Siva Raman v Public Prosecutor: Review of Conviction for Importing Diamorphine and Methamphetamine
Siva Raman applied to the Court of Appeal of Singapore for permission to review his conviction for importing diamorphine and methamphetamine, a decision previously upheld in CA/CCA 32/2018. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate a legitimate basis for review under s 394H of the Criminal Procedure Code, as there was no sufficient material to conclude a miscarriage of justice.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court of Appeal dismissed Siva Raman's application for review of his conviction for importing drugs, finding no miscarriage of justice.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Application dismissed | Won | Gabriel Lee of Attorney-General’s Chambers Chan Yi Cheng of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Siva Raman | Applicant | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Steven Chong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Gabriel Lee | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Chan Yi Cheng | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- The Applicant sought permission to review a prior Court of Appeal decision upholding his conviction.
- The Applicant was convicted of importing not less than 108.81g of diamorphine and 315.74g of methamphetamine into Singapore.
- The Applicant admitted to bringing the drugs into Singapore and possessing them.
- The Applicant claimed he believed the drugs were "head-shaking" medicine used in pubs.
- The Judge rejected the Applicant’s explanation and convicted him.
- The Court of Appeal dismissed the Applicant’s appeal.
- The Applicant presented fresh evidence to support his claim about "head-shaking" medicine.
5. Formal Citations
- Siva Raman v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 13 of 2024, [2024] SGCA 34
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Applicant drove a lorry from Johor Bahru into Singapore. | |
| Trial began in HC/CC 69. | |
| Court of Appeal dismissed the Applicant’s appeal in CCA 32. | |
| Applicant filed CM 13. | |
| Applicant confirmed CM 13 was an application under s 394H of the CPC. | |
| Applicant filed supplementary affidavit containing fresh evidence. | |
| Hearing date. | |
| Judgment date. |
7. Legal Issues
- Permission for Criminal Review
- Outcome: The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate a legitimate basis for review under s 394H of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Sufficiency of material
- Miscarriage of justice
- Rebuttal of Presumption of Knowledge
- Outcome: The court found that the applicant's fresh evidence did not aid his case in rebutting the presumption of knowledge.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Fresh evidence
- Belief regarding the nature of drugs
8. Remedies Sought
- Review of conviction
- Review of sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BWJ v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2024] SGCA 25 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there must be sufficient material on which the appellate court may conclude that there has been a miscarriage of justice under s 394J(2) of the CPC. |
| Kreetharan s/o Kathireson v Public Prosecutor and other matters | Unknown | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 1175 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an application for permission must disclose a legitimate basis for the exercise of the court’s power of review. |
| Roslan bin Bakar and others v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [2022] 1 SLR 1451 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a legitimate basis is established if an applicant can satisfy the court that the material relied upon in the review proper is almost certain to satisfy the requirements under s 394J of the CPC. |
| Tangaraju s/o Suppiah v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [2023] 1 SLR 622 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that legal arguments will only be sufficient if based on a change in the law that occurred after the conclusion of all proceedings. |
| Public Prosecutor v Phuthita Somchit and another | Unknown | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 719 | Singapore | Cited by the applicant, but deemed irrelevant as it was decided before the appeal in CCA 32 was concluded. |
| Khor Soon Lee v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 201 | Singapore | Cited by the applicant, but deemed irrelevant as it was decided before the appeal in CCA 32 was concluded. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mas Swan bin Adnan and another appeal | Unknown | Yes | [2012] 3 SLR 527 | Singapore | Cited by the applicant, but deemed irrelevant as it was decided before the appeal in CCA 32 was concluded. |
| Public Prosecutor v Gobi a/l Avedian | Unknown | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 113 | Singapore | Cited by the applicant, but deemed irrelevant as it was determined primarily on the facts. |
| Muhammad Nabill bin Mohd Fuad v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 984 | Singapore | Cited for Prosecution’s disclosure obligations in relation to statements of material witnesses, but has no relevance to the Applicant’s statements and is thus immaterial for present purposes. |
| Muhammad bin Kadar and another v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 1205 | Singapore | Cited for the Prosecution’s disclosure obligations. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 | Singapore |
| s 394H(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 | Singapore |
| s 394H(6)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394H(7) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J(3)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J(3)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J(3)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 394J(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 7 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 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 33B(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 267 of the CPC | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Criminal review
- Miscarriage of justice
- Fresh evidence
- Presumption of knowledge
- Head-shaking medicine
- Diamorphine
- Methamphetamine
- Importation of drugs
- Section 394H CPC
- Section 394J CPC
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal review
- Drugs
- Singapore
- Court of Appeal
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Criminal Procedure Code
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 80 |
| Criminal Revision | 75 |
| Sentencing | 70 |
| Evidence Law | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Drug Trafficking