Court of Appeal · Decided 12 February 2018

Gopu Jaya Raman v Public Prosecutor

[2018] SGCA 9Case no. Criminal Appeal No 40 of 2016

What happened, in plain English

There is no plain-English summary of this judgment yet.

Ask about this judgment

Grounds of decision

Official text from eLitigation

Introduction
[1] The appellant, Gopu Jaya Raman (“the Appellant”), was sentenced to death in the High Court for the importation of diamorphine without authorisation under s 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“the MDA”). The Appellant had ridden into Singapore through the Woodlands Checkpoint on a motorcycle on 24 March 2014. Three bundles were found hidden in a space on the inside of the motorcycle’s fenders. The space was covered by a lid that was held in place by four screws. The lid was in fact the base for a smaller storage area under the seat of the motorcycle. When the bundles were checked and tested, they were found to contain prohibited drugs. The Appellant’s defence was that he did not know that drugs had been hidden in the space enclosed by the fenders. According to him, although he had carried out drug deliveries on two previous occasions, the drugs that were found in the motorcycle on this occasion had been planted there without his knowledge. Consistent with this, no trace of the Appellant’s DNA was found on any of the bundles. Nor was there any objective evidence to suggest that the Appellant had opened the lid of that space or placed the bundles there. Nonetheless, after a six-day trial, the Appellant was convicted of the importation charge. He also did not receive a certificate of substantive assistance. He was accordingly sentenced to death.
[2] In Harven a/l Segar v Public Prosecutor [2017] 1 SLR 771 (“Harven”), this Court emphasised that when assessing whether an accused person has rebutted the relevant presumptions in the MDA, the court should bear in mind the inherent difficulties of proving a negative, in this context, that the offender was not in possession of the drugs or was not aware of their nature. In this regard, the court should also be mindful of the importance of not approaching its assessment of the evidence having, consciously or otherwise, already adopted a certain starting premise in its analysis. Certain pieces of evidence may be consistent with different possible conclusions, and it is of paramount importance that the court should analyse and assess the evidence before it in a critical and judicious manner. In our judgment, the question of the proper inferences to be drawn from the objective facts and evidence lies at the root of the difficulties that are raised in this case.
Background facts
[3] The Appellant is a Malaysian national. At the material time, he was 28 years old, unemployed and residing in Johor Bahru, Malaysia.
[4] On 24 March 2014, the Appellant rode a motorcycle bearing the Malaysian registration number WWR 1358 (“the Motorcycle”) into Singapore through the Woodlands Checkpoint at about 7.35pm. He was arrested at the Motorcycle Arrival Lane when officers from the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (“ICA”) discovered three black bundles believed to contain controlled drugs hidden in the Motorcycle in the course of a routine search at about 7.46pm. These bundles were found concealed in a space enclosed by the fenders. When confronted with this discovery, according to the officers at the scene, the Appellant looked confused and lost, denied ownership of the bundles, and said in Malay to ICA officer Corporal Abdul Hakim bin Abdul Razak (“Cpl Abdul Hakim”), “What’s that? That’s not my bike.”
[5] The search was suspended and the Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) was contacted. CNB officers arrived shortly after this at about 8.03pm. At about 8.05pm, the Appellant was brought to the ICA Arrival Car office where CNB officer Corporal Abdul Rahim bin Muhamad recorded a contemporaneous statement from the Appellant between 8.08pm and 8.27pm. In the statement, the Appellant maintained that he did not know about the bundles in the Motorcycle and that he did not know who they belonged to. He further indicated that he had come to Singapore to meet a friend.
[6] A follow-up operation was then carried out by the CNB officers. This was aimed at apprehending any others who might be expected to collect the drugs from the Appellant. Corporal Vengedesh Raj Nainar s/o Nagarajan (“Cpl Vengedesh”) and Corporal Sollehen bin Sahadan (“Cpl Sollehen”) directed the Appellant to communicate with one Ganesh, who the Appellant believed had arranged for the drugs to be placed in the Motorcycle. These communications took place under the supervision and at the direction of the CNB officers. Between 9.52pm on 24 March 2014 and 2.06am on 25 March 2014, Cpl Vengedesh and Cpl Sollehen were beside the Appellant as he contacted a few people regarding the collection of the black bundles. This was done through phone calls and text messages. The phone conversations were conducted over the speaker, so that the CNB officers could hear the conversations, which were in Tamil. Cpl Vengedesh spoke Tamil and could understand what was being said. However, Cpl Vengedesh, who gave evidence below, testified that he could not recall the contents of the conversations. As for Cpl Sollehen, he did not speak Tamil and could not understand the conversations. It subsequently emerged that regrettably, no audio recordings of the conversations were made in the course of the follow-up operation. The Prosecution, however, tendered a four-page extract of the CNB officers’ investigation diary which contained some basic entries concerning the follow-up operation. We will make reference to and consider these entries in the course of this judgment.
[7] At about 9.56pm on 24 March 2014, Cpl Vengedesh informed the other CNB officers involved in the follow-up operation that the Appellant had been instructed by Ganesh to park the Motorcycle near a convenience store along Woodlands Centre Road. A team of CNB officers was deployed on this basis, but the operation was called off at about 3am on 25 March 2014 when no recipient turned up.
[8] The three black bundles found on the Motorcycle were subsequently found to contain not less than 46g of diamorphine, following an analysis conducted by the Health Sciences Authority.
[9] When arrested, Appellant was also found with RM55 and no Singapore currency. He was also carrying two mobile phones, both with Malaysian SIM cards in them, as well as an additional Singapore SIM card in his wallet. Under the seat of the Motorcycle, a scarf and a screwdriver were found on the seat compartment lid. Swabs were taken from the three bundles, the screwdriver and the four screws that held the seat compartment lid in place, but no useful DNA profiles could be generated from them. As for the DNA profile obtained from the scarf and the seat compartment lid, a complicated mixed DNA profile was obtained and this proved to be incapable of interpretation.
[10] One charge of illegal importation was brought against the Appellant under s 7 of the MDA and it read as follows:
The proceedings and decision below
[11] The Appellant was generally consistent in his statements. The Appellant admitted that he had made two previous drug deliveries from Johor Bahru, Malaysia to Singapore. He had met Ganesh and someone he knew as “Ah Boy” in January 2014. The Appellant had borrowed some money from Ganesh. When he was unable to settle his loan, Ganesh insisted that the Appellant would have to help deliver drugs to Singapore and threatened to harm his family if he did not do as he was told. He therefore delivered drugs to Singapore using the same Motorcycle on two previous occasions. On both occasions, the drugs had been packed in green bundles, and were covered with a scarf and placed over the seat compartment lid, which itself was then covered by the seat. On those occasions, the drugs had not been hidden in the space enclosed by the fenders where the three bundles were found on 24 March 2014.
