CHANDER KUMAR A/L JAYAGARAN v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Facts

Chander Kumar a/l Jayagaran drove a lorry from Malaysia into Singapore carrying nine bundles of diamorphine, with his co-accused Ramesh a/l Perumal as passenger. He said a man called Roy had told him the bundles contained betel nuts. The High Court convicted him on two capital trafficking charges and one non-capital charge and, finding the alternative sentencing regime in s 33B(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act applied, sentenced him in aggregate to life imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane. In Ramesh a/l Perumal v Public Prosecutor and another appeal [2019] 1 SLR 1003, the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal, while reducing Ramesh's charge to possession and sentencing Ramesh to ten years' imprisonment. His first application for permission to seek a review was summarily dismissed on 18 January 2021.

In Criminal Motion No 40 of 2023, his second application under s 394H(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010, he alleged various failures by the Prosecution, including not analysing Ramesh's phone and travel records and not disclosing statements of his sister and father, and argued that the unequal sentences breached Art 12(1) of the Constitution and that the trial judge had interfered excessively.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant's points were sufficient material under s 394J of the CPC.
2. Whether the alleged non-disclosure of witness statements after the change in law in Nabill showed a miscarriage of justice.
3. Whether a second application for permission to review was permissible.

Holding

The Court of Appeal, sitting as a single judge, dismissed the application summarily as clearly an abuse of the process of the court.

Reasoning

Most of the points relied on evidence canvassed at trial or that could have been raised at trial or on appeal; recasting factual matters as prosecutorial misconduct did not make them new. The judicial interference complaint, which simply counted the judge's questions, was described as a ridiculous basis that ignored the type and quality of the questions.

The disclosure duty in Muhammad Nabill bin Mohd Fuad v Public Prosecutor [2020] 1 SLR 984 post-dated the appeal and might be a change in law, but following Tangaraju s/o Suppiah v Public Prosecutor [2023] 1 SLR 622 its impact on the case had to be shown. The case turned on whether the applicant rebutted the presumption of knowledge; his betel nut defence had been rejected because it was absent from his statements and not credible, and his cautioned statements contained clear admissions. Any history between Roy and Ramesh could not have affected his conviction or sentence.

Under s 394K(1), only one application for permission to review is allowed, and the court's inherent power is no way around that. He had been told of the prohibition and went ahead anyway. The court repeated the procedure from Yusof for the Registry to reject such repeat filings.

From the judgment