Public Prosecutor v Sri Tharean Muthalagan: Trafficking Methamphetamine under the Misuse of Drugs Act
In Public Prosecutor v Sri Tharean Muthalagan, the High Court of Singapore convicted Sri Tharean Muthalagan of possessing not less than 421.06g of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, an offence under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) and punishable under s 33(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The court found that the accused either had actual knowledge that the bundles contained methamphetamine or was wilfully blind to their contents, and that he possessed the drugs for the purpose of trafficking.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Accused convicted of the Charge.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Sri Tharean Muthalagan was convicted of possessing methamphetamine for trafficking under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The court found he knew or was wilfully blind to the contents.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Prosecution | Government Agency | Judgment for Prosecution | Won | Colin Ng Guan Wen of Attorney-General’s Chambers Sheryl Yeo Su Hui of Attorney-General’s Chambers Nicholas Lai Yi Shin of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Sri Tharean Muthalagan | Defendant | Individual | Conviction | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Ang Cheng Hock | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Colin Ng Guan Wen | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Sheryl Yeo Su Hui | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Nicholas Lai Yi Shin | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Elengovan s/o V Krishnan | Elengovan Chambers |
| A Revi Shanker s/o K Annamalai | ARShanker Law Chambers |
4. Facts
- Accused was arrested for possessing five packets containing not less than 421.06g of methamphetamine.
- Accused claimed he believed he was bringing 'shisha' into Singapore on Dinesh's instructions.
- Accused admitted to bringing the bundles into Singapore on Dinesh's instructions.
- Accused was to deliver the bundles to persons in Singapore and collect money.
- Accused had delivered drugs for Dinesh on five occasions prior to his arrest.
- Accused received SGD 2,500 from Seet and SGD 7,300 from Okubo in exchange for bundles.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Sri Tharean Muthalagan, Criminal Case No 60 of 2019, [2022] SGHC 96
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Accused arrested by Central Narcotics Bureau officers | |
| Contemporaneous statement recorded from accused | |
| First long statement recorded from accused | |
| Second long statement recorded from accused | |
| Accused's cautioned statement recorded | |
| Trial began | |
| Trial continued | |
| Trial continued | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Whether the accused has rebutted the presumption in s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act that he had actual knowledge that the Bundles contained methamphetamine
- Outcome: The court found that the accused failed to rebut the presumption in s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act that he knew that the Bundles contained methamphetamine.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2021] 1 SLR 180
- Whether the accused was wilfully blind to the contents of the Bundles
- Outcome: The court found that the accused was wilfully blind to the fact that the Bundles contained methamphetamine.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2021] 1 SLR 180
- Whether the accused was in possession of the Bundles for the purpose of trafficking
- Outcome: The court found that the accused was in possession of the Bundles for the purpose of trafficking.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Conviction
- Sentencing
9. Cause of Actions
- Possession of controlled drugs for the purpose of trafficking
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Muhammad Ridzuan bin Md Ali v Public Prosecutor and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 721 | Singapore | Cited for the elements required to prove a charge of trafficking under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. |
| Adili Chibuike Ejike v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 254 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of 'knowing possession' of controlled drugs. |
| Public Prosecutor v Koo Pui Fong | High Court | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR(R) 734 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of 'knowledge' of a certain fact. |
| Tan Kiam Peng v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 1 | Singapore | Cited for the difficulty in proving actual knowledge and the purpose of the presumption of knowledge in s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. |
| Gobi a/l Avedian v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 180 | Singapore | Cited for the burden on the accused to rebut the presumption of knowledge and the principles applicable to rebutting the presumption of knowledge. |
| Saravanan Chandaram v Public Prosecutor and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 95 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Prosecution cannot rely on the Defence’s failure to prove an accused person’s ignorance of a relevant fact to contend that the Prosecution has discharged its burden to prove the accused’s person knowledge of that fact. |
| Mohammad Rizwan bin Akbar Husain v Public Prosecutor and another appeal and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] SGCA 45 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Prosecution can invite the court to draw an inference of trafficking based on the quantity of controlled drugs in the possession of the accused. |
