District Court of Singapore

Public Prosecutor v Saravanan S/O Subramaniam
[2023] SGDC 136

Criminal Law and Procedure – Misuse of Drugs Act – Impeachment of witness

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing – Sentencing – Principles

7 July 2023

Senior District Judge Bala Reddy:

1 The accused, Saravanan S/O Subramaniam (the “Accused”) claimed trial to three charges under section 5(1)(a) read with section 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap. 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (the “MDA”), by first having in his possession for the purposes of trafficking, three blocks containing not less than 306.61 grams of Cannabis and then by delivering to one Premanand s/o Singaram two packets of vegetable matter. The first packet contained 3.70grams of fragmented vegetable matter which was found to contain Tetrahydrocannabinol (“THC”) whilst the second packet of vegetable matter weighing 8.21 grams was analysed and found to be a Cannabis Mixture.

The Charges

2 The charges DAC-904675-2021, DAC-902914-2022 and DAC-902915-2022 read as follows:

DAC-904675-2021

“You,

…

are charged that you, on the 27th of August 2020 at about 11.17 p.m., at Block 236 Bukit Panjang Ring Road, #XXX, Singapore 670236, did traffic in a Controlled Drug listed in Class A of the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185, to wit, by having in your possession for the purpose of trafficking, 03 (three) packets of vegetable matter which were analysed and found to be not less than 306.61 grams of Cannabis, without authorization under the said Act or the Regulations made thereunder and you have thereby committed an offence under Section 5(1)(a) read with Section 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185 and punishable under Section 33(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185.”

DAC-902914-2022

“You,

…

are charged that you, on the 27th of August 2020 before 11.17 p.m., at Block 236 Bukit Panjang Ring Road, #XXX, Singapore 670236, did traffic in a Controlled Drug listed in Class A of the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185, to wit, by giving 01 (one) packet containing not less than 3.70 grams of fragmented vegetable matter, which was analysed and found to contain Tetrahydrocannabinol to one Premanand S/O Singaram, bearer of NRIC Number XXX, without authorization under the said Act or the Regulations made thereunder, and you have thereby committed an offence under Section 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185, and therefore liable to be punished under Section 33(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185.”

DAC-902915-2022

“You,

…

are charged that you, on the 27th of August 2020 before 11.17 p.m., at Block 236 Bukit Panjang Ring Road, #XXX, Singapore 670236, did traffic in a Controlled Drug listed in Class A of the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185, to wit, by giving 01 (one) packet containing not less than 8.21 grams of fragmented vegetable matter, which was analysed and found to be Cannabis Mixture to one Premanand S/O Singaram, bearer of NRIC Number XXX, without authorization under the said Act or the Regulations made thereunder, and you have thereby committed an offence under Section 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185, and therefore liable to be punished under Section 33(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185.”

Salient Facts

3 On 27 August 2020, acting on information received, a party of Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) officers raided Block 236 Bukit Panjang Ring Road #XXX, Singapore 670236 (the “Unit”) being the address of the Accused, and arrested the Accused on suspicion of possession for trafficking containing three blocks of vegetable matter which were analysed and found to be not less than 306.61grams of Cannabis (the “Drugs”).

4 One Premanand s/o Singaram (“PW30 Premanand”) was also arrested on 27 August 2020 at the ground floor of Block 236 Bukit Panjang Ring Road. He was caught with two packets of controlled drugs in his possession. The first packet was found to be not less than 3.70 grams of fragmented vegetable matter, which was analysed and found to contain Tetrahydrocannabinol (“THC”) whilst the second packet was analysed and found to be not less than 8.21 grams of fragmented vegetable matter, which was analysed and found to be a Cannabis Mixture.

Prosecution’s Case

5 The main thrust of the Prosecution’s case was that the Accused was trafficking in Cannabis and on 27 August 2020 he had passed the two packets of fragmented vegetable matter which contained THC and Cannabis mixture found on PW30 Premanand to him at the Unit, in exchange for $50.

6 The Prosecution submitted that on the night of 27 August 2020 when CNB officers had entered the Unit to arrest the Accused, he had wrapped the Drugs in a white plastic bag and thrown them out of the window of his bedroom. The Drugs was later retrieved from the ground floor of Block 236 by a CNB officer. The Prosecution submitted that there was no break in the chain of exhibits and that the Drugs retrieved from the ground floor of Block 236 were thrown from the Unit. As such, prior to having been thrown, the Drugs had been in the Accused’s possession. Pursuant to the presumption of trafficking under section 17 MDA, the Accused was presumed to be in possession of the Cannabis for the purposes of trafficking.

7 The Prosecution led evidence from a total of 38 witnesses who testified in court. I set out the evidence of the witnesses briefly as follows:

PW1 – Station Inspector Wong Yiren

8 Wong Yiren (“PW1 Wong”), a Station Inspector of CNB, testified that he arrested PW30 Premanand on 27 August 2020 at Block 236 and two reports (No A/20200828/2011 and No. A/20200828/2016) were made regarding the incident. The earlier report contained an error on the incident time[note: 1], which was corrected in the second report. Both reports were submitted as evidence and marked as P1 without dispute.[note: 2] PW1 Wong was subsequently recalled to address PW30 Premanand's claim that he was drunk when providing his statement to the CNB officers.[note: 3] PW1 Wong stated that, based on his recollection, PW30 Premanand did not appear intoxicated during the statement, and he accurately answered questions. [note: 4] PW1 Wong also confirmed that PW30 Premanand provided all the information in P21 and that he did not omit any relevant details.[note: 5] Finally, PW1 Wong recalled PW30 Premanand requesting an amendment to paragraph 5 of P21, which he made.[note: 6]

