PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v Tristan Tan Yi Rui

Facts

Tristan Tan Yi Rui was tried in Criminal Case No 62 of 2021 on a charge under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act of having in his possession for the purpose of trafficking a packet containing not less than 337.6g of methamphetamine.

On 27 September 2018, during a Central Narcotics Bureau operation, he drove a white car to Fourth Lok Yang Road with Muhammad Hanis bin Mohamed Mokhtar as his passenger. After a meeting with another man, Hakam, and the arrival of two motorcyclists on Malaysian-registered motorcycles, he drove to an HDB block in Tampines, where both men were arrested. A red and black taped bundle recovered from the car held the drugs, and the accused's DNA was found on the packet inside the bundle.

The prosecution relied on WhatsApp messages on a phone (TT-HP1) in which the user negotiated with a supplier, Hari, for a larger-than-usual handover of drugs that day. The accused said he was a drug user doing favours for Hari in exchange for free methamphetamine, that the phone was used by a man called Travis, and that he was only a driver for Hari's group, who had bought the drugs for themselves.

Issues

1. Whether the accused was the user of the phone on which the drug deal was negotiated
2. Whether the accused was in possession of the drugs and knew they were methamphetamine
3. Whether the presumption that the drugs were possessed for the purpose of trafficking was rebutted
4. What sentence applied, given his role and the absence of a certificate of substantive assistance

Holding

Aedit Abdullah J convicted the accused of the trafficking charge. As his role was not restricted to that of a courier and no certificate of substantive assistance was issued, he was sentenced to death under s 33(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act.

Reasoning

On the phone, the court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was its sole user. It held intimate messages with his fiancée and messages from friends addressing him as Tris or Tristan. On his own phone he had told contacts to reach him on that number for drugs and to call him Travis. Messages on both phones described the same timing mix-up in strikingly similar terms. His account of the phone passing back and forth with Travis, always in Travis's hands when incriminating messages were sent, was not believed, and Travis was found to be an alias.

On possession and knowledge, Hanis's evidence that the accused took the bundle was credible because it was corroborated by messages on both men's phones, including matching payment figures of $8,500. The accused's DNA inside the bundle reinforced this, and theories of accidental transfer were speculative. His day of driving to and waiting at various places made sense only if he expected to receive the drugs, and he told his fiancée he was "loading". His agreement to spare Hari 25g of methamphetamine from the delivery, and talk of "white", showed actual knowledge that the drugs were methamphetamine.

On trafficking, the court did not rely on the quantity alone, the 25g side arrangement, or his past small sales to friends, which it treated as unduly prejudicial similar fact evidence. But the presumption of trafficking applied and his defence that he was only a driver was rejected, so it was not rebutted. His lie that the phone belonged to Travis met the criteria for a lie corroborating guilt, though little weight was placed on it.

From the judgment