Court of Singapore convicted Gunalan Goval, a delivery driver, on April 25, 2022, for trafficking cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Goval was arrested with 1,276.6g of cannabis in his possession. The court found that Goval knowingly possessed the drug for the purpose of trafficking, failing to rebut the statutory presumption of knowledge. The court rejected Goval's defense that he believed he was carrying illegal reading books, and his alternative defense that he did not know the specific type of drug.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Accused convicted of the charge.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Gunalan Goval, a delivery driver, was convicted of trafficking cannabis. The court found he knowingly possessed the drug for unauthorized trafficking purposes, failing to rebut statutory presumptions.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorProsecutionGovernment AgencyJudgment for ProsecutionWon
Kwang Jia Min of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Jaime Pang of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Mark Jayaratnam of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Gunalan GovalAccusedIndividualConvictionLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Andre ManiamJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Kwang Jia MinAttorney-General’s Chambers
Jaime PangAttorney-General’s Chambers
Mark JayaratnamAttorney-General’s Chambers
Balakrishnan ChitraRegency Legal LLP
Eugene Singarajah ThuraisingamEugene Thuraisingam LLP
Hamza Zafar MalikEugene Thuraisingam LLP
Dierdre Grace MorganDrew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

  1. The Accused, Gunalan Goval, was a delivery driver driving between Malaysia and Singapore.
  2. On March 18, 2019, CNB officers arrested the Accused in his trailer at Pandan Loop, Singapore.
  3. A haversack containing three bundles of vegetable matter was found in the trailer.
  4. The bundles contained not less than 1,276.6g of cannabis.
  5. The Accused was charged with trafficking in cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
  6. The Accused admitted to possessing the haversack but claimed he thought it contained illegal reading books.
  7. The Accused had made three previous deliveries for 'Siva' and collected money on one occasion.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Public Prosecutor v Gunalan Goval, Criminal Case No 57 of 2021, [2022] SGHC 62

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Accused arrested by CNB officers at Pandan Loop, Singapore
Cautioned statement recorded from the Accused
First long statement recorded from the Accused
Second long statement recorded from the Accused
Third long statement recorded from the Accused
Seventh long statement recorded from the Accused
Eighth long statement recorded from the Accused
Ninth long statement recorded from the Accused
Tenth long statement recorded from the Accused
Eleventh long statement recorded from the Accused
Trial began
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Whether the Accused had knowledge of the nature of the drug
    • Outcome: The court found that the Accused failed to rebut the presumption of knowledge under s 18(2) of the MDA.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Rebuttal of presumption of knowledge
      • Alternative defence of not knowing the specific drug
    • Related Cases:
      • [2021] 1 SLR 180
  2. Whether the Accused possessed the cannabis for the purpose of trafficking
    • Outcome: The court found that the Prosecution proved that the Accused was in possession of the cannabis for the purpose of trafficking.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Intention to traffic
      • Resiling from intention to traffic
    • Related Cases:
      • [2019] 1 SLR 1003
      • [2021] SGCA 103

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Conviction
  2. Sentencing under the Misuse of Drugs Act

9. Cause of Actions

  • Trafficking in Cannabis

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Litigation

11. Industries

  • Transportation
  • Logistics

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Muhammad Ridzuan bin Md Ali v Public Prosecutor and other mattersHigh CourtYes[2014] 3 SLR 721SingaporeCited for the elements of an offence under s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
Gobi a/l Avedian v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2021] 1 SLR 180SingaporeCited for the standard of proof required to rebut the presumption of knowledge under s 18(2) of the MDA.
Browne v DunnN/AYes(1894) 6 R 67N/ACited for the rule that submissions about a witness's credibility must be put to the witness during cross-examination.
Lo Sook Ling Adela v Au Mei Yin ChristinaHigh CourtYes[2002] 1 SLR(R) 326SingaporeCited for the application of the rule in Browne v Dunn.
Ong Jane Rebecca v Lim Lie HoaCourt of AppealYes[2005] SGCA 4SingaporeCited for the application of the rule in Browne v Dunn.
Hong Leong Singapore Finance Ltd v United Overseas Bank LtdHigh CourtYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 292SingaporeCited for the application of the rule in Browne v Dunn.
Govindarajulu Murali v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[1994] 2 SLR(R) 398SingaporeCited for drawing adverse inferences from the accused's failure to mention his defense during the investigation.
Obeng Comfort v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2017] 1 SLR 633SingaporeCited for factors to consider when assessing whether the presumption of knowledge under s 18(2) of the MDA has been rebutted.
Saravanan Chandaram v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2020] 2 SLR 95SingaporeCited for factors to consider when assessing whether the presumption of knowledge under s 18(2) of the MDA has been rebutted.
Ramesh a/l Perumal v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2019] 1 SLR 1003SingaporeCited for the relevance of the amount of money involved in determining the accused's knowledge of the nature of the items being delivered.
Mohamed Shalleh bin Abdul Latiff v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2022] SGCA 23SingaporeCited for the principle that it is rarely sufficient for an accused person to rebut the s 18(2) presumption by stating simply that he believed whatever he was told in relation to what was in his possession.
Khor Soon Lee v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2011] 3 SLR 201SingaporeCited as an example where the court accepted that the accused persons knew they were in possession of drugs, but believed that they were drugs other than diamorphine.
Public Prosecutor v Phuthita Somchit and anotherHigh CourtYes[2011] 3 SLR 719SingaporeCited as an example where the court accepted that the accused persons knew they were in possession of drugs, but believed that they were drugs other than diamorphine.
Roshdi bin Abdullah Altway v Public Prosecutor and another matterCourt of AppealYes[2021] SGCA 103SingaporeCited for the Court of Appeal’s discussion of Ramesh.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
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 33(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 33B of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 18(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs ActSingapore
s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs ActSingapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 22 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 23 of the Criminal Procedure CodeSingapore
s 261(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Cannabis
  • Trafficking
  • Misuse of Drugs Act
  • Presumption of Knowledge
  • Rebuttal of Presumption
  • Delivery Driver
  • Controlled Drug

15.2 Keywords

  • Drug Trafficking
  • Cannabis
  • Singapore
  • Criminal Law
  • Misuse of Drugs Act

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Misuse of Drugs Act95
Criminal Law75
Evidence Law60
Evidence60
Criminal Procedure50

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Drug Trafficking