Chandroo Subramaniam v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Facts

Mr Chandroo Subramaniam was tried in HC/CC 36/2018 with two co-accused for abetting by conspiracy the trafficking of three blocks of vegetable matter containing not less than 1,344.5g of cannabis. The Prosecution's case was that he ordered the drugs from a Malaysian supplier for $4,000 and that the co-accused were to deliver them to him at a meeting on Kranji Road on 5 March 2016. He said he met them to arrange repayment of a loan to a friend in Malaysia called Kumar. The trial judge accepted a co-accused's account, rejected his, convicted him and imposed the mandatory death sentence, as he was not a courier and received no certificate of substantive assistance. His appeal in CA/CCA 38/2020 was dismissed. He later joined other prisoners in several constitutional challenges, all struck out or dismissed.

The President ordered his execution for 25 July 2025. On the night of 24 July 2025 he filed, in person, Court of Appeal Criminal Motion No 18 of 2025 for a stay, saying his family had just located Kumar, whose evidence would show the meeting was only to hand over money. He also asked for a lawyer, questioned who had the cannabis, and disputed that he had the $4,000.

Issues

1. Whether the application relied on material that, even with reasonable diligence, could not have been adduced before the appeal was dismissed.
2. Whether an application for a stay to obtain Kumar's evidence had a reasonable prospect of success.
3. Whether the remaining points raised by the applicant had any merit.

Holding

The court refused permission to make a post-appeal application in a capital case and dismissed the application summarily, without a hearing, under s 60G(8) of the SCJA.

Reasoning

Treating the filing as a permission application under s 60G(1), as in Sulaiman bin Jumari v PP [2024] SGCA 40, the court found no new material at all. The claim that Kumar had been found was hearsay from family members, much as the absent report was in Sinnappan a/l Nadarajah v Public Prosecutor [2021] SGCA 10, and there was nothing to show the man located was the right person or would help him. Permission based on evidence not yet available would be futile, as Pausi bin Jefridin v Public Prosecutor and other matters [2024] 1 SLR 1127 held. Even at its highest, the evidence could have been obtained earlier: on his own trial evidence he had been in frequent phone contact with Kumar, and he showed no steps taken to call him.

On prospects, the court held the evidence had no bearing on the conviction. The finding on the purpose of the meeting rested mainly on his three inconsistent accounts of what the $4,000 was for; Kumar's evidence would at best support one of them. It was also outweighed by the co-accused's evidence of past deliveries and the surrounding circumstances, including regrouping on spotting the police and the handing over of plastic bags. As in Masoud Rahimi bin Mehrzad v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGCA 56, evidence that would not affect conviction or sentence could not found permission.

The other points failed: a lawyer could not be assigned for an application with no prospect, a permission application was not a route to reopen factual findings, and his denial of carrying $4,000 contradicted his own consistent evidence.

From the judgment