PW2 – Assistant Superintendent Tan Teo Hai Peter

9 Peter Tan Teo Hai (“PW2 Tan”) an Assistant Superintendent at CNB, lodged Report No. A/20200828/2013 which was marked as P2. [note: 7] He led a team of CNB officers on 27 Aug 2020 at about 11:57pm to raid an apartment #XXX at Block 236 Bukit Panjang Ring Road, Singapore 670236 (the “Unit”) and arrested the Accused on suspicion of having trafficked in a controlled drug.[note: 8]

10 During the raid, Inspector Daniel Yeo Kheng Wei (“PW5 Yeo”) was stationed on the ground floor of Block 236 with the CNB officers.[note: 9] PW2 Tan testified that around the time of their entry into the Unit, PW5 Yeo saw an unknown item being thrown out of a bedroom window onto a grass patch behind the block.[note: 10] The item was retrieved and brought back to the bedroom[note: 11] where it was inspected by PW2 Tan and others.[note: 12] It was identified as a white plastic bag[note: 13] containing three blocks of vegetable substances believed to be controlled drugs[note: 14] (being the said Drugs as above).

11 During his testimony, PW2 Tan confirmed that the Drugs did not come into contact with any surface in the Accused's bedroom during the investigation.[note: 15] Instead, it was placed on brown paper on the bedroom floor.[note: 16] PW2 Tan also verified that the weighing scale used belonged to CNB[note: 17] and that the Accused was present during the inspection of the Drugs.[note: 18]

12 PW2 Tan testified that Officer Muhammad Izree Bin Ahmad (“PW7 Izree”) recovered items labelled B - C1C in P2 during a search of the bedroom in the presence of the Accused.

Exhibit Marking	Location	Description
BA-A1	Dustbin under the computer table	Some black tape and clear plastic
BP-B1	Third drawer of the wooden cupboard	White coloured plastic bag
BP-B1A	Inside BP-B1	1 digital weighing scale with its box
BP-B1B		1 knife
BP-B1C		1 roll of clear tape
BP-B1D		1 red coloured pack of clear plastic bags and 1 ziplock packet containing numerous ziplock packets.
BP-B1E	Inside BP-B1D	91 empty ziplock packets[note: 19]

13 PW2 Tan testified that the exhibits were inspected, photographed, placed in a sealed polymer bag,[note: 20] and kept in the custody of Station Inspector Chiang Jianwei Kevin (“PW6 Chiang”) until the team returned to CNB headquarters. [note: 21]

14 After completing the search of the unit, PW2 Tan and his team went to level 1 of Block 236, where PW5 Yeo informed him that they had arrested PW30 Premanand. The exhibits were checked, photographed and placed in a polymer bag and sealed, and that these exhibits remained in the custody of PW6 Chiang until the team returned to CNB headquarters. After the search of the Unit had been concluded, PW2 Tan and his team proceeded to level 1 of Block 236 where they met with PW5 Yeo. PW2 Tan testified that PW5 Yeo informed him that they had arrested the aforementioned PW30. A search of a lorry was carried out by PW5 Yeo's team in the presence of the Accused, PW30, and PW2.[note: 22] Following this, Elyas Bin Muhd Mustasar (“PW10 Mustasar”) recorded the Accused's contemporaneous statement in an unmarked CNB van[note: 23], with no other officers present.[note: 24]

PW3 – Officer Haifaa Binte Mohamad Anwar

15 Haifaa Binte Mohamad Anwar (“PW3 Anwar”) a forensics specialist in the CNB's Forensics Response Team (“FORT”), testified that she was present at Block 236 Bukit Panjang Ring Road on August 27, 2020, and took 18 photographs of the grass patch near the block, the entrance to the Accused's bedroom, and various angles of the bedroom. The photographs were marked as P3-1 to P3-14 and were admitted into evidence. She also took three photographs of other exhibits seized at CNB headquarters, which were marked as P3-15 to P3-18. PW3 Anwar confirmed that she had no interaction with the Accused at any point in time.

PW4 – Dr Jerome Goh Hern Yee

16 Dr Jerome Goh Hern Yee (“PW4 Goh”), a Senior Consultant in Psychiatry at Tan Tock Seng Hospital’s Psychiatric Department, prepared the IMH Report for the Accused, which was based on interviews conducted on 10 September 2020, 19 September 2020, and 22 September 2020. The report mistakenly stated the first interview date as 10 August 2020[note: 25], but this was corrected during PW4 Goh’s testimony. [note: 26] The Accused's address in the charges was also corrected from Block 239 Bukit Panjang Ring Road to Block 236 Bukit Panjang Ring Road, [note: 27] and the amended charges were read to the Accused. The IMH Report was not contested and was admitted as evidence.

PW5 – Inspector Yeo Kheng Wei Daniel

17 PW5 Yeo of the Intelligence Division of CNB, testified that he witnessed the discovery of the Drugs on a grass patch behind Block 236 Bukit Panjang Ring Road. He led a team of officers to arrest PW30 Premanand at the same location on 27 August 2020 and was subsequently asked to assist another team with a house raid. He identified the Unit #XXX by locating the dustbin chute for unit 41 and counting upwards to the correct floor. He then observed light emanating from its bedroom window[note: 28] while surveilling it from the ground floor.[note: 29]

18 PW5 Yeo testified that he witnessed a black silhouette at the window of the Unit at the time of the raid, and saw an item fly out and land on a grass patch[note: 30] about 10 meters away,[note: 31] He kept watch on the item until the Accused was escorted down to the grass patch, and then retrieved the item which was a white plastic bag, F1, containing three blocks, F1A1, F1B1, F1C1. [note: 32] He sealed it in a CNB exhibit polymer bag in front of the Accused[note: 33] whilst wearing gloves and ensured that no other person had touched the item.[note: 34] PW5 Yeo then handed the sealed item to PW6 Chiang and continued overseeing the processing of PW30 Premanand with his team. [note: 35]

PW6 – Station Inspector Chiang Jianwei Kevin

19 PW6 Chiang from CNB Enforcement A Division testified that he was responsible for taking custody of the Drugs. He received a polymer bag from PW5 Yeo containing the Drugs[note: 36] which he opened and placed on a brown paper in the Accused's bedroom to take photos and weigh the Exhibit.[note: 37] After processing, the Drugs were repacked into a CNB polymer bag. A search of the Accused's bedroom was conducted, and items marked B1, C1 to C1C were found and handed over to PW6 Chiang. He had custody of all the items until reaching CNB headquarters, where they were placed in his locker and subsequently handed over to Station Inspector Tay Keng Chye (“PW20 Tay”). The Defence did not challenge PW6 Chiang's testimony.