| Zainal bin Hamad v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 1119 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the presumption in s 17 of the MDA may only be invoked where the fact of possession, as well as the fact of knowledge of the nature of the item that is in the possession of an accused person, are proven by the Prosecution. |
| Ramesh a/l Perumal v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 1003 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the presumption in s 17 of the MDA cannot be invoked alongside the presumptions in s 18 of the MDA. |
| Kwang Boon Keong Peter v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR(R) 211 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of 'credit' of a witness and the procedure for impeaching a witness's credit. |
| Muhammad bin Kadar and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 1205 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that formal investigation statements are taken by the police under a set of strict procedures, which are to be strictly observed by an officer well-trained in investigative techniques, and such statements come with it an aura of reliability that result in them often being given more weight by finders of fact as compared to most other kinds of evidence. |
| Public Prosecutor v Heah Lian Khin | High Court | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR(R) 745 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in determining if a witness’s statements are inconsistent so as to give rise to a material discrepancy, the court does not insist on absolute oppositeness; a previous statement will be inconsistent if a witness has provided a detailed account of events in that statement but claims that he is unable to remember the events stated in his previous statement even after it has been shown to him to refresh his memory. |
| Chai Chien Wei Kelvin v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 619 | Singapore | Cited for the factors to be considered in determining the weight to be accorded to a statement admissible in evidence by virtue of s 147(3) of the EA. |
| Yeo Kwan Wee Kenneth v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] 2 SLR(R) 45 | Singapore | Cited for the rule in Browne v Dunn, which requires that contradictory facts be put to a witness during cross-examination to give him an opportunity to respond, and any testimony left unchallenged may be treated by the court as undisputed and therefore accepted by the opposing party. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ilechukwu Uchechukwu Chukwudi | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] SGCA 33 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a court is not always entitled to draw an adverse inference against an accused person for his failure to disclose a material fact in his long statements because an accused person is allowed by s 22(2) of the CPC to withhold mentioning any fact or circumstance which, if disclosed, may incriminate him. |
| Ilechukwu Uchechukwu Chukwudi v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 67 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that if the fact or circumstance that is withheld will exculpate the accused person from an offence, a court may justifiably infer that it is an afterthought and untrue, unless the court is persuaded that there are good reasons for his omission to mention it earlier. |
| Kwek Seow Hock v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 157 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an exculpatory fact or circumstance also has more credibility if it was disclosed to an investigating officer at the earliest opportunity after arrest. |
| Roshdi bin Abdullah Altway v Public Prosecutor and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] SGCA 103 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of a 'bailee' of drugs. |
| Browne v Dunn | House of Lords | Yes | (1893) 6 R 67 | United Kingdom | Cited for the rule in Browne v Dunn, which requires that contradictory facts be put to a witness during cross-examination to give him an opportunity to respond, and any testimony left unchallenged may be treated by the court as undisputed and therefore accepted by the opposing party. |
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 | Singapore |
| s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 33(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 18(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 18(4) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 17 of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 17(h) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 2(1) 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 22(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 23 of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 258(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 258(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 157(c) of the Evidence Act | Singapore |
| s 147 of the Evidence Act | Singapore |
| s 147(1) of the Evidence Act | Singapore |
| s 147(2) of the Evidence Act | Singapore |
| s 147(3) of the Evidence Act | Singapore |
| s 147(6) of the Evidence Act | Singapore |
| s 161 of the Evidence Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Methamphetamine
- Trafficking
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Shisha
- Wilful Blindness
- Presumption of Knowledge
- Controlled Drug
15.2 Keywords
- Methamphetamine
- Drug Trafficking
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
- Misuse of Drugs Act
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 60 |
| Sentencing | 30 |
| Evidence Law | 25 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking