Dzulkarnain bin Khamis v Public Prosecutor: Drug Trafficking - Misuse of Drugs Act
The Singapore Court of Appeal heard appeals by Dzulkarnain bin Khamis and Sanjay Krishnan against their convictions for drug trafficking under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Dzulkarnain was convicted of delivering cannabis to Sanjay, while Sanjay was convicted of possessing the drugs for trafficking. The court, comprising Sundaresh Menon CJ, Judith Prakash JCA, and Steven Chong JCA, dismissed both appeals, upholding the High Court's original decision and the sentences imposed. The court also dismissed Sanjay's criminal motion to adduce fresh evidence.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeals dismissed; convictions and sentences upheld.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore Court of Appeal upholds conviction of Dzulkarnain and Sanjay for drug trafficking, addressing chain of custody and admissibility of evidence.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Nicholas Wuan Kin Lek of Attorney-General’s Chambers Tay Swee Keng Mark of Attorney-General’s Chambers Keith Jieren Thirumaran of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Sanjay Krishnan | Appellant, Applicant | Individual | Criminal Motion Dismissed | Lost | |
| Dzulkarnain bin Khamis | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Judith Prakash | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Steven Chong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Nicholas Wuan Kin Lek | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tay Swee Keng Mark | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Keith Jieren Thirumaran | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Andre Darius Jumabhoy | Andre Jumabhoy LLC |
| Si Hoe Tat Chorng | Acacia Legal LLC |
| Suang Wijaya | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
| Eugene Singarajah Thuraisingam | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
| Shirin Chew | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
4. Facts
- Dzulkarnain delivered a brown box to Lorong 37, placing it behind a green dustbin.
- Sanjay retrieved a box from behind the green dustbin shortly after Dzulkarnain left.
- Both appellants were arrested and found to be in possession of cannabis.
- Sanjay claimed he believed the box contained hunting knives and contraband cigarettes.
- Dzulkarnain admitted to delivering the box but claimed he did not know its contents initially.
- The Prosecution relied on statutory presumptions to prove knowledge of the drugs.
- Sanjay filed a criminal motion to adduce fresh evidence, which was dismissed.
5. Formal Citations
- Dzulkarnain bin Khamis v Public Prosecutor, , [2023] SGCA 14
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Dzulkarnain collected a brown box from Tuas Bus Stop. | |
| Dzulkarnain drove to Lorong 37 and placed the brown box behind a green dustbin. | |
| Sanjay retrieved a brown box from behind the green bin at Lorong 37. | |
| Sanjay was apprehended by CNB officers near Lorong 36 Geylang. | |
| Dzulkarnain was arrested by CNB officers at an Esso petrol kiosk. | |
| Sanjay's cautioned statement was recorded. | |
| IO Ranjeet delivered the drug exhibits to the HSA for analysis. | |
| Dzulkarnain's first long statement was recorded. | |
| Sanjay's fifth long statement was recorded. | |
| Trial commenced. | |
| Trial concluded. | |
| Saravanan Chandaram decision issued. | |
| Criminal Appeals Nos 30 and 32 of 2020 filed. | |
| Public Prosecutor v Dzulkarnain bin Khamis and another [2021] SGHC 48 issued. | |
| CA/CM 26/2021 dismissed. | |
| Criminal Motion No 23 of 2022 filed. | |
| Court of Appeal hearing. | |
| Grounds of decision delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Chain of Custody
- Outcome: The court held that the applicable principles relating to the chain of custody only apply from the time the CNB officers take the drug exhibits into custody.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Break in chain of custody
- Inconsistencies in evidence regarding handover of exhibits
- Related Cases:
- [2019] 1 SLR 440
- Admissibility of Co-Accused Statements
- Outcome: The court held that the Prosecution did not impermissibly rely on Dzulkarnain’s statements in cross-examining Sanjay during the trial, and the Judge did not impermissibly rely on Dzulkarnain’s statements in coming to her findings against Sanjay.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Use of co-accused statements in cross-examination
- Joint trial implications
- Related Cases:
- [2019] 1 SLR 1003
- Rebuttal of Statutory Presumption
- Outcome: The court held that the Judge did not err in finding that Sanjay failed to rebut the s 18(2) presumption.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Knowledge of drug nature
- Inconsistent statements
- Adducing Fresh Evidence on Appeal
- Outcome: The court dismissed Sanjay's criminal motion to adduce fresh evidence, finding that the evidence was readily available at trial, lacked materiality, and constituted an abuse of process.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Non-availability of evidence
- Materiality of evidence
- Abuse of process
- Related Cases:
- [1954] 1 WLR 1489
- [2018] 1 SLR 544
- [2021] 2 SLR 1169
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against Conviction
- Appeal against Sentence
- Leave to Adduce Fresh Evidence
9. Cause of Actions