PW7 – Senior Staff Sergeant Muhammad Izree Bin Ahmad

20 On 27 August 2020 Senior Staff Sergeant Muhammad Izree Bin Ahmad (“PW7 Izree”) of the Intelligence Division of CNB, was part of the team from CNB that arrested the Accused. PW7 Izree was informed that something had been thrown from the unit and he and his team went down to the grass patch where the item was thrown, with the Accused. He identified the grass patch as being the same as in P3-3 to P3-5. [note: 38] The team returned to the unit and PW7 Izree searched the Accused’s bedroom,[note: 39] where he testified that he found the exhibits BP-A1, BP-B1, BP-B1A, BP-B1B, BP-B1C, BP-B1D. He marked and photographed the items,[note: 40] then passed them to Sergeant Hidayat Jasni (later “PW12 Jasni”) who sealed them in a polymer bag.[note: 41] After processing the items, PW7 Izree and his colleague searched a lorry in the presence of the Accused and PW30.[note: 42] The Defence did not materially challenge PW7 Izree’s evidence.

PW8 –Staff Sergeant Phang Yee Leong James

21 Staff Sergeant Phang Yee Leong (“PW8 Phang”) of Intelligence Branch, CNB testified that he was part of the party from CNB tasked with arresting the Accused on 27 August 2020. He was instructed by PW2 Tan to search for the Accused in the Unit and arrest him. [note: 43] Prior to the arrest, a report came through the officers’ communicator that something had been thrown out from the bedroom window of the Unit. After the arrest, PW8 Phang and the Accused went down to a grass patch[note: 44] identified as P3-4[note: 45] to retrieve the item. PW8 Phang then brought the Accused to the Unit where CNB officers processed the item. PW8 Phang testified under cross examination that did not recall any instance of the Accused being unconscious during the arrest.

PW9 – Senior Staff Sergeant Muhammad Helmi Bin Abdul Jalal

22 Senior Staff Sergeant Muhammad Helmi Bin Abdul Jalal (“PW9 Helmi”) of CNB Enforcement Division testified that he was present as an arresting officer and field diary recorder at the Unit on 27 August 2020. He was informed over the officers’ communicator that something had been thrown out of the window. After arresting the Accused, he escorted him down to retrieve a white plastic bag containing vegetable matter, being the Drugs, from the location marked F in P3-4 to P3-6.[note: 46] The Drugs were then placed on a brown paper, photographed, labelled, and packed in a tamper-proof polymer bag.[note: 47] After the search of the Accused’s bedroom,[note: 48] PW9 Helmi left and handed the field diary to another officer.[note: 49] He testified that the Accused was cooperative throughout[note: 50] and was never unconscious during the proceedings.[note: 51]

PW10 – Station Inspector Elyas Bin Md Mustasar

23 Station Inspector Elyas Bin Md Mustasar (“PW10 Mustasar”) of CNB’s intelligence division testified that he escorted the Accused and recorded his statement, P6 in the CNB Ops vehicle number SLC62574S in the vicinity of Block 236 Bukit Panjang Ring Road. P6 was admitted into evidence without objection. The statement was made in English and the Accused was not intoxicated at the time.[note: 52] The transcript of the statement P6T and photographs of the exhibits referred to P6-1-3 were also admitted.[note: 53] PW10 Mustasar confirmed that no one else was present when P6 was taken.[note: 54] After recording the statement, they waited for FORT's arrival to photograph the crime scene (Accused's bedroom in the Unit), and then escorted the Accused to CNB headquarters for Instant Urine Testing(“IUT”), where PW10 Mustasar sealed the Accused's urine samples in his presence. The Urine Test Result Slip P5 was also admitted without objection.

PW11 – Station Inspector Arif Azfar Bin Azman

24 Station Inspector Arif Azfar Bin Azman (“PW11 Azman”) of CNB testified that that he assisted in escorting the Accused along with PW10 Mustasar. He conducted a lorry search of PW30's lorry[note: 55] when the Accused was brought down to retrieve the Drugs from F. He then stood outside the CNB van while the Accused provided P6 to PW10 Mustasar,[note: 56] and subsequently escorted the Accused back to the Unit and then to CNB headquarters.[note: 57]At CNB HQ, he assisted the Accused to procure urine for the IUT and had no further involvement in the case or interaction with the Accused. His evidence was unchallenged.

PW12 – Officer Hidayat Bin Jasni

25 Officer Hidayat Bin Jasni (“PW12 Jasni”), an auxiliary narcotics officer, testified that he was involved in the arrest of the Accused on 27 August 2020 and acted primarily as the Accused's escort. He also sealed the Drugs found at the scene.[note: 58] He testified that he brought the Accused to the grass patch on the ground floor of Block 236 after being informed that an exhibit had been thrown from the Unit but had no recollection of the Accused losing consciousness at any point. The Defence did not challenge his testimony.

PW13 –Station Inspector Muhammad Hafidh Bin Ramli

26 Station Inspector Muhammad Hafidh Bin Ramli (“PW13 Ramli”) of CNB testified that that he created the List of Exhibits form on 28 August 2020, at 11:30 am. This form listed a total of 65 exhibits, with exhibits 24-43 being relevant to this case.[note: 59] As the officer in charge of the exhibits, PW13 Ramli ensured that they were properly placed in tamper-proof bags and sealed before being handed over to the exhibit management team.[note: 60] The List of Exhibits was admitted into evidence without challenge and marked as P57.

