A Steven s/o Paul Raj v Public Prosecutor: Review of Drug Trafficking Conviction Based on Misuse of Drugs Act
A Steven s/o Paul Raj applied for permission to review a prior Court of Appeal judgment (CA/CCA 24/2021) concerning his conviction for drug trafficking under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The applicant argued that the court erred by not apportioning a quantity of drugs for his personal consumption, even after rejecting his total consumption defense. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding no basis to conclude that there had been a miscarriage of justice.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Criminal motion dismissed summarily.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Application for review of a drug trafficking conviction. The court dismissed the application, finding no miscarriage of justice in the original judgment.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A Steven s/o Paul Raj | Applicant | Individual | Criminal motion dismissed summarily | Lost | A Revi Shanker s/o K Annamalai |
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Application dismissed | Won | Lee Zu Zhao, Rimplejit Kaur, Teo Siu Ming |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Steven Chong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| A Revi Shanker s/o K Annamalai | ARShanker Law Chambers |
| Lee Zu Zhao | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Rimplejit Kaur | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Teo Siu Ming | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- Applicant ordered two bundles of diamorphine from a Malaysian supplier.
- Applicant was arrested on 24 October 2017.
- 901.5g of granular/powdery substance containing not less than 35.85g of diamorphine was found.
- Applicant claimed the drugs were solely for personal consumption.
- Trial judge found the presumption of trafficking was not rebutted.
- Applicant's claimed daily consumption rate was inconsistent with medical reports.
- Applicant possessed paraphernalia associated with drug trafficking.
5. Formal Citations
- A Steven s/o Paul Raj v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 26 of 2022, [2023] SGCA 9
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Applicant ordered drugs from supplier. | |
| Applicant received drugs and was arrested. | |
| Applicant examined by Dr Tan Chong Hun. | |
| Report dated and countersigned by Dr Munidasa Winslow. | |
| First Long Statement recorded from applicant. | |
| Dr Jaydip Sarkar interviewed the applicant. | |
| Dr Jaydip Sarkar interviewed the applicant. | |
| Dr Jaydip Sarkar interviewed the applicant. | |
| Dr Sarkar's report dated. | |
| Second Long Statement recorded from applicant. | |
| Earlier judgment of the Court of Appeal in CA/CCA 24/2021. | |
| A Steven s/o Paul Raj v Public Prosecutor [2022] 2 SLR 538 reported. | |
| Criminal Motion No 26 of 2022 filed. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Apportionment of Drugs for Personal Consumption
- Outcome: The court held that it was not possible to meaningfully apportion the Relevant Drugs due to the lack of credible evidence regarding the applicant's consumption rate and the intended duration of the drug supply.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to apportion drugs
- Credible evidence of consumption rate
- Duration of drug supply
- Related Cases:
- [2017] 1 SLR 427
- Requirements for Criminal Review
- Outcome: The court found that the requirements for criminal review under s 394J of the CPC were not satisfied, as the applicant's arguments could have been raised earlier and were not based on a change in the law.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Non-availability of arguments
- Miscarriage of justice
- New evidence or change in law
8. Remedies Sought
- Review of Conviction
- Reapportionment of Drug Quantity
9. Cause of Actions
- Drug Trafficking
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Muhammad bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 427 | Singapore | Cited by the applicant to argue that the court should apportion the quantity of drugs meant for personal consumption even if the total consumption defence is disbelieved. |
| Public Prosecutor v Pang Chie Wei and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 1 SLR 452 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the requirements for exercising the appellate court's power of review under s 394I of the CPC mirror the requirements for exercising the court's inherent power to reopen a concluded criminal appeal. |
| Kho Jabing v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 135 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the requirements for exercising the appellate court's power of review under s 394I of the CPC mirror the requirements for exercising the court's inherent power to reopen a concluded criminal appeal. |
| Kreetharan s/o Kathireson v Public Prosecutor and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 1175 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that to obtain permission under s 394H(1) of the CPC to make a review application, the application must disclose a “legitimate basis for the exercise of the [appellate court’s] power of review”. |
| Roslan bin Bakar and others v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 1 SLR 1451 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that if the applicant is unable to show that the material it will be relying on in the review application proper is almost certain to satisfy all of the cumulative requirements set out under s 394J of the CPC, there will be no legitimate basis on which to grant permission under s 394H(1) of the CPC. |
| Rahmat bin Karimon v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 2 SLR 860 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that while it is conceptually neat to analyse the requirements of sufficiency and miscarriage of justice under s 394J(2) of the CPC as two discrete elements, s 394J(2) of the CPC ultimately lays down a composite requirement. |
| Public Prosecutor v Chum Tat Suan and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 834 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an accused person must elect what his evidence will be as all evidence should be given at the same trial. |
| Jusri bin Mohamed Hussain v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 2 SLR(R) 706 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the mere say-so of the accused person would not suffice as credible or reliable evidence of personal consumption. |
| Fung Choon Kay v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR(R) 547 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the burden of proof lies on the accused person to prove that part of the drugs in his possession should be apportioned for personal consumption. |
| Chew Seow Leng v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] SGCA 11 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the mere say-so of the accused person would not suffice as credible or reliable evidence of personal consumption. |
| Public Prosecutor v Kwek Seow Hock | High Court | Yes | [2009] SGHC 202 | Singapore | Cited by the applicant in support of the Apportionment Argument. |
| Yeo Hee Seng v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR(R) 992 | Singapore | Cited as an example where the court undertook an apportionment notwithstanding its rejection of the total consumption defence based on credible and reliable evidence of the quantity of drugs in the offender’s possession intended for personal consumption. |
| Abdul Karim bin Mohd v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR(R) 514 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there was reliable evidence of the rate of consumption in Yeo Hee Seng on which a meaningful apportionment could be made. |
| A Steven s/o Paul Raj v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2023] SGCA 9 | Singapore | The current judgment is reviewing this case. |
| A Steven s/o Paul Raj v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 2 SLR 538 | Singapore | The current judgment is reviewing this case. |
| Public Prosecutor v A Steven s/o Paul Raj | High Court | Yes | [2021] SGHC 218 | Singapore | The trial judge's decision that the applicant had failed to rebut the presumption of trafficking under s 17(c) of the MDA was not rebutted as the applicant had failed to establish his total consumption defence on a balance of probabilities, and therefore convicted the applicant of the charge against him. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 5(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 5(2) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 17(c) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) s 394H(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 22 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 394J | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 394I | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Drug Trafficking
- Total Consumption Defence
- Apportionment Argument
- Criminal Review
- Miscarriage of Justice
- Presumption of Trafficking
- Daily Rate of Consumption
15.2 Keywords
- drug trafficking
- diamorphine
- criminal review
- apportionment
- misuse of drugs act
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Drug Trafficking
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Criminal Review