[2015] SGCA 33

“o be rebutted by the accused on the balance of probabilities: see Muhammad Ridzuan bin Md Ali v Public Prosecutor and other matters [2014] 3 SLR 721 at [75] and Public Prosecutor v Ilechukwu Chukwudi [2015] SGCA 33 (“Ilechukwu”) at [30], referring to Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Public Prosecutor [2011] 4 SLR 1156”

“Where the presumption under s 18(2) applies, this has to be rebutted by the accused on the balance of probabilities: see Muhammad Ridzuan at [75] and Public Prosecutor v Ilechukwu Uchechukwu Chukwudi [2015] SGCA 33 (“Ilechukwu”) at [30].”

“od reason ought to be treated with a healthy level of caution, a fortiori, if it indicates a propensity to change his evidence as the trial proceeds: Public Prosecutor v Ilechukwu Uchechukwu Chukwudi [2015] SGCA 33 at [62]. The Accused’s shifting and contradictory evidence on how the obscene images had entered his lapt”

“ourt of Appeal allowed the appeal and convicted Ilechukwu of the charge brought against him. The Court of Appeal’s grounds of decision is reported in Public Prosecutor v Ilechukwu Uchechukwu Chukwudi [2015] SGCA 33 (“CA (Conviction)”).”

“(c) the motive for the lie was a realisation of guilt and a fear of the truth; and (d) it was clearly shown to be a lie by independent evidence (see Public Prosecutor v Ilechukwu Uchechukwu Chukwudi [2015] SGCA 33 at [60]).”

“ted the fact that he was entirely aware of Salleh’s activities and knew that the bundles contained methamphetamine. I agreed with this submission. In Public Prosecutor v Ilechukwu Uchechukwu Chukwudi [2015] SGCA 33 at [60], the Court of Appeal summarised the criteria for finding that lies told out of court by an accuse”

“Appeal was satisfied that an accused person’s lies could corroborate other evidence against him, but only under carefully prescribed conditions: see Public Prosecutor v Ilechukwu Uchechukwu Chukwudi [2015] SGCA 33 at [60]. It is important to note that such lies can amount to corroboration of the accused person’s guilt”

“only amount to corroboration of guilt under carefully prescribed conditions. One such condition is that the lies must relate to a material issue (see Public Prosecutor v Ilechukwu Uchechukwu Chukwudi [2015] SGCA 33 at [60]). Further, even where lies which can amount to corroboration of guilt are established, they can o”

“at the accused’s blatant statement that he did not know the Couriers amounts to a Lucas lie that is capable of corroborating the accused’s guilt (see Public Prosecutor v Ilechukwu Uchechukwu Chukwudi [2015] SGCA 33 at [60] which sets out the requirements for a Lucas lie to amount to a corroboration of evidence of guilt”

“In this application, Ilechukwu Uchechukwu Chukwudi (“the Applicant”) seeks to set aside his conviction by the Court of Appeal in Public Prosecutor v Ilechukwu Uchechukwu Chukwudi [2015] SGCA 33. The Applicant was charged with trafficking of not less than 1,963.3g of methamphetamine that was found in a black trolley bag”

“n the course of the oral response that the Prosecution were not contending that these lies were Lucas lies, corroborative of the accused’s guilt (see Public Prosecutor v Ilechukwu Uchechukwu Chukwudi [2015] SGCA 33 at [60] which sets out the requirements for a Lucas lie to amount to corroboration of evidence of guilt):”

“have had if he had been telling the truth throughout, and showed that he was being deliberately economical with the truth. As this court observed in Public Prosecutor v Ilechukwu Uchechukwu Chukwudi [2015] SGCA 33, the “evidence of a witness who is deliberately economical with the truth without any good reason ought to”

“ause 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 (see Public Prosecutor v Ilechukwu Uchechukwu Chukwudi [2015] SGCA 33 at [57]). However, if the fact or circumstance that is withheld will exculpate the accused person from an”

“ied upon by the court to make a finding that an accused person is not creditworthy, even if the accused person had a valid explanation for lying (see Public Prosecutor v Ilechukwu Uchechukwu Chukwudi [2015] SGCA 33 at [62]). In my judgment, Lee’s failure to mention his exculpatory claim when his cautioned statement cam”

