PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v Yogesswaran C Manogaran & Anor

Facts

This was a joint trial in the General Division of the High Court (Criminal Case No 57 of 2022) of two men charged with trafficking in diamorphine under s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. Yogesswaran C Manogaran, a 29-year-old Malaysian warehouse assistant, was charged with delivering two packets containing not less than 837g of granular substance, found to contain not less than 24.81g of diamorphine, to Teo Yiu Kin Tee. Teo, a 75-year-old stateless man who was unemployed when arrested, was charged with possessing the same drugs for the purpose of trafficking.

On 14 January 2020, Central Narcotics Bureau officers watched Teo board Yogesswaran's motorcycle near Bendemeer Road. Teo then got off carrying a blue plastic bag holding two green-taped bundles and was arrested; Yogesswaran was arrested nearby. Yogesswaran's DNA was later found on the bundles' outer packaging. A digital weighing scale and many plastic packets were found in Teo's bedroom. Yogesswaran admitted possessing and delivering the bundles, while Teo admitted knowingly collecting two bundles of diamorphine. A challenge to the voluntariness of Yogesswaran's contemporaneous statement failed at an ancillary hearing and the statement was admitted.

Issues

1. Whether there was a break in the chain of custody of the drugs, given the press release photo-taking and weight discrepancies.
2. Whether Yogesswaran rebutted, on a balance of probabilities, the presumption of knowledge under s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
3. Whether Teo rebutted the presumption of trafficking under s 17(c) by showing the drugs were for his own consumption.

Holding

The court found the chain of custody proved beyond a reasonable doubt and held that neither accused had rebutted the presumption he faced. It convicted Yogesswaran of trafficking by delivery and convicted Teo of trafficking by possession for the purpose of trafficking, and said it would hear both men on sentence.

Reasoning

On the chain of custody, the defence pointed to a period after processing when the drug exhibits were taken out of their bags and photographed for a press release without the accused present, and to small differences between the weights recorded by the investigating officer and by the Health Sciences Authority analyst. The court explained that an accused's inability to watch part of the process does not by itself break the chain; what matters is whether someone with actual custody can account for that period. The investigating officer and another officer were present throughout and described two methods used to keep exhibits matched to their bags. Not recalling which method was used was an incidental detail. The weight differences were small percentages and were explained by placement of granular clumps on the scale, so they raised no doubt. The court added that recording press-release photo-taking in the investigation diary would make proof easier.

On Yogesswaran's defence that he believed the bundles held cigarettes or drugs carrying a light sentence, the court applied Gobi a/l Avedian v Public Prosecutor [2021] 1 SLR 180. His payment per bundle made no economic sense for cigarettes, he had earlier collected large sums for similar bundles, and he had been told to step on a bundle, which would damage cigarettes or pills. His statements said only that the items were illegal, and his failure to mention the defence despite the statutory warning showed it was an afterthought. He also admitted doubting the cousin who briefed him. Even his own early account showed indifference, which cannot rebut the presumption.

On Teo's consumption defence, his claimed daily intake at trial was far higher than the rates he had given to doctors and in his first long statement, and withdrawal assessment suggested low opioid use. He lacked the means to fund such use without selling, had repeatedly admitted selling to support himself, and kept repacking paraphernalia. Even on an inflated rate of 16g a day, the 837g would take far longer to consume than the period before his next order.

From the judgment