- Drug Trafficking
- Possession of Controlled Drugs for the Purpose of Trafficking
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
- Drug Trafficking
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Saravanan Chandaram v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 95 | Singapore | Cited for the decision that led to the Prosecution's application for the second charges against the appellants to be stood down. |
| Public Prosecutor v Dzulkarnain bin Khamis | High Court | Yes | [2021] SGHC 48 | Singapore | Cited as the judgment under appeal, detailing the High Court's decision to convict the appellants. |
| Muhammad Ridzuan bin Md Ali v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 721 | Singapore | Cited for the elements required to prove a charge of possession for the purpose of trafficking under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the MDA. |
| Ladd v Marshall | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1954] 1 WLR 1489 | England and Wales | Cited for the cumulative requirements for the admission of further evidence on appeal. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mohd Ariffan bin Mohd Hassan | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 544 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the 'non-availability' condition for admitting further evidence on appeal should be applied in an attenuated way in criminal matters brought by the Defence. |
| Miya Manik v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 2 SLR 1169 | Singapore | Cited for clarifying that the 'non-availability' condition remains relevant, though attenuated, when the Defence seeks to adduce further evidence. |
| Sanjay Krishnan v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] SGCA 21 | Singapore | Cited to show that Sanjay had previously filed a criminal motion seeking leave to adduce further evidence to aid his appeal, which was dismissed. |
| Mohamed Affandi bin Rosli v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 440 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Prosecution bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the drug exhibits analyzed by the HSA are the very ones that were initially seized by the CNB officers from the accused. |
| PP v Chen Mingjian | High Court | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 946 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Prosecution must show an unbroken chain of custody of drug exhibits. |
| Mui Jia Jun v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 1087 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the absence of a subject’s DNA from an exhibit can be due to a variety of reasons. |
| Ramesh a/l Perumal v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 1003 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a co-accused person’s confession cannot be relied upon against another co-accused person under s 258(5) of the CPC for the purposes of cross-examination, where the two were not facing charges for the identical offence. |
| Teo Wai Cheong v Crédit Industriel et Commercial | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 573 | Singapore | Cited for the purpose of cross-examination is to elicit evidence from the witness, in this case the accused person, and generally, this is done to support the cross-examiner’s case. |
| Chee Siok Chin v Minister for Home Affairs | High Court | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 582 | Singapore | Cited for the rationale behind the court’s power to prevent abuses of its processes arising from its inherent jurisdiction. |
| BLV v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 726 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an application to adduce further evidence may be dismissed on the ground that it amounts to an abuse of process. |
| Chin Seow Noi and others v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 3 SLR(R) 566 | Singapore | Cited for the test for whether a statement amounts to a confession. |
| Anandagoda v R | Unknown | Yes | [1962] MLJ 289 | Malaysia | Cited for the test for whether a statement amounts to a confession. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 5(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 5(2) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 18(2) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 33B(2)(a) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 33B(2)(b) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 33B(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 22 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 258(5) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act 1893 (2020 Rev Ed) s 17(2) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act 1893 (2020 Rev Ed) s 140(2) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Chain of Custody
- Statutory Presumption
- Drug Trafficking
- Fresh Evidence
- Courier
- Certificate of Substantive Assistance
- Possession for Trafficking
- Reasonable Doubt
- Abuse of Process
15.2 Keywords
- drug trafficking
- misuse of drugs act
- criminal appeal
- chain of custody
- statutory presumption
- fresh evidence
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 90 |
| Criminal Law | 75 |
| Criminal Procedure | 75 |
| Evidence Law | 60 |
| Sentencing | 50 |
| Appeal | 50 |
| Admissibility of evidence | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Criminal Procedure
- Evidence
- Appeals