PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v Tan Yew Kuan & Dineshkumar Sambusivam

Facts

On 25 February 2020, Central Narcotics Bureau officers watched Mr Tan Yew Kuan board a Malaysian-registered car driven by Mr Dineshkumar Sambusivam along Lorong 7 Toa Payoh, carrying a black recycle bag. During a short drive, two plastic bags holding four black-taped bundles went into the recycle bag. Mr Tan got out with it, and both men were arrested minutes later. Three bundles contained not less than 37.95g of diamorphine, and the fourth held methamphetamine. An envelope with $11,200 that Mr Tan had handed over was found in the car.

In a joint trial in the High Court (Criminal Case No 5 of 2023) before Hoo Sheau Peng J, Mr Tan was charged with possessing the diamorphine for the purpose of trafficking, and Mr Dineshkumar with trafficking it to Mr Tan, under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Mr Tan, a 65-year-old long-term addict, said he had collected drugs for a Malaysian supplier, Pal, but expected only some ice and smoking instruments for himself that night. He also said he had an agreement never to take more than one pound of heroin. Mr Dineshkumar, who first denied handing over anything, later admitted delivering drugs for a man named Kelvin but said he believed all the bundles contained ice.

Issues

1. Whether Mr Tan rebutted the presumptions that he possessed the drugs and knew they were diamorphine
2. Whether the Prosecution proved that Mr Tan intended to traffic the drugs
3. Whether Mr Dineshkumar rebutted the presumption that he knew the bundles contained diamorphine

Holding

The court convicted Mr Tan of possessing not less than 37.95g of diamorphine for the purpose of trafficking and convicted Mr Dineshkumar of trafficking the drugs to Mr Tan. It then fixed a hearing on sentence.

Reasoning

The court rejected Mr Tan's argument that the Prosecution had really run a wilful blindness case, which would have barred reliance on the statutory presumptions. Applying Adili Chibuike Ejike v Public Prosecutor, he had not shown that he was unaware of the drugs. He knew things had been put into the bag, felt that it was heavy, and told officers that the bundles held heroin and ice. His defence that he expected only ice for his own use appeared in none of his statements. His claim of being suicidal when he made admissions was contradicted by the psychiatrist, and two officers had recorded that he said heroin and ice. Nor was there any basis for thinking that a dealer he had never met would arrange a special delivery for him. The alleged agreement limiting him to one pound of heroin was raised only at trial. Under Gobi a/l Avedian v Public Prosecutor, being indifferent to what he carried could not rebut the presumption of knowledge.

On intention, Mr Tan's contemporaneous statements that he was to drop the bundles off as instructed, and a later statement that he would have continued to do so, supported only one inference. His later doubts came too late to matter, and he showed none of the outrage he described over an earlier oversized delivery. Ramesh a/l Perumal v Public Prosecutor did not apply, because he was not merely holding the drugs to return them.

Mr Dineshkumar's complaints about his interpreter did not show that any part of his statements was wrongly recorded. He raised his belief in ice only five months after admitting the delivery. It made little sense for him to trust a dealer he had known for about three months and whose real name he did not know, especially when he was angry at finding four bundles. He chose not to check the bundles. Following Mohamed Shalleh bin Abdul Latiff v Public Prosecutor, simply believing what he was told was not enough to rebut the presumption.

From the judgment