“fically, the Prosecution contended that the accused’s lie in his statements that TT-HP1 had belonged to Travis satisfied the four criteria set out in Public Prosecutor v Ilechukwu Uchechukwu Chukwudi [2015] SGCA 33 (“Ilechukwu Uchechukwu Chukwudi”) at [60] for what has been termed in case law as a “Lucas lie” – ie, a l”

“vident from his inconsistent evidence not only damaged his credibility but corroborated his guilt, in line with the Court of Appeal’s observations in Public Prosecutor v Ilechukwu Uchechukwu Chukwudi [2015] SGCA 33 (“Chukwudi”) (at [60] and [62]). In view of the inconsistencies and lies in the accused’s account regardi”

“Such lies may serve to corroborate evidence of the accused’s guilt: Public Prosecutor v Ilechukwu Uchechukwu Chukwudi [2015] SGCA 33 (“Ilechukwu”) at [60].”

“The law does allow an accused person to run alternative cases, even if they may be inconsistent (see Public Prosecutor v Ilechukwu Uchechukwu Chukwudi [2015] SGCA 33 at [37], citing Public Prosecutor v Mas Swan bin Adnan and another appeal [2012] 3 SLR 527 (“Mas Swan”) at [68]). The Defence emphasised this at the close”

“In Public Prosecutor v Ilechukwu Uchechukwu Chukwudi [2015] SGCA 33 (at [60]), the Court of Appeal explained that such evidence was corroborative of guilt (referred to as a “Lucas lie”), if four requirements were satisfied:”

“In Public Prosecutor v Ilechukwu Uchechukwu Chukwudi [2015] SGCA 33 (“Ilechukwu”) at [60], the Court of Appeal explained that Lucas lies have four requirements: (a) the lie told out of court was deliberate; (b) it related to a material issue; (c) the motive for the l”

“consider an accused’s lies and omissions, and their explanations (or lack thereof) for those lies and omissions, in determining his creditworthiness (Public Prosecutor v Ilechukwu Uchechukwu Chukwudi [2015] SGCA 33 (“Ilechukwu”) at [63]). Having found D had deliberately made a false statement in the 2nd VRI, for no val”

“A lie that is not corroborative of guilt can still be relied upon to find that an accused person is not credible: Public Prosecutor v Ilechukwu Uchechukwu Chukwudi [2015] SGCA 33 at [62]. Thus, even if these other lies were not Lucas lies, I was satisfied that they served to undermine the credibility of the accused and”

“f Fadzli’s guilt, placing reliance on the principle in Regina v Lucas (Ruth) [1981] 1 QB 720, which was cited with approval recently by this Court in Public Prosecutor v Ilechukwu Uchechukwu Chukwudi [2015] SGCA 33 (“Ilechukwu”).”

“ssue; (c) the motive for the lie is a realisation of guilt and a fear of the truth; and (d) the statement must clearly be shown to be a lie by independent evidence (PP v Ilechukwu Uchechukwu Chukwudi [2015] SGCA 33 at [60]). The Lucas test applies equally in the context of murder (Kamrul Hasan Abdul Quddus v PP [2011]”

“ere set out in R v Lucas (Ruth) [1981] 1 QB 720, which were adopted in Public Prosecutor v Yeo Choon Poh [1993] 3 SLR(R) 302 at [33] and re-stated in Public Prosecutor v Ilechukwu Uchechukwu Chukwudi [2015] SGCA 33 at [60] as follows: first, the lie must be deliberate; second, the lie must relate to a material issue; t”

“samy Ramarmurth v Public Prosecutor [2022] SGCA 70 at [43]–[44]. The Court of Appeal explained the practical effect of the presumptions as follows in Public Prosecutor v Ilechukwu Uchechukwu Chukwudi [2015] SGCA 33 (“Ilechukwu”) at [32]:”

“sed’s guilt, relying on the doctrine in Regina v Lucas (Ruth) [1981] QB 720 (“Lucas”). The Lucas doctrine has been accepted and applied in Singapore: Public Prosecutor v Ilechukwu Uchechukwu Chukwudi [2015] SGCA 33 (“Ilechukwu”) at [60]. In this regard, for an accused’s lies to amount to corroboration of evidence of gu”