PW14 – Senior Staff Sergeant Chang Tat Yien

27 Senior Staff Sergeant Chang Tat Yein (“PW14 Chang”) of the Exhibit Management Team (“EMT”) at CNB testified that he was responsible for submitting the exhibits in this case to the DNA laboratory at Health Sciences Authority (HSA). He testified that he collected the exhibits from a locked cupboard in the EMT office, which were already placed in tamper-proof bags. PW14 Chang also confirmed that the sealed bags were never tampered with during the transportation process.[note: 61] His testimony was not challenged by the Defence.

PW15 – Senior Staff Sergeant Muhammad Norjansher Bin Shah Misnan

28 Senior Staff Sergeant Muhammad Norjansher Bin Shah Misnan (“PW15 Misnan”) testified that on 28 August 2020 at 4:09 pm, he submitted exhibits to the HSA illicit drugs laboratory.[note: 62] These exhibits were the subjects of the certificates produced by HSA, which were marked P13 – P19 and admitted into evidence. PW15 Misnan testified that prior to submitting the exhibits to HSA, he collected them from a locked metal cabinet.[note: 63] He recalled that all the exhibits were packaged in individually sealed polymer bags which were placed inside one large Ziploc bag and that at no time did any bags appear to have been tampered with.[note: 64] The Defence did not challenge his evidence.

PW16 – Shafiqah Binte Shafiee

29 Shafiqah Binte Shafiee (“PW16 Shafiee”) is a drug forensic specialist of FORT at CNB. In her testimony, she stated that she processed the exhibits P3-15 to P-3-17 on 28 August 2020 at CNB headquarters.[note: 65] She received the exhibits in sealed, tamper-proof bags and proceeded to cut the bags before laying out the exhibits on fresh brown paper. PW16 Shafiee's colleague, Toh Sin Ee Mikale (later "PW17"), then swabbed each exhibit individually and placed each swab in a swab box. Each swab box was then packed into a DNA paper bag for items requiring DNA analysis or a tamper-proof bag if it required other analysis.[note: 66] PW16 Shafiee confirmed that this process was repeated for all exhibits, not just for P3-15 to P3-17. She also testified that the same procedure was followed for P3-18, where the exhibits were first laid on brown paper for photography before being packed into individual tamper-proof bags.[note: 67] Furthermore, PW16 Shafiee affirmed that she did not have any contact with the arrested individuals.[note: 68]

PW17 – Toh Sin Ee Mikale

30 Toh Sin Ee Mikale (“PW17 Toh”) is a forensic drug specialist at CNB. PW17 Toh testified that stated that she, along with PW16 Shafiee, processed exhibits P3-15 to P3-18. She confirmed that the exhibits were received in tamper-proof, sealed bags, [note: 69] which were cut open in front of the Accused. [note: 70] She then laid out the exhibits on brown paper for photography by PW3, [note: 71] after which she swabbed them for DNA analysis as directed by the investigating officer. The swab sticks were placed in marked swab boxes and given to PW16 Shafiee, who packed them into DNA bags.[note: 72] This testimony was consistent with PW16 Shafiee's testimony, and the Defence did not challenge it.

PW18 – Ng Xue Qin

31 Ng Xue Qin (“PW18 Ng”) who is an analyst at the Analytical Toxicology Laboratory in HSA, gave evidence that she was responsible for testing the urine sample of the Accused, identified as C-SA-20-00962-1, which was submitted to the laboratory by CNB on 28 August 2020 at 10:15am. She further stated that she issued the certificate under section 16 of the MDA dated 2 September 2020, which indicated that the Accused's urine tested negative for any amount of Cannabis.[note: 73] The certificate was admitted and marked P7.

PW19 – Maggie Tiong Su Su

32 Maggie Tiong Su Su (“PW19 Tiong”) is an analyst in the Analytical Toxicology Lab of HSA and she testified that she was assigned to test the urine sample of the Accused, marked C-SA-20-00962-2 which was submitted to the laboratory on 28 August 2020 at 10:15am.[note: 74] She testified that she issued the certificate under section 16 of the MDA dated 2 September 2020 that stated that the Accused’s urine was negative for any amount of 11-Nor-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol-9-carboxylic acid.[note: 75] This certificate was admitted into evidence and marked P8.

PW20 – Assistant Superintendent Tan Ye Wei

33 Assistant Superintendent of CNB Tan Ye Wei (“PW20 Tan”) gave evidence that she helped to collect a DNA sample from the Accused. She explained that on 31 August 2020 at 2:13 pm, she obtained the Accused's consent as required under section 13D of the Registration of Criminal (Amendment) Act 2002.[note: 76] The consent form, dated 31 August 2020, was marked and admitted as Exhibit P9.

PW21 – Woong Si Xuan (Joy)

34 Woong Si Xuan (“PW21 Woong”) is a crime scene specialist from FORT. She gave evidence regarding her involvement in the collection of a body sample from the Accused as part of her duties with FORT.[note: 77] PW21 Woong testified that she disinfected the Accused's finger and used a lancet to procure a blood sample, which she placed on a sample card. She then packed and sealed the packet and obtained the Accused's signature on it.[note: 78] The sealed sample kit was placed in a locked metal tin.[note: 79] PW21 Woong further confirmed that she subsequently completed the Suspect/Witness Body Sample Collection Form for the Accused, which was dated 31 August 2020 at 2:17 pm. This form, marked as P10, was admitted in evidence.

PW22 – Ng Jia Hao

35 Ng Jia Hao (“PW22 Ng”), a forensic scientist from the DNA Database Laboratory of HSA testified that he was assigned to test the blood sample of the Accused which was submitted to the laboratory on 1 September 2020 at 10:50am. He testified that he made the certificate under section 263 of the Criminal Procedure Code (2010 Rev Ed, Cap. 68) (“CPC”) dated 9 September 2020. The certificate was admitted into evidence and marked P8 without objection from the Defence.[note: 80] PW22 Ng recalled that the blood sample tin was locked when it was received for testing and that he unlocked the same to access sample S161048 for testing.[note: 81]

PW23 – Station Inspector Asilah Binte Rahman

36 Station Inspector Asilah Binte Rahman (“PW23 Asilah”) of the Investigative Division of CNB testified that in respect of the instant case, she was tasked with assisting Investigative Officer Samir Bin Haroon (later “PW32 Samir”). On 27 August 2020, PW23 Asilah accompanied PW32 Samir to Block 236 Bukit Panjang Ring Road and helped take photos of the Unit before conducting a final search of the bedroom, kitchen, living room and other rooms.[note: 82]

37 Following the search, PW23 Asilah and Station Inspector Tay Keng Chye Sunny (“PW24 Tay”) returned to CNB headquarters to process and label the exhibits for handover to PW32 Samir.[note: 83] During the processing, PW23 Asilah's role was to assist with labelling the respective exhibits, while the Accused person remained in the room, seated behind a glass panel to observe the proceedings without causing contamination.[note: 84]

38 PW23 Asilah testified that around 1:32pm on 28 August 2020, she served the charge on the Accused person and recorded his statement under section 23 of the CPC in interview room 7 at Police Cantonment Complex. [note: 85] Accused elected to speak in English. The Accused person acknowledged and countersigned the warning under section 23 of the CPC administered by PW23 Asilah. During the recording of the statement, PW23 Asilah made an amendment to the charge and the Accused's statement, which she explained to the Accused and were subsequently countersigned by him.[note: 86] The section 23 statement was admitted into evidence as P26.[note: 87]

39 PW23 Asilah was also the officer in charge of recording four statements by the Accused under section 22 of the CPC. PW23 Asilah testified that the procedure for recording all four statements was the same, and that she posed questions to the Accused and transposed the answers into narrative form.[note: 88] There was no challenge to the voluntariness,[note: 89] or the accuracy[note: 90] of the statements recorded by PW23 Asilah and all four statements were admitted into evidence.

40 The first statement was recorded on 1 September 2020 at 10:35am and took place in lock-up interview room 4 located in Police Cantonment Complex. The Accused elected to give his statement in English and the warning under section 22(2) of the CPC was duly administered. There were handwritten amendments throughout the statement which PW23 Asilah clarified were amendments proposed by the Accused while reviewing his statement. These were acknowledged by the Accused who signed next to them and also signed the bottom of every page.[note: 91] The statement concluded at 12:18pm on the same day and was admitted into evidence without objection as P27.

41 The second statement was recorded on 1 September 2020 at 3:30pm and took place in lock-up interview room 13 located in Police Cantonment Complex. The Accused elected to give his statement in English and the warning under section 22(2) of the CPC was duly administered. There were handwritten amendments throughout the statement which PW23 Asilah clarified were amendments proposed by the Accused while reviewing his statement. These were acknowledged by the Accused who signed next to them and also signed the bottom of every page.[note: 92] PW23 Asilah also testified that the five photographs referred to in the statement were shown to the Accused and that he signed the photographs.[note: 93] The statement concluded at 4:55pm on the same day and was admitted into evidence without objection as P28.

42 The third statement was recorded on 2 September 2020 at 11:37am and took place in lock-up interview room 11 located in Police Cantonment Complex. The Accused elected to give his statement in English and the warning under section 22(2) of the CPC was duly administered. There were handwritten amendments throughout the statement which PW23 Asilah clarified were amendments proposed by the Accused while reviewing his statement. These were acknowledged by the Accused who signed next to them and also signed the bottom of every page.[note: 94] PW23 Asilah also testified that photographs referred to in the statement were shown to the Accused and that he signed the photographs.[note: 95] PW23 Asilah also confirmed that the audio clips shown in photograph 11 appended to this statement were not played during the recording of this statement and that she had never heard these clips.[note: 96] The recording of this statement concluded at 12:36pm on 2 September 2020 and it was admitted into evidence without objection as P29.

43 The fourth statement was recorded on 3 September 2020 at 2:38pm and took place in lock-up interview room 13 located in Police Cantonment Complex. The Accused elected to give his statement in English and the warning under section 22(2) of the CPC was duly administered. There were handwritten amendments throughout the statement which PW23 Asilah clarified were amendments proposed by the Accused while reviewing his statement. These were acknowledged by the Accused who signed next to them.[note: 97] PW23 Asilah also testified that the photographs referred to in the statement were shown to the Accused and that he initialled against the photographs.[note: 98] PW23 Asilah also confirmed that the audio clips shown in photographs 14 - 18 appended to this statement were not played during the recording of this statement and that she had never heard these clips.[note: 99] The statement concluded at 4:01pm on the same day and was admitted into evidence without objection as P30.

PW24 – Tay Keng Chye Sunny

44 Station Inspector Tay Keng Chye Sunny (“PW24 Tay”) of CNB testified that in August 2020 he was posted to Special Task Force in CNB. He stated that he took custody of exhibits P3-15 to P3-18 from PW6 Chiang on 28 August 2020.[note: 100] His role was to tally the exhibits with P2 and hand the exhibits to PW32 Samir who processed them with FORT team officers.[note: 101]

PW25 – Mohammed Rafi Anwar Badcha

45 Sergeant Mohammed Rafi s/o Anwar Badcha (“PW25 Badcha”) of the Exhibit Management Team at CNB testified that his role in the chain of custody of exhibits was to despatch the exhibits to their various laboratories and/or CNB storage.[note: 102] PW 25 Badcha testified that he received P57 and all attendant physical exhibits from PW13 Hafidh. He recalled that all the exhibits he received were packed and sealed in polymer or paper bags.[note: 103] PW25 Bacha testified that upon receipt of the exhibits, he tallied the information with the actual exhibits, then checked the report and investigation paper numbers, markings, and descriptions to ensure these matched each exhibit.[note: 104] Once this was done, he stored the exhibits in a locked metal cabinet until they were despatched to their respective laboratories for analysis.[note: 105]

