PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v Low Sze Song & Sivaprakash Krishnan

[2023] SGHC 95 High Court (General Division) 14 April 2023 HC/CC 36/2022 79 min read
17 cases cited

Key facts

Court High Court (General Division)
Decided
Judge Dedar Singh Gill
Charges / claim Criminal Law
Counsel Attorney-General's Chambers, Eldan Law LLP, Infinitus Law Corporation, Lions Chambers LLC, Lukshumayeh Law Corporation, Adrian Loo Yu Hao, Jotham Tay, Koh Choon Guan Daniel, Mahadevan Lukshumayeh, Nathan Edmund, Teh Ee-von, Teo Siu Ming

Source: [2023] SGHC 95, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .

Catchwords

Practice Areas

Judges (1)

Counsel (12)

Parties (3)

Case Significance

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v Low Sze Song & Sivaprakash Krishnan [2023] SGHC 95 was heard by Dedar Singh Gill J in the General Division of the High Court, with judgment reserved and delivered on 14 April 2023 in Criminal Case No 36 of 2022. Low Sze Song, a 70-year-old male Singaporean, and Sivaprakash Krishnan, a 35-year-old male Malaysian national, each claimed trial to a single charge of trafficking not less than 43.2g of diamorphine under section 5(1)(a) read with section 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The case concerned events beginning on 30 May 2019 at Block 326A Sumang Walk and the joint trial of the two accused persons.

[2023] SGHC 95 explained

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v Low Sze Song & Sivaprakash Krishnan ([2023] SGHC 95) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 14 April 2023. It is categorised under Criminal Law. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2023] SGHC 95 about?

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v Low Sze Song & Sivaprakash Krishnan ([2023] SGHC 95) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Criminal Law — Statutory offences — Misuse of Drugs Act”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2023] SGHC 95 consider?

The judgment refers to Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68), Evidence Act (Cap 97), and Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

Summary

The Prosecution charged Low Sze Song and Sivaprakash Krishnan, tried jointly, each with one charge of trafficking not less than 43.2g of diamorphine under the Misuse of Drugs Act, arising from a handover of drugs for S$9,000 at a bus stop along Sumang Walk. The General Division of the High Court found the elements of the charge established against both accused and held that each was a courier within the meaning of s 33B(2)(a) of the Act.

What was Public Prosecutor v Low Sze Song and Sivaprakash Krishnan [2023] SGHC 95 about?

Low Sze Song, a 70-year-old Singaporean, and Sivaprakash Krishnan, a 35-year-old Malaysian, each claimed trial before Dedar Singh Gill J to a single charge of trafficking not less than 43.2g of diamorphine under the Misuse of Drugs Act.

What charge did the accused face in Public Prosecutor v Low Sze Song [2023] SGHC 95?

Both accused persons faced a single charge of trafficking not less than 43.2g of diamorphine under section 5(1)(a) read with section 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, tried jointly in Criminal Case No 36 of 2022.

Statutes Cited

Cases Cited (17)

SG (1)
[2003] SGHC 60
SLR (16)
[1998] 3 SLR(R) 281 [1999] 1 SLR(R) 931 [2006] 4 SLR(R) 45 [2008] 1 SLR 1 [2009] 4 SLR(R) 946 [2011] 3 SLR 1205 [2012] 2 SLR 903 [2014] 3 SLR 721 [2015] 1 SLR 834 [2017] 1 SLR 633 [2018] 1 SLR 449 [2018] 2 SLR 1119 [2019] 1 SLR 113 [2019] 1 SLR 440 [2020] 1 SLR 486 [2021] 1 SLR 180

Related cases

Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.

Referenced in

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.

Read on eLitigation

Source: eLitigation ([2023] SGHC 95)