[12] However, on this occasion, the Appellant maintained that the drugs had been hidden in the Motorcycle without his knowledge, and that he had not agreed to deliver these drugs. He also maintained that he had seen the three bundles for the first time when the ICA officers discovered them in the course of searching the Motorcycle at the Woodlands Checkpoint. The Appellant claimed that he had borrowed the Motorcycle on 24 March 2014 to visit his girlfriend, Tamil Selvan Revalthi (“Revalthi”), and a friend, one “John”, in Singapore because he wanted to celebrate his birthday, which fell on the previous day (ie, 23 March 2014).
[13] The Appellant also said in his statements that while riding on the Causeway towards Singapore, he received a call from Ganesh who asked him to call him when he arrived in Singapore. When he asked Ganesh why, he was told that the “recipients changed their contact numbers”; he subsequently attempted unsuccessfully to retract this statement during the trial. He also said that this conversation led him to suspect that Ganesh had placed some drugs in the Motorcycle, but he was already approaching Woodlands and there was no time or opportunity to do anything. He also took comfort in the fact that when he filled petrol before he reached the Causeway, he had checked the place in the Motorcycle where the drugs had been kept on the previous occasions and found nothing there.
[14] Aside from this, a critical part of the evidence pertains to what transpired between Ganesh and the Appellant in the course of their conversations during the follow-up operation. The Appellant maintained that he had asked Ganesh, during the follow-up operation in the presence of the CNB officers, why Ganesh had put the drugs in the Motorcycle without informing him. In this regard, the Appellant submitted that Cpl Vengedesh’s own impression, which was formed during the follow-up operation and on the basis of the conversations between the Appellant and Ganesh (which Cpl Vengedesh was monitoring), was that the Appellant did not in fact have knowledge of the drugs. In this regard, he relied in particular on the fact that Cpl Vengedesh had, while fully apprised of the conversations between Ganesh and the Appellant, directed the Appellant to draft a text message to Ganesh complaining that Ganesh had not previously told the Appellant about the drugs. He contended that it would not have made sense to direct the Appellant to draft such a message unless Cpl Vengedesh in fact believed that the Appellant had not known about the drugs. Otherwise, by directing the Appellant to send this message, Cpl Vengedesh would virtually have guaranteed the failure of the follow-up operation.
[15] After a six-day trial, the High Court judge (“the Judge”) convicted the Appellant and found that he had failed to rebut the presumptions under ss 21 and 18(2) of the MDA. The Judge’s decision is reported as Public Prosecutor v Gopu Jaya Raman [2016] SGHC 272 (“the Judgment”).
[16] The Judge found that:
(a) the Appellant’s claim that the purpose of his trip to Singapore was to visit Revalthi and John was not supported by the objective evidence (Judgment at [24]–[38]);
(b) there was evidence of a prior arrangement between Ganesh and the Appellant to deliver drugs on 24 March 2014, based on:
(i) what Ganesh had told the Appellant when the former called the latter as he was crossing into Singapore on the Causeway (see [13] above; Judgment at [39]–[40]);
(ii) certain text messages that Ganesh and Ah Boy sent to the Appellant that indicated that they were frantically trying to contact the Appellant (Judgment at [45]); and
(iii) the fact that the same Singapore SIM card belonging to Ah Boy (which had been used during the Appellant’s two previous drug deliveries) was found in the Appellant’s wallet (Judgment at [49]–[50]).
[17] The Judge placed no weight on the text message drafted by the Appellant to Ganesh (as directed by Cpl Vengedesh during the follow-up operation) because he considered that the CNB officers did not have the time to carefully assess the veracity of everything said by the Appellant, and so even if they did accept at face value what the Appellant was saying, this had no probative weight. Rather, their main concern at that time was to gather information and apprehend any other persons who were involved (Judgment at [55]–[57]).
The appeal
[18] In his appeal, the Appellant submits that the Judge erred in failing to give due weight to evidence that showed that the Appellant did not know of the presence of the drugs in the Motorcycle. In broad terms, the main planks of his case can be summarised thus:
(a) he had been candid and consistent throughout and even mentioned the previous deliveries while he maintained his ignorance of the drugs in this instance;
(b) his conduct upon arrest and during the follow-up operation was consistent with that of a person who was unaware of the drugs; and
(c) during the follow-up operation, the CNB officers heard the conversations between the Appellant and Ganesh and these strongly corroborated the fact that the Appellant had no knowledge of the drugs. This culminated in the text message that Cpl Vengedesh instructed the Appellant to draft and send to Ganesh.
[19] The primary issue on appeal is whether the presumption of possession under s 21 of the MDA has been rebutted by the Appellant. If the answer to that is in the negative, then a further question arises as to whether the presumption of knowledge under s 18(2) has been rebutted. In this regard, the following matters will be considered:
(a) the Appellant’s evidence in his statements and on the witness stand;
(b) the sequence of events before the Appellant entered Woodlands Checkpoint;
(c) the Appellant’s conduct upon his arrest and the events that transpired during the follow-up operation;
(d) the matters relied on by the Judge to find a prior arrangement to deliver drugs, including: (i) the reference to “recipients” when Ganesh called the Appellant before the latter reached Woodlands Checkpoint; (ii) the efforts of Ah Boy and Ganesh to contact the Appellant; and (iii) the fact that Ah Boy lent the Appellant his Singapore SIM card;
(e) the surrounding objective evidence; and
(f) the Appellant’s claimed reasons for coming to Singapore.
Our decision
[20] We begin with the undisputed fact that the three black bundles containing the prohibited drugs were found in the Motorcycle and that the Appellant had charge of that vehicle at the material time. Section 21 of the MDA provides:
[21] The Prosecution relies on the presumption set out in s 21 of the MDA, and the Appellant is accordingly presumed, until the contrary is proved, to have been in possession of the controlled drugs. According to the settled law, which we apply for present purposes without reviewing or reconsidering it, the burden is on the Appellant to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that he did not know that the drugs were hidden in the Motorcycle. In Obeng Comfort v Public Prosecutor [2017] 1 SLR 633 (“Obeng Comfort”), we discussed the presumption of possession in s 18(1) of the MDA, and (at [35] and [36]) distinguished the s 18(1) presumption from the presumption of knowledge in s 18(2) of the MDA:
[22] The Appellant’s defence that the drugs in the three bundles were planted in the Motorcycle without his knowledge aims to rebut the presumption of possession under s 21 of the MDA. If he succeeds in doing so, the Prosecution would have failed to prove that the Appellant was in possession of the controlled drugs. There would then be no need or occasion to consider the next issue of whether the Appellant knew the nature of the drug.
[23] In our judgment, the Appellant should be acquitted of the charge because we are satisfied that he has succeeded in rebutting the presumption of possession under s 21 of the MDA. We arrive at this conclusion based primarily on:
(a) the totality of the evidence including in particular, the evidence of the Appellant’s conversations with Ganesh during the follow-up operation; and
(b) the absence of any objective evidence linking the Appellant to the drugs.
[24] In this context, we recall this Court’s previous observation that it is inherently difficult to prove a negative (Harven at [2], citing Public Prosecutor v Sibeko Lindiwe Mary-Jane [2016] SGHC 199 at [61]) and once again emphasise that the court should be mindful of this when it evaluates the evidence to determine whether the Appellant is telling the truth. In short, the burden on the Appellant should not be so onerous that it becomes virtually impossible to discharge.
The Appellant’s evidence in his statements and on the witness stand
[26] We begin with the Appellant’s evidence in his statements to the CNB officers and his oral testimony during the trial.
[27] These were broadly consistent in denying knowledge of the drugs and in asserting that the drugs had been hidden in the Motorcycle without his knowledge. Four statements from the Appellant were recorded after his arrest:
(a) a contemporaneous statement recorded on 24 March 2014 at about 8.08pm after the Appellant was arrested;
(b) a cautioned statement recorded on 25 March 2014 at 12.03pm under s 23 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) (“the CPC”);
(c) an investigative statement recorded on 27 March 2014 at 11.48am under s 22 of the CPC; and
(d) an investigative statement recorded on 28 March 2014 at 12.25pm under s 22 of the CPC.
Contemporaneous statement dated 24 March 2014
[28] In his contemporaneous statement made on 24 March 2014 at about 8.08pm, before the follow-up operation, the Appellant disclaimed knowledge of the three black bundles and said that he had borrowed the Motorcycle from someone known as “Boy”. The Appellant said that he had done so at about 6.30pm that day to come to Singapore to meet his friend “John” at Woodlands Loop Sector 1 to celebrate his own birthday. According to the Appellant, John is a male Indian Malaysian, staying at one of the hostels at Woodlands Loop and working at Bengawan Solo.
Cautioned statement dated 25 March 2014
[30] We digress to observe that the last point was a matter of considerable significance because:
(a) It related to a conversation between Ganesh and the Appellant which, if true, could have a bearing on the question of the Appellant’s state of knowledge. There was no doubt as to Ganesh’s involvement in this crime and if he appeared to accept in the course of a conversation between them that the Appellant was ignorant, then this would be a matter of potential probative significance;
(b) The Appellant made a pointed statement that the conversation was recorded by the CNB officers. This was not merely a self-serving assertion but one that was said to have been heard and recorded by the CNB. One would expect the CNB to have pursued this to establish just how and by whom it had been recorded since it was exculpatory of the Appellant. And, if it was found not to be the case, then the CNB would have been expected to clarify this with the Appellant. However, it does not appear that any of this was followed up on and the Appellant’s assertion to this effect remains essentially unrebutted;
(c) The statement was made within hours of the follow-up operation. We find it unlikely that the Appellant would have said this if it were not true because this would have been completely fresh in the minds of those involved and could, should and would be expected to have been rebutted if it were not true; and
(d) This was the very first occasion on which he could have raised this since it was the first statement taken after the follow-up operation during which the conversation allegedly took place.
Long statements dated 27 and 28 March 2014
[32] As to the events relevant to the charge, the Appellant said that on 22 March 2014 before his arrest, he had gone to a club in Johor Bahru to celebrate his birthday with some friends. On 23 March 2014, the Appellant said that he had met with a traffic accident and sustained some injuries to his chest and leg. On the next day, he asked Ganesh for a loan of RM150 to see a doctor. Ganesh initially refused because the Appellant was “not doing any work for him”. When the Appellant replied that he would return the money after getting a job, Ganesh asked him to see Ah Boy. When the Appellant met Ah Boy at about 2.40pm, Ah Boy asked him whether he could deliver “10 stones” the next morning on 25 March 2014. Realising that these were drugs, the Appellant refused and told Ah Boy that he did not want to deliver drugs to Singapore anymore. Ah Boy discussed this with Ganesh before passing the Appellant the sum of RM150 and telling him that Ganesh would call him later.
[33] The Appellant then visited a doctor and reached home shortly after 4pm. When he reached home, the Appellant saw his friend’s brother, one “Sri”, there. He knew Sri had gone to Singapore for a job interview and asked how it had gone. Sri replied that he had gotten the job and would start work the next morning. The Appellant then called Ganesh again and asked to borrow his motorcycle having decided that he wanted to visit Singapore on the spur of the moment.
[34] In the event, Ganesh agreed and asked him to get it from Ah Boy. When the Appellant met Ah Boy, he was lent and he took the Motorcycle. This was shortly after 6pm.
[35] The Appellant then proceeded to a petrol kiosk to top up the fuel tank before heading for Singapore. While refuelling, the Appellant said he “checked the usual place where the drugs were placed but nothing was found”. He did this, in part, because of Ah Boy’s earlier request for him to deliver “10 stones” which he had refused. In the previous deliveries, the drugs had been placed under the seat of the Motorcycle, on the seat compartment lid and covered with a scarf. It did not occur to him to check underneath the seat compartment lid, which was secured with four screws.
[36] After filling petrol, the Appellant reached Malaysian customs at about 7pm and upon clearing it, proceeded to the Woodlands Checkpoint. While riding towards Woodlands along the Causeway, he received a call from Ganesh who asked him to call him once he reached Woodlands. The Appellant asked why, and Ganesh answered that “all the recipients changed their contact numbers”. The Appellant said that when Ganesh told him this, he “roughly [knew] that there were drugs hidden inside the bike [but he] just [could not] confirm”. When the Appellant asked if Ganesh had hidden any “Jaman” (the street term in Tamil for drugs) in the Motorcycle, Ganesh laughed it off. By the time the call ended, the Appellant had already reached the motorcycle booth at the Woodlands Checkpoint.
Evidence in court
[38] The Appellant appeared to depart somewhat from his previous statements in only two ways. This was noted by the Judge at [11(p)] of the Judgment. First, the Appellant denied that Ganesh had said anything to the effect that the recipients’ contact numbers had changed. This contradicted what he had previously said in his statements. Instead, he claimed that Ganesh had simply told the Appellant to “call once [he] enter[ed]” or “call [him] once [he] reach[ed]” Singapore. Second, instead of saying that he “knew” by the end of his phone conversation with Ganesh along the Causeway that there were drugs inside the Motorcycle, the Appellant maintained that he merely suspected or guessed that there were drugs.
[39] As to the first point, the Judge rejected the Appellant’s evidence on this point and found no reason to think that this part of the statement had been incorrectly recorded (Judgment at [43]–[44]). We see no reason to disagree with this part of the Judge’s decision.
[40] On that footing, this leads us to the second point, which is the more important point as it concerns what the Appellant deduced from what he had been told. Having examined the evidence, we do not agree that the second point is in fact an instance of his contradicting what he had said in his statements. When the statements are read in their proper context, they plainly suggest that the Appellant had not in fact known that there were drugs in the Motorcycle even after the phone call from Ganesh along the Causeway. Rather, the sense that is conveyed by these statements, taken as a whole, is that following the conversation, the Appellant suspected that there might be drugs hidden somewhere in the Motorcycle.
[41] In his statement given on 27 March 2014, after the Appellant described the phone call from Ganesh, he is recorded as having said that this “confirmed that there are drugs inside the bike” [emphasis added]. However, the Appellant referred to this in the very next paragraph and clarified what he had meant:
[42] Similarly, in his statement on 28 March 2014, the Appellant is recorded to have said that when Ganesh laughed off his question about whether there were drugs in the Motorcycle, “at that point of time I know there must be drugs” [emphasis added]. However, in the same paragraph, the Appellant again qualified this as meaning that he suspected or surmised this to be the case:
[43] Locations A and B refer to the respective side fenders of the Motorcycle. In the same statement, just a few paragraphs before this quoted extract, the Appellant had expressly stated that he had only harboured a suspicion after Ganesh’s call:
[44] In construing the statements, we are mindful of the fact that these do not appear to be verbatim records. The statements are generally not presented in the form of questions and answers. Rather, the Appellant’s answers appear to have been summarised by the recording officer. While this is not to suggest that there was any intention to misrepresent the Appellant’s evidence as reflected in the statements, it does highlight why it is especially important to construe the entirety of the statements so as to fairly discern the essence of what the Appellant was saying. Once this is done, it becomes evident that the Judge was mistaken when he said (at [11(p)(ii)] of the Judgment) that the Appellant had “admitted unequivocally that, from his telephone conversation with Ganesh, he knew that there were drugs inside the [M]otorcycle as he went into Woodlands Checkpoint” [emphasis in original; emphasis added in bold italics]. Reading the statements as a whole, it becomes evident that there was no such unequivocal admission; on the contrary, the Appellant had maintained and clarified throughout his statements that he only suspected after Ganesh’s call that there might be drugs hidden in the Motorcycle.
[45] The other salient aspect of the Appellant’s evidence pertained to the follow-up operation. The Appellant testified in court that he had said to Cpl Vengedesh that he was “not related to the drugs”, to which Cpl Vengedesh responded that if that were the case, the Appellant would have to cooperate with him. Various conversations and communications ensued and in the later stages of the operation, Cpl Vengedesh instructed the Appellant to send a message to Ganesh. The translation of that message was as follows:
[46] The Appellant explained that the reference to “brg” in the drafted message meant “barang”, which was a street reference to the drugs. During re-examination, the Appellant testified that after one of the conversations with Ganesh, he had said to Cpl Vengedesh who had been listening in on the Appellant’s phone call with Ganesh, “You just heard, right, I’m not involved in this”. The details of the call were presented as follows: after they exchanged greetings, Ganesh asked him where he was and he told Ganesh that he was at Woodlands Checkpoint. Ganesh then mentioned that there was “jaman” inside and asked him to bring it back to Malaysia. At this juncture, the Appellant asked why he had not told him so when he collected the Motorcycle. Ganesh then said “Forgive me. Bring the motor back to Malaysia”. After this phone call, Cpl Vengedesh reportedly said that “If you do not know about this, you cooperate and help the CNB and tell us who this is supposed to reach”. We will return to this and examine its significance more closely a little later when we consider the circumstances surrounding the follow-up operation.
The chronology of events before the trip to Singapore
[47] In the light of the evidence contained in the Appellant’s statements and given at trial, we first deal with certain aspects of the events that transpired before the Appellant entered Singapore on the day of his arrest.
The loans of RM150, the Motorcycle and the SIM card
[49] What happened subsequently, according to the Appellant, has been summarised at [32] above. The Prosecution submitted that it was implausible that Ganesh would be willing to lend the Appellant money to visit a doctor following his refusal to deliver more drugs for Ganesh. Indeed, the Prosecution submitted that it was even more implausible, in these circumstances, that Ganesh would then agree to also lend the Appellant the Motorcycle and that Ah Boy would also lend him the Singapore SIM card which was found in the Appellant’s wallet when he was arrested.
[51] In our judgment, Mr Chua’s hypothesis has much to commend it. But even if we were not to accept it in preference to the Prosecution’s and the Judge’s view, in the final analysis, neither hypothesis can be said to be obviously more persuasive. This then becomes probatively neutral.
The phone call after clearing Malaysian customs
[52] We turn to Ganesh’s phone call to the Appellant while he was on the Causeway.
[53] Because the Judge rejected the Appellant’s story that the drugs had been hidden in the Motorcycle without the Appellant’s knowledge, he did not squarely address the question of whether the Appellant had admitted in his statements that he had travelled to Singapore knowing that he was carrying drugs in the Motorcycle (Judgment at [69]). However, this runs counter to the Judge’s finding that the Appellant’s statements demonstrated that he had “unequivocally” admitted that he knew about the drugs as he went into Woodlands Checkpoint (see [44] above; Judgment at [11(p)(ii)]). In any event, for the reasons set out above at [40]–[44], we are satisfied that the Appellant’s various references in his statements suggesting that he knew there were drugs in the Motorcycle after Ganesh’s call should not be taken out of context and should not be interpreted as constituting admissions of knowledge. At best, these were meant to convey his suspicion of this fact given that Ganesh’s call would have made little sense on the basis of his version of the facts.
[54] Further, we do not think that it would be proper or fair to impute the requisite level of knowledge to the Appellant on the basis of a phone call from Ganesh that made the Appellant suspicious, when nothing was said to confirm the presence of drugs in the Motorcycle. Ganesh had only asked the Appellant to call him after he crossed into Singapore, and mentioned that the “recipients changed their contact numbers”. The Appellant maintained that he was approaching Woodlands Checkpoint by this time and there was no time for the Appellant to react in these circumstances. Further, the Appellant also said that he took some comfort in the fact that while refuelling the Motorcycle just before making his way to Singapore, he had checked and seen that there were no drugs in the usual place beneath the seat (see [35] above). The Judge also accepted that if the Appellant had been checking for drugs when refuelling, it would have been “extremely difficult for him to notice” the three bundles hidden in the fenders unless he knew where to look and was using a torchlight to aid his search (Judgment at [67(b)]). This was plainly correct given that the size and the dark colour of the bundles would mean that they would not have been noticeable when placed in a dark space such as the fender region of the Motorcycle.
[55] In the final analysis, we are unable to see how the Appellant can be said to have “known” that the drugs were hidden within the Motorcycle. Taken as a whole, even accepting that the Appellant’s suspicions were aroused, given the matters noted at [54] above, we do not think the Appellant can be found to have known that the drugs were hidden in the Motorcycle and therefore found to be in possession of the drugs in these specific circumstances.
The arrest and the follow-up operation
[56] We turn next to the circumstances surrounding the Appellant’s arrest as well as the CNB’s subsequent follow-up operation. It is especially important to consider what was said between Ganesh and the Appellant. This part of the evidence is extremely pertinent not just because of its contemporaneity, but also because of its consistency with the Appellant’s account. To this extent, it is probatively material and weighs in favour of the Appellant.
[57] First, ICA officer Cpl Abdul Hakim, who first checked the Motorcycle and saw the three black bundles in the side fenders, testified as to the Appellant’s immediate reaction and in particular that he looked “confused” and “lost”. The Appellant then denied ownership of the Motorcycle and of the bundles. Cpl Abdul Hakim’s observation of the Appellant’s reaction comports with the Appellant’s claim that he was not, in fact, aware of the drugs.
[58] Second, and more pertinent, is what transpired in the course of the exchanges between Ganesh and the Appellant. This took place in the context of an operation that was being orchestrated by the CNB officers in an attempt to apprehend others involved in the ring. The Appellant was directed to communicate with Ganesh and/or Ah Boy without letting them know that he had been arrested or that the CNB officers were monitoring their conversations. After listening to a number of exchanges between Ganesh and the Appellant, Cpl Vengedesh asked the Appellant to send a message to Ganesh in Malay which was translated as follows (see [6] and [45]–[46] above): “… Don’t play around bro just now never say got drugs. Now ask to bring back. Crazy is it. I cannot bring. Quick send someone to take the drugs if not leave the Motorcycle and drugs here” [emphasis added]. Apart from Cpl Vengedesh, Cpl Sollehen was also present with the Appellant during the follow-up operation for four hours from 9.52pm on 24 March 2014 to 2.06am on 25 March 2014. Crucially, Cpl Sollehen confirmed that whatever text messages in Malay that were typed by the Appellant had been done at the direction of Cpl Vengedesh, with Cpl Sollehen helping to translate. Essentially, Cpl Vengedesh directed the Appellant in Tamil to draft the text messages; the Appellant drafted them in Malay; then Cpl Sollehen read the messages drafted in Malay and translated them into English for Cpl Vengedesh to verify that they accorded with his instructions before he would instruct the Appellant to send them.
[59] For some reason, it appears that this text message was ultimately not received by Ganesh. But nothing turns on this. As the Appellant submits, its existence demonstrates that at the material time, and on the basis of the exchanges between Ganesh and the Appellant which Cpl Vengedesh had heard, Cpl Vengedesh formed the view that as far as Ganesh was concerned, the Appellant did not know about the drugs. This is reflected in his permitting or directing the inclusion of the words “just now never say got drugs” in the text message. Having overheard the phone conversations between the Appellant and Ganesh during the follow-up operation, it would have been illogical and likely fatal to the success of the follow-up operation for Cpl Vengedesh to have instructed the Appellant to draft and send such a message if this was inconsistent with what had earlier been said in the monitored conversations between Ganesh and the Appellant.
[60] In this regard, we return to a point we have alluded to earlier at [29]–[30] above. As we noted there, reference was made to such a phone conversation having taken place between Ganesh and the Appellant in the Appellant’s cautioned statement made on 25 March 2014, shortly after the follow-up operation was called off, where he said as follows:
[61] In our judgment, the draft text message and the foregoing extract from the cautioned statement corroborate each other. It was incumbent on the CNB to have followed up on this if it entertained any doubts over the truth of the Appellant’s claims as to what had transpired in the course of the follow-up operation.
[62] Further, during re-examination, the Appellant also informed the court that Ganesh’s response to the Appellant’s question as to why he had not been told of the drugs was: “Forgive me. Bring the motor back to Malaysia” (see [46] above). The Appellant also testified that he had then said to Cpl Vengedesh, “You just heard, right, I’m not involved in this” as the latter had been listening in on his phone call with Ganesh. Cpl Vengedesh reportedly said in reply, “If you do not know about this, you cooperate and help the CNB and tell us who this is supposed to reach”.
[63] At the appeal, Mr Chua urged us to make a finding in this regard by drawing the appropriate inference from the circumstances surrounding the follow-up operation. In particular, Mr Chua relied on the fact that Cpl Vengedesh had directed the Appellant to send a message in the foregoing terms, coupled with the contents of the Appellant’s cautioned statement that was made shortly after the follow-up operation was called off, as irresistible evidence of the fact that during the supervised conversation between Ganesh and the Appellant, the latter had asked Ganesh why there were drugs in the Motorcycle that the Appellant had not known about, and that at the very least Ganesh did not refute this. Since Cpl Vengedesh had directed the said message to be sent, it must follow that the supervised conversation did suggest that Ganesh had acknowledged that the Appellant did not previously know about the drugs.
[64] The Judge dismissed the Appellant’s argument that such an inference could be drawn from that message. He reasoned that the follow-up operation had taken place a few hours after the arrest, and the CNB officers would not have had the time at that stage to assess the veracity of what the Appellant said. Their main concern then was to gather as much information on any other persons who might have been involved. Hence, the Judge found it unsurprising that the CNB officers went along with the Appellant’s version of events for that purpose (Judgment at [56]).
[65] With great respect, it seems to us that the Judge’s reasoning fails to engage with the Appellant’s argument. The question is not whether the CNB officers had come to a firm conclusion on the Appellant’s claim having regard to all the evidence. Rather, it is a much narrower question of whether the phone conversation, which the CNB officers were monitoring, supported the Appellant’s claim that he was ignorant of the fact that the drugs had been placed in the Motorcycle. This is what he said in his cautioned statement, and this also appeared to be borne out by the terms of the text message that was drafted on Cpl Vengedesh’s instructions. The Judge failed to consider this. By focusing on why the CNB officers might have gone along with the Appellant’s account, the Judge wholly missed the Appellant’s argument which rested not so much on what the CNB officers in fact believed about the Appellant’s guilt or innocence but rather on what Ganesh had said during the monitored conversations.
[66] We digress to make an observation on the way this part of the investigation was conducted. We consider it unsatisfactory that in attempting to refute the Appellant’s argument on this issue, the Prosecution and the authorities were not able to produce any audio records; moreover, the CNB witnesses could not say anything useful as to what in fact had transpired during the supervised conversations with Ganesh because they simply could not recall. All that Cpl Vengedesh could confirm during the trial was that there were “a few calls” received and “a few text messages” sent in the period that he was with the Appellant during the follow-up operation. He could not remember anything about what was spoken. However, he did confirm that he heard the conversations because the calls were made over the speaker, that he had asked the Appellant to speak normally and act as though he had not been apprehended, and that any phone calls answered or communications made by the Appellant were done under his instructions. Cpl Sollehen’s evidence was similarly unhelpful. He could only testify that there were “some” phone calls made from the Appellant to “another party”, but could not remember to whom the calls were made and what the contents of the conversations were. We would have expected that these conversations would and should have been taped and transcribed. At the very least, the contents of these conversations should have been detailed and recorded in the contemporaneous diaries and notes kept by the CNB officers. It does not appear that any of these things was done.
[67] During the hearing of the appeal, the Prosecution informed us that audio records had been made but then these could not be retrieved due to some data corruption. However, the Prosecution subsequently checked with CNB and informed us that in fact no audio recording had been made at all. Further, the only contemporaneous evidence before the court in relation to the conversations that took place in the course of the follow-up operation was a short extract of the investigation diary, which was vague and lacked details. Coupled with the fact that neither Cpl Vengedesh nor Cpl Sollehen could recall anything of substance in relation to the conversations that took place, this meant that there was a very substantial gap in the evidence as far as the Prosecution’s case is concerned. Simply put, there is nothing at all to refute the Appellant’s contention as to his conversation with Ganesh and, on the contrary, quite a lot to corroborate it.
[68] In our judgment, on the basis of the foregoing analysis, we are satisfied that the conversation between Ganesh and the Appellant did in fact take place; that the Appellant had indeed asked Ganesh why he had put the drugs in the Motorcycle without informing him; that Ganesh had not refuted this and this had all transpired in the hearing of the CNB officers. We base this principally on the words of the text message and the unrefuted assertion to this effect made by the Appellant in his contemporaneous statement and in his subsequent testimony.
[69] We note that the follow-up operation was conducted with the intention of not alerting Ganesh to the fact that the Appellant had been arrested and was co-operating with the authorities. In fact, the Appellant stated that Ganesh had asked a few times during the follow-up operation whether he had been arrested and he had repeatedly told him he had not been. Cpl Vengedesh had also instructed the Appellant to be “calm and act normal throughout”, and had even brought the Appellant outside the office so that the “nosier” environment would create a more “realistic” impression for Ganesh during the supervised phone conversations. The Appellant, as instructed by the CNB officers, had also used the excuse of having a problem with his autopass to explain his delay in contacting Ganesh.
[70] This is further corroborated by the Appellant’s testimony in re-examination about his interaction with Cpl Vengedesh after the supervised conversation (see [46] and [62] above).
[71] The Appellant’s general account of the follow-up operation in his statement dated 27 March 2014 is also corroborated by the extract of the investigation diary. We have noted that there was a period during the arrest when the Appellant was not in contact with Ganesh. As this had to be explained to enable the follow-up operation to be conducted, the Appellant was directed to say that he had been delayed by a problem with his autopass. The investigation diary corroborates this account with its record that Ganesh “bought the story that the [Appellant was] settling his autopass”. Various details in the Appellant’s account in his statements regarding the follow-up operation are also corroborated by entries in the investigation diary: (a) the Appellant was instructed to inform Ganesh when he reached a carpark in Woodlands behind a convenience store; (b) Ganesh told him a white car would be coming to collect the drugs; (c) Ah Boy called and gave the Appellant a Singapore phone number to call for instructions; (d) a Chinese person picked up a call to that number; and (e) the Appellant informed that he was at the fruit stall at the carpark. It thus appears that Ganesh did engage with the Appellant for a time even after the Appellant had questioned him over placing the drugs in the Motorcycle without his knowledge. This too then supports the truth of the Appellant’s contention.
[72] Hence, on account of:
(a) the fact that the Appellant’s account is broadly corroborated by the extract of the contemporaneous investigation diary;
(b) the express reference in the Appellant’s cautioned statement to his question to Ganesh as to why the latter had planted the drugs without informing the former, which remains unrefuted by the Prosecution; and
(c) the contents of the text message instructed by Cpl Vengedesh to be sent by the Appellant to Ganesh, which asserted that Ganesh had not told the Appellant that there were drugs planted in the Motorcycle,
we are satisfied that the Appellant did in fact say to Ganesh in the presence of the CNB officers that he did not initially know about the drugs hidden in the Motorcycle, and that Ganesh did not refute this. We return to the analytical framework that we have outlined at [25] above. In our judgment, this aspect of the evidence strongly corroborates the Appellant’s case that he had not known about the drugs.
The alleged evidence of a prior arrangement to deliver drugs
[73] We turn to consider the matters that the Judge relied on to conclude that there was a prior arrangement between the Appellant and Ganesh and/or Ah Boy to deliver the drugs:
(a) First, the Judge held that the Appellant’s evidence in his statements that Ganesh had called him while he was riding across the Causeway and told him that “all the recipients changed their contact numbers” gave rise to the implication that the Appellant understood what “recipients” meant, had previously been given contact numbers, and was being informed of a change in plans that had previously been agreed (Judgment at [39]–[40]).
(b) Second, the Judge also found it significant that text messages were sent by Ganesh and Ah Boy to the Appellant that evening, which demonstrated that they were trying to contact the Appellant urgently “to inform him of a sudden change to a previously agreed plan” (Judgment at [45]–[48]).
(c) Lastly, the Judge found it significant that the Appellant was carrying the same Singapore SIM card given to him by Ah Boy, as that which the Appellant had used on his two previous drug deliveries. The Judge was of the view that it was unlikely that Ah Boy would have given the same SIM card to the Appellant for purposes unrelated to the drugs business when their relationship was primarily based on their drug deals (Judgment at [49]–[50]).
[75] In examining these pieces of evidence, it is once again crucial to consider whether they demonstrate a pre-existing plan to deliver drugs which might not have included the Appellant, or whether they pointed to the existence of a prior arrangement with the Appellant to deliver drugs. We emphasise this because it is clear that there was a plan to deliver the drugs. It is inevitable that the facts will be consistent with the existence of such a plan. The real question, however, was whether the Appellant was knowingly part of this plan.