PW26 – Tan Shi Ying Angeline

46 Tan Shi Ying Angeline (“PW26 Angeline”) is an analyst with the Illicit Drugs Laboratory at HSA. She testified that she was assigned to test a weighing scale which was submitted to the laboratory on 28 August 2020 at 4:09pm. She testified that in this connection, she made certificate number ID-2032-01475-002 under section 16 of the MDA dated 3 December 2020.[note: 106] The certificate was admitted into evidence and marked P12.[note: 107]

47 PW26 Angeline testified that she was assigned to test a knife which was submitted to the laboratory on 28 August 2020 at 4:09pm. She testified that in this connection, she issued certificate number ID-2032-01475-003 under section 16 of the MDA dated 3 December 2020.[note: 108] The knife was found to be stained with cannabinol and THC. She testified that this was possible if the knife had been used to cut a block of Cannabis or Cannabis mixture.[note: 109] The certificate was admitted into evidence and marked P13 without objection from the Defence.[note: 110]

48 PW26 Angeline also testified that she issued the following certificates dated 3 December 2020 in relation to exhibits marked F1A1, F1B1 and F1C1. These were certificates numbered ID-2032-01475-009, ID-2032-01475-010 and ID-2032-01475-011 respectively. All three certificates were admitted into evidence and marked P14, P15 and P16 respectively.[note: 111] PW29 Angeline also testified that all exhibits were submitted to HSA in sealed, tamper-proof bags prior to being tested.[note: 112]

PW27 – Kwang Jia Yi

49 Kwang Jia Yi (“PW27 Kwang”) is an analyst with the Illicit Drugs Laboratory at HSA and that in respect of the instant case, she tested exhibits submitted by PW15 Misnan.[note: 113] She testified that she issued certificate number ID-2032-01487-001 under section 16 of the MDA dated 28 September 2020. She testified that exhibit A1-1 was found to contain not less than 3.70grams of fragmented vegetable matter which contained cannabinol and THC. The certificate was admitted into evidence and marked P17 without objection.[note: 114]

50 PW27 Kwang also testified that she issued certificate number ID-2032-01487-002 under section 16 of the MDA dated 28 September 2020. Exhibit A2-1 was found to contain not less than 8.21grams of vegetable matter which were found to be a mixture of 3.01grams of Cannabis and not less than 5.20 grams of vegetable matter containing Cannabinol and THC. The certificate was admitted into evidence and marked P17 without objection. [note: 115] She confirmed that the exhibits were received with their seals intact and the exhibits tallied with the IO’s description of them[note: 116] prior to running chemical tests to determine the composition of the exhibits.[note: 117] Once these were done, PW27 Kwang generated the certificates in question.[note: 118]

PW28 – Annabel Yvette Teo

51 Annabel Yvette Teo (“PW28 Teo”) is a forensic scientist in the Forensics, Chemistry and Physics Laboratory at HSA. She testified that she issued certificate number FC-2041-00186-A under section 263 of the CPC dated 20 October 2020 pertaining to exhibits BP-B1E, A1 and A2.[note: 119] The report found that the bags BP-B1E-48 and the two bags marked A1 and A2 were consecutively manufactured.[note: 120] She testified that the manufacturing characteristics at the edge of the bags was continuous and not disjointed, showing that they were consecutively manufactured.[note: 121] She also clarified that it was “practically impossible” that another bag from elsewhere would appear to also have been consecutively manufactured with the bags in question.[note: 122] The certificate was admitted into evidence and marked P19 and the witnesses’ explanatory slides utilised during her testimony was admitted into evidence and marked P20 without objection.[note: 123]

PW29 – Dr Lin Hanjie

52 In August 2020 Doctor Lin Hanjie (“PW29 Lin”) was employed at Healthway Medical where he assessed persons in custody to determine whether they were fit for detention.[note: 124] He testified that he created two reports dated 20 June 2021 in respect of the Accused. The medical report pertaining to the examination of the Accused at 11:15 was for the pre-statement examination of the Accused and the report pertaining to the examination of the Accused at 5:15pm was the post-statement examination report of the Accused.

53 In this regard, he noted that there was a typographical error in respect of the date on both reports – the date of the report was 28 August 2020 and not 28 August 2021 as stated.[note: 125] PW29 Lin clarified that while preparing the post-statement report, he had questioned the Accused regarding any potential threats, inducements, promises or use of force during the statement-taking process. He testified that the Accused had stated that he had no complaints about the statement taking process.[note: 126] The pre-statement examination report at 11:15am and the post-statement examination report at 5:15pm were admitted without objection and marked P24 and P25 respectively.[note: 127]

PW30 – Premanand s/o Singaram

54 PW30 Premanand testified that he was arrested by CNB officers on 27 August 2020 when he went to Block 236 Bukit Panjang Ring Road to purchase two packets of Cannabis for his own use.[note: 128] This resulted in his arrest by CNB officers.[note: 129] His evidence can be summarised as follows. He met the Accused at a funeral in the afternoon on the same day[note: 130] and offered him a ride home. The Accused asked him to drive him to an industrial park in Serangoon for a meeting before going home.[note: 131] They arrived at the industrial park around 6pm[note: 132] and then went to a shop at Bukit Panjang to drink beer for about 30 to 45 minutes.[note: 133] After that, they drove to Block 236 Bukit Panjang Ring Road, where he left the Accused.

