TAN JINXIAN v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Facts

On 27 January 2021 Tan Jinxian, acting on a request from a man called "Paul", collected a blue bag from a stranger in Marsiling and took it to a room at Hotel Boss, where he was later joined by Chu Kok Thye, with whom he shared a rented room in Geylang. On 28 January 2021 Central Narcotics Bureau officers arrested both men in the hotel carpark. Tan was holding the blue bag and a white bag that together contained not less than 38.78g of diamorphine, along with empty bags, markers and a digital scale. Chu carried further diamorphine and methamphetamine.

The High Court convicted Tan of possessing the diamorphine for trafficking, of trafficking drugs to Chu on two further charges, and of possessing a synthetic cannabinoid. Although Tan had a certificate of substantial assistance, the trial judge found he was not merely a courier because he had subdivided and repacked the drugs, and imposed the mandatory death sentence, with an aggregate of 14 years' imprisonment for the other charges. Tan appealed against his conviction on three charges and the death sentence in Criminal Appeal No 16 of 2024, and by Criminal Motion No 30 of 2025 sought to adduce new evidence that he had been holding the bags for Chu and would return them to him. The appeal was heard by Sundaresh Menon CJ, Belinda Ang Saw Ean JCA and Hri Kumar Nair JCA.

Issues

1. Whether Tan should be permitted to adduce new evidence to run a bailment defence on appeal
2. Whether Tan had rebutted the presumption that he knew the nature of the diamorphine
3. Whether Tan possessed the diamorphine for the purpose of trafficking
4. Whether Tan proved that his involvement was restricted to that of a courier

Holding

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the criminal motion and the appeal. It upheld Tan's convictions on the capital and non-capital charges, the mandatory death sentence and the aggregate term of 14 years' imprisonment.

Reasoning

The motion was described as utterly unmeritorious. The so-called bailment defence was legally misconceived: ownership is never an element of trafficking, and as Ramesh a/l Perumal v Public Prosecutor [2019] 1 SLR 1003 and Roshdi bin Abdullah Altway v Public Prosecutor [2022] 1 SLR 535 make clear, the defence is narrow. On Tan's own new account he had delivered the drugs to Chu, helped repack them and transported them again, which is still trafficking. The facts could have been given at trial, conflicted with his trial case and statements, and were internally inconsistent, so they failed the Ladd v Marshall conditions as applied in Masri bin Hussein v Public Prosecutor [2025] SGCA 9. Chu's statement of facts was irrelevant.

On knowledge, Tan merely professed ignorance of the contents, which under Gobi a/l Avedian v Public Prosecutor [2021] 1 SLR 180 does not rebut the s 18(2) presumption; he never stated a positive belief about what he carried, and Paul's messages referred to "Sio Zui", slang for heroin.

On purpose, there was no basis for Tan's assumption that Chu was the intended recipient. Paul's message that people had already ordered and that he should not let go, and Paul's repeated calls, showed Tan was holding the drugs for further instructions. Delivery to Chu would in any event be trafficking under s 2 of the MDA.

On the courier issue, Zainudin bin Mohamed v Public Prosecutor [2018] 1 SLR 449 turns on the offender's evidence of why he divided and repacked drugs. Tan gave none. His subdivision into marked bags, with packing materials and a scale, pointed to distribution and sale, so the death sentence was mandatory. The convictions on the charges involving Chu were also affirmed, as Chu had no reason to implicate him falsely.

From the judgment