[76] As to the first piece of evidence, we disagree with the Judge that the fact that Ganesh called him while he was travelling to Singapore and told him that the “recipients” had changed their contact numbers clearly implied that there was a prior arrangement with the Appellant for him to deliver drugs in the course of that trip. In our judgment, the terms of the phone call are not sufficient to infer the existence of a prior arrangement with the Appellant. Our principal reason for taking this view is that the statement detailing the conversation cannot be relied on selectively. The Appellant having said that Ganesh did say this, went on to say that having regard to all that had transpired between them, the Appellant was left with the suspicion that Ganesh had planted drugs in the Motorcycle. He accordingly asked Ganesh whether there was “jaman” (drugs) and in response, Ganesh merely laughed off the Appellant’s question. It is evident from this that once regard is had to the whole of the Appellant’s statement, it emerges that he was maintaining the very opposite of what the Prosecution was contending and what the Judge found by relying on only a part of the statement in question.
[77] We turn to the fact that the Appellant had, in the course of the follow-up operation, told the CNB officers that he should switch to the Singapore SIM card to call Ganesh back lest Ganesh suspect that something was amiss (see [74] above). In our judgment, the Prosecution’s reliance on this ignores the fact that the Appellant had previously delivered drugs for Ganesh on two occasions and acting in line with those dealings would have been one way to avoid arousing any suspicion. Thus, the fact that the Appellant suggested that he change the SIM card does not necessarily lead to the inference that there was a prior arrangement to deliver drugs involving the Appellant. On the contrary, it is also consistent with the Appellant doing his best to cooperate with the CNB by acting as much as possible as he would have done had he not been arrested. In this context, even if the Accused had not been aware of the drugs, if he had to return a call to Ganesh after he entered Singapore, it would have been perfectly normal for him to have switched to the Singapore SIM card.
[78] Nor do we find it significant that Ah Boy had lent the same Singapore SIM card to the Appellant. There is no doubt that Ah Boy and Ganesh meant to hide the drugs in the Motorcycle. If they did this without the Appellant’s knowledge, they would nonetheless need him to contact others in Singapore once he got through. Their surmise must have been that once he was across and then learnt that there were drugs in the Motorcycle, he would carry out the deliveries as instructed. From this perspective, they had every reason to lend the Singapore SIM card to the Appellant so that he would not be able to say that he could not make the calls. From the Appellant’s perspective, having the Singapore SIM card would make it easier to contact the people he knew in Singapore, such as his girlfriend Revalthi and friend John, which the Prosecution did accept.
[79] Finally, the Judge placed considerable reliance on the way in which Ah Boy and Ganesh tried to contact the Appellant that fateful evening. We disagree with the Judge’s assessment of this. It is true that Ganesh and, to a limited extent, Ah Boy were trying with some urgency to contact the Appellant as demonstrated by the following text messages sent to both of the Appellant’s phones as follows (translated and unabbreviated):
[80] The Judge concluded that it would be illogical for Ah Boy and Ganesh to do this absent an arrangement to which the Appellant was party, because otherwise it might have alarmed the Appellant and resulted in him aborting his trip to Singapore (Judgment at [48]). The Judge also concluded that they were anxiously trying to contact the Appellant to advise him of a change of plan. With respect, we are unable to follow this line of reasoning. First, the notion that the Appellant might be so alarmed by these messages as to abort the trip only makes sense if one starts from the premise that he was not aware of the drugs and deduced that something sinister was afoot just from the number and frequency of the messages. Secondly, the fact that Ganesh and Ah Boy were frantically trying to contact the Appellant says nothing about the latter’s knowledge of the drugs. The point is that Ganesh and Ah Boy knew the drugs were there and at some stage, whether or not the Appellant was in on the plan, they would need to contact him. The Appellant was stopped at the Woodlands Checkpoint at 7.35pm and he could not respond to any calls or text messages from then. The text messages spanned the period from 6.39pm to 9.12pm. If Ganesh and Ah Boy had planted valuable drugs in the Motorcycle without the Appellant’s knowledge, Ganesh and Ah Boy would understandably want to try to contact the Appellant urgently. The inference to be drawn from the text messages sent by Ganesh and Ah Boy cannot extend to imputing a prior arrangement with the Appellant when all they demonstrate is urgency on the part of Ganesh and Ah Boy. Finally, we do not see any basis for inferring that there was some change of plan.
[81] For these reasons, we consider that the Judge erred in his conclusion that there was a prior arrangement among Ganesh, Ah Boy and the Appellant to deliver the drugs that day.
The lack of objective evidence
[82] Next, we also note that the Appellant’s account is not contradicted by the objective evidence. The absence of any trace of the Appellant’s DNA on the three black bundles, the screwdriver, the four screws, the scarf and the seat compartment lid (see [9] above) is consistent with the Appellant’s account that he was not the person who hid the drugs in the Motorcycle. There is no objective evidence that establishes that the Appellant had touched or opened the compartment lid, placed the drugs into the Motorcycle, used the screwdriver, or unscrewed the compartment lid. We accept that the absence of a DNA trace does not prove that the Appellant did not in fact touch the relevant materials because there might be other possible explanations for this, including the degradation of DNA traces or even a conscious attempt to clean the relevant surfaces. But, even if it does not prove this fact, it certainly adds to the other evidence before the court, which supports the Appellant’s version of the events.
[83] As for the screwdriver found under the seat, nothing turns on this. It became an issue at trial because it was thought that the screwdriver might have been there to enable the Appellant to remove the lid and access the drugs. However, no transferred materials were found between the screwdriver and the four screws used to secure the seat compartment lid. Hence, it did not appear that the screwdriver had been used in this way. A further question was raised as to whether the screwdriver could be used for this purpose. Whether the screwdriver was indeed used or could be used on the screws of the seat compartment lid did not go towards establishing any knowledge on the part of the Appellant about whether the drugs were planted. The Judge considered that the presence of the screwdriver was probative because it meant the Appellant was equipped with the tools to access the seat compartment lid. In this regard, he concluded (at [9] of the Judgment) that:
[84] However, two observations may be made. First, it was purely speculative that the screwdriver was there to enable the Appellant to access the drugs. Secondly, the Judge’s conclusion was in fact unsupported by either the expert report or the expert’s evidence in court. In the first place, the percentages that the Judge had referred to had been derived by the Judge on his own by calculating, using the measurements in the report, the depth of the blade of the screwdriver that could be inserted into the slots of the four screws when tilted at an angle with respect to the lengths of the slots. The Judge did not consider the fact that when aligned with the length of the slots of the screws, the blade of the screwdriver could actually only be inserted into the slots of the screw heads up to between 35% and 49% of the depth of the slots. The report did not offer any view regarding whether it would have been possible to use this screwdriver to unscrew the seat compartment lid if the blade of the screwdriver had been inserted into the slots of the screws at an angle, as compared to if it were aligned with the length of the slots. Also, the forensic expert’s express testimony, when asked if she could say whether the screwdriver could have been used to unscrew the screws since the blade of the screwdriver could be inserted to a certain extent, was that she was “unable to comment” because no such experiment had in fact been done. This is entirely understandable, given that the purpose of this expert report was only to “examine the physical characteristics of the screwdriver … and the screws … and determine if the blade of the screwdriver … could be inserted into the slots of the screws”, and “examine the screws … for the presence of transferred materials that could have originated from the same sources as the materials from the screwdriver”. In our judgment, the Judge’s conclusion that the screwdriver could have been used to unscrew the lid was thus, with respect, unsupported and impermissible. To arrive at the conclusion that he had reached, he ought at least to have invited the expert to comment, in the light of her findings in the report, as to whether it would be possible to unscrew the seat compartment lid if the blade of the screwdriver had been inserted into the slots of the screws at an angle or if not, whether the seat compartment lid could be unscrewed if the blade of the screwdriver could be inserted, while aligned with the length of the slots, only to between 35% and 49% of the depth of the slots.
[85] In any event, we reiterate that even if it could be concluded that the screwdriver could or was indeed used to unscrew the seat compartment lid, nothing turns on this because the objective evidence did not establish that the Appellant had actually used the screwdriver to unscrew the seat compartment lid and placed the bundles in the fenders or that he even knew of their presence there.
[86] In the result, we find that the forensic evidence (or the lack of it), if anything, corroborates the Appellant’s defence that he did not know of the drugs in the Motorcycle.
The Appellant’s motivations in entering Singapore
[87] As part of the Appellant’s defence, he also claimed that even though he had not made prior arrangements with either his girlfriend or his friend in Singapore, he had entered Singapore to spend time with them because he was feeling vexed and upset due to his personal circumstances.
[88] The Judge noted certain logical inconsistencies in the Appellant’s version of the events (Judgment at [24]–[38]). However, we do not think that these inconsistencies make it implausible that the Appellant had indeed hoped to meet John and Revalthi, and that his trip was decided upon without much thought or planning.
[89] The Appellant’s financial circumstances were indeed dire, so much so that he had to borrow money from Ganesh and Ah Boy. He was married with two young children, but could not provide for his family since he was unemployed at that time. The Appellant was also looking for a job in Singapore while he was living on the money he had borrowed from Ganesh in February 2014. During that period, he had been travelling between Johor Bahru and Singapore to attend interviews in Singapore. In his cautioned statement, the Appellant also mentioned that John had told him that he would recommend him a job in Singapore.
[90] The Appellant’s birthday was on 23 March and the Appellant had met with an unfortunate traffic accident that very day. Further, the Appellant’s girlfriend Revalthi actually testified in court that she had spoken to the Appellant on his birthday and had in fact arranged to meet him on the day after. Both the Appellant and Revalthi were also consistent in their account that Revalthi was in fact trying to contact the Appellant on 23 March 2014, but she could not reach him. In the circumstances, we find that it was not implausible that the Appellant had come to Singapore on an impromptu basis hoping to meet either his friend or girlfriend in an ultimately vain attempt to raise his spirits.
Conclusion
[91] In all the circumstances, we are satisfied that the Appellant has discharged the burden of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that the drugs were not in his possession because they had been placed in the Motorcycle without his knowledge. In the circumstances, there is no need to consider the question of whether the Appellant knew the nature of the drugs (see [21]–[22] above).
[92] There was no doubt in this case that Ganesh and Ah Boy wanted to transport the drugs into Singapore. The only question was whether the Appellant was part of this plan. In the face of his consistent stance that he was not, it was necessary to evaluate the surrounding objective evidence to see whether those were inconsistent with his version of the events or whether they were consistent with both possible versions.
[93] Most crucially, we are satisfied that in the course of the supervised conversation between Ganesh and the Appellant, the Appellant had asked Ganesh why he had not informed him of the drugs and Ganesh had not refuted this assertion. Taking this into account cumulatively with the entire case before the court, including the Appellant’s consistent defence, his shock and confusion upon the discovery of the bundles, his evidence of the follow-up operation which is corroborated by the investigation diary and the absence of any objective evidence linking the Appellant to the drugs, we find that the Appellant’s defence is made out and that he has successfully rebutted the presumption in s 21 of the MDA.
[94] We therefore allow the appeal and acquit the Appellant of the charge brought against him.
Introduction
[95] I have had the advantage of reading in draft the judgment of the majority of Menon CJ, with which Prakash JA concurs, and which I shall refer to as the majority Judgment. For ease of reference, I adopt the same abbreviations and references used in the majority Judgment, unless otherwise stated.
[96] In the evening of 24 March 2014, the Appellant rode the Motorcycle from Malaysia into Singapore. At the Woodlands Checkpoint, he was arrested after ICA officers found two black bundles of a substance hidden in the left fender of the Motorcycle. Upon a further search, another black bundle was discovered in the right fender of the Motorcycle. These three bundles formed the subject of the following capital charge against the Appellant:

The judgment continues past this page. Read the rest at eLitigation.

Gopu Jaya Raman v Public Prosecutor

Grounds of decision

Introduction

Background facts

The proceedings and decision below

The appeal

Our decision

The Appellant’s evidence in his statements and on the witness stand

Contemporaneous statement dated 24 March 2014

Cautioned statement dated 25 March 2014

Long statements dated 27 and 28 March 2014

Evidence in court

The chronology of events before the trip to Singapore

The loans of RM150, the Motorcycle and the SIM card

The phone call after clearing Malaysian customs

The arrest and the follow-up operation

The alleged evidence of a prior arrangement to deliver drugs

The lack of objective evidence

The Appellant’s motivations in entering Singapore

Conclusion

Introduction