55 PW30 Premanand then drove his boss home and bought more beer.[note: 134] He said that he went to Block 236 Bukit Panjang Ring Road around 10pm to buy drugs from Rajah, who lived there.[note: 135] He took the lift to the 10th floor and walked up to the 11th floor,[note: 136] where he met Rajah on the corridor[note: 137] and bought two packets of drugs for $100.[note: 138] He then went back to the 10th floor to the Unit where he and the Accused drank the beer.[note: 139] He said that they drank outside the Unit at first, but the Accused’s mother invited them in. PW30 Premanand stayed near the entrance of the Unit and did not go beyond the hall,[note: 140] where he and the Accused finished the beer as they talked.[note: 141] He then left the Unit and went downstairs to go home, where he was arrested by CNB.[note: 142]

56 PW30 Premanand denied buying the drugs from the Accused in his oral testimony, which clearly contradicted his statements to CNB. He could remember other details such as taking the lift to the 10th floor and walking up to the 11th floor to buy two bags of drugs for $100 from Rajah on the corridor, but he could not explain why he told the CNB officers that the Accused was the seller.[note: 143] He also became very evasive about how he arranged to get the drugs from Rajah, how he knew him or what he looked like. He also claimed that he had since lost Rajah’s phone number.[note: 144]

57 The Prosecution challenged PW30’s hostile testimony in court and applied under section 156 of the Evidence Act 1893 (“EA”) [note: 145] for leave to cross examine him, which I allowed for the purposes of impeachment under section 157 EA. The Prosecution applied to use two of PW30 Premanand’s written statements under s 147(1) to cross examine PW30 Premanand and subsequently have the same admitted as evidence under section 147(3) EA. The two written statements are:

(a) Statement of PW30 Premanand recorded by PW32 Samir on 6 October 2020 at 2:35pm at interview room 2, institution B4 of Changi Prison Complex (“P22”); and

(b) Statement of PW30 Premanand recorded by PW32 Samir on 26 October 2020 at 2:07pm at interview room 2, institution B5 of Changi Prison Complex (“P23”).

58 The court allowed the cross examination of PW30 Premanand on his statements and subsequently admitted P22 and P23. P22 inter alia, incriminated the Accused as the person who sold PW30 Premanand the two packets of drugs found on him on 27 August 2020 for the price of $50.[note: 146] P22 further implicated the Accused by stating that this was the second time he had purchased “ganja” (Cannabis) from the Accused, the first time being one week prior.[note: 147] P23 similarly incriminated the Accused as the person who sold PW30 Premanand the drugs.[note: 148]

59 The Prosecution also applied to cross-examine PW30 Premanand on his statement given on 28 August 2020 at 4:15am at the CNB Enforcement Office. This statement was also unchallenged and admitted into evidence as P21. During cross-examination by the Prosecution, when asked why his version of events in P21 contradicted that in P22 and P23, PW30 Premanand alleged that he was drunk at the time he provided P21.[note: 149] He then claimed that he was tipsy at the time that P21 was recorded.[note: 150] He also stated that he could not recall why he stated he took the lift from the 12th floor in P21,[note: 151] when in his oral testimony earlier in the day he had clearly stated he met Rajah at the 11th floor.[note: 152]

60 Later PW30 Premanand prevaricated his oral evidence and testified that he had been told by PW32 Samir to change Rajah’s name to the Accused’s name in P22 and he did so because he felt threatened.[note: 153] He testified that he also did not know the Accused as “Saraboy” whom he had so referred to in P22, and alleged that PW32 Samir provided him with this nickname.[note: 154] He testified that PW32 Samir first threatened, then promised him that he would not be charged with the drug offences if he implicated the Accused in his statement,[note: 155] which was why P21 was inconsistent with P22 and P23.

61 In his cross-examination by the Defence, PW30 Premanand maintained that he was told by PW32 Samir to state that the Accused sold him the drugs, which is why he stated it in P22.[note: 156] In short, PW30 Premanand’s attempts to explain the damning evidence of purchase of Cannabis from the Accused were peppered with flippant lies and obvious fabrications.

PW 31 – Senior Staff Sergeant Ace Ignatius Siao

62 Senior Staff Sergeant Ace Ignatius Siao (“PW31 Siao”) of Woodlands Checkpoint testified that he was part of the arresting party that arrested PW30 Premanand in August 2020.[note: 157] Two packets of vegetable matter were found on PW30 Premanand,[note: 158] and a search was conducted on PW30's lorry, but no other items were found.[note: 159] The lorry was then subjected to a bag scatter search in the presence of PW30 Premanand before he was brought to Police Cantonment Complex for the Instant Urine Test. PW31 Siao had no further involvement in the case after that. [note: 160]

PW32 – Inspector Samir Bin Haroon

63 Inspector Samir Bin Haroon (“PW32 Samir”), was a senior investigation officer with CNB in August 2020. He testified that he was the assigned to investigate the incident on 27 August 2020 at Block 236 Bukit Panjang Ring Road. As the lead investigator in charge of this case, he provided comprehensive testimony on a number of issues in respect of both the Accused and PW30. The salient points of his testimony are set below.

64 On 27 August 2020 PW32 Samir testified that he attended the Unit at Block 236 Bukit Panjang Ring Road where was briefed by officers from CNB’s intelligence division that two subjects had been arrested and that some items had been thrown out of a 10th floor unit. He testified that he was escorted to a grass patch behind Block 236 where PW7 Izree and PW5 Yeo showed him the place where the exhibits were found. PW32 testified that he was accompanied to the location by FORT and as such, he directed them to mark and photograph the location where the exhibits were recovered.[note: 161] He recalled that the Accused was also brought to witness the procedure at the ground floor.[note: 162]

65 He testified that he then went to the Unit and was briefed by officers that certain items had been thrown onto the aforementioned grass patch from one of the bedrooms in the Unit. PW32 Samir was escorted to the bedroom belonging to the Accused in the Unit.[note: 163] He then was shown the exhibits recovered here, after which FORT officers photographed these exhibits.[note: 164] He recalled that PW23 Asilah then conducted a further search of the bedroom, and nothing further was recovered.[note: 165]

66 He then proceeded to CNB headquarters where he oversaw the processing of the exhibits seized from the location. PW32 Samir testified that during the processing of the exhibits, the Accused was present behind a glass window where he could observe the proceedings. PW32 Samir received the exhibits from PW24 Tay and checked these against a list. He then handed each item over to the forensics team who cut the exhibits open and arranged them on a brown paper to photograph. PW32 Samir also noted that there were some exhibits which he directed should be swabbed for the presence of DNA. Once the photography and swabbing had been completed, the exhibits were packed, sealed and handed back to PW32 Samir. [note: 166] He also noted that he was gloved throughout the entire process.[note: 167]

67 Once the exhibits had been processed, PW32 Samir instructed that the Accused be photographed by FORT. The exhibits were also weighed by PW23 Asilah and the weight of each drug item was read out in the presence of the Accused who counter-signed that he had seen the weight reflected on the weighing scale.[note: 168] Once the exhibits were processed, PW32 Samir then prepared the List of Exhibits form[note: 169] containing the list of all the exhibits and instructions on where they were to be sent to along with PW13 Ramli. PW32 Samir handed these over to PW13 Ramli who despatched the exhibits to either the CNB drug storage facility and HSA’s various laboratories for testing.[note: 170] He then instructed PW20 Tan to obtain the blood sample from the Accused for the purposes of DNA identification.[note: 171]

P26 – P30 recorded by PW23 Asilah

68 PW32 Samir testified that the section 23 statement, P26 was then recorded from the Accused by PW23 Asilah. He clarified that he prepared the charges in P26 which erroneously stated that the address of the Accused in this was Block 239 Bukit Panjang Ring Road, when the correct location should be Block 236 Bukit Panjang Ring Road.[note: 172] He also recalled that he asked PW23 Asilah to also record the Accused’s the section 22 statements, P27 – P30, and that the same error in respect of the block number was repeated in P29.[note: 173]

69 PW32 Samir testified that he also took the photographs labelled 11 to 13 appended to P29 on 1 September 2020. These photographs were provided to PW23 Asilah when she took the Accused’s statement. However, he clarified that the voice messages themselves[note: 174] were not provided to PW23 Asilah at the time she recorded her statement.

70 PW32 Samir testified that in respect of P30, the photographs of the screenshots shown in photographs 14 – 18 were taken on 2 September 2020 and likewise, the audio clips were not provided to PW23 Asilah.[note: 175] PW32 Samir testified that aside from facts relating to the exhibits, relevant photographs and charges, no further guidance was given to PW23 Asilah in respect of taking the statements, as she was an experienced investigative officer.[note: 176] He also testified that he ensured the Accused’s handphone, SSHP-1 which was seized, was kept on airplane mode at all times, with data and Wi-Fi turned off to ensure no messages were remotely deleted.[note: 177]

71 PW32 testified that the exhibits marked A1, A1-1 and A2 and A2-1[note: 178] were seized from PW30.[note: 179] A1 and A2 were the original plastic bags in which the drugs were found, and their contents were moved into separate bags provided by CNB.[note: 180] This was done, as PW32 noticed that the Ziploc bags marked BP-B1E and A1 and A2 looked similar. As such, he submitted the empty Ziploc bags to HSA for testing, to compare whether any similarities could be detected between the bags.[note: 181] He also testified that he sent the weighing scale, box[note: 182] and knife[note: 183] to HSA as he wanted to ascertain the presence of drugs on the same.[note: 184] PW32 Samir testified that once the exhibits were analysed by HSA, the exhibits were collected by the EMT who deposited these in the CNB drug storage facility.[note: 185]

The CCTV Footage

72 CCTV footage was then played. PW32 testified that there were two cameras in the lift, from which footage had been retrieved.[note: 186] PW32 testified that the Accused entered the lift at the ground floor of Block 236 Bukit Panjang at 9:49pm.[note: 187] At the fifth floor, an unknown second person exited the lift. At this juncture, the Accused was seen to remove a black block or bundle from a white plastic bag. PW32 Samir testified that it appeared as though the Accused was attempting to conceal the black bundle under his t-shirt in his trousers.[note: 188] The Accused then exited the lift on the 10th floor. PW32 Samir then testified that PW30 Premanand entered the lift at 9:59pm and got off at the 10th floor.[note: 189] He also testified that in recording statements from the Accused and PW30 Premanand, he did not show them P37-1 and P37-2 as he could not bring a CD-ROM into the prison. Instead, he showed the Accused and PW30 Premanand screenshots of the footage in question, and these were appended to the section 22 statements referred to below.[note: 190]

The section 22 CPC statements from the Accused

73 PW32 Samir recorded two statements from the Accused under section 22 of the CPC. The first statement was recorded on 9 March 2021 at 8:50am and took place in lock-up interview room 6 of Changi Prison Complex. The Accused elected to give his statement in English and the warning under section 22(2) was duly administered. PW32 Samir testified that he posed questions to the Accused and recorded his answers in the narrative form.[note: 191] He also testified that the 15 photographs appended to the statement and the four photographs in the body of the statement were shown to the Accused and that he signed these photographs as acknowledgement of the same.[note: 192] The statement concluded at 10:20am on the same day and was admitted into evidence as P33. No issues as to the voluntariness or accuracy of the statement were raised.[note: 193]

74 The second statement was recorded on 2 September 2021 at 10:04am and took place in lock-up interview room 3 of Changi Prison Complex. The Accused elected to give his statement in English and the warning under section 22(2) was duly administered. PW32 Samir testified that he posed questions to the Accused and recorded his answers in the narrative form.[note: 194] He also testified that he changed the numbering for two of the five photographs appended to the statement.[note: 195] He testified that the photographs in both the body of the statement and those appended to the statement were shown to the Accused and that he signed the photographs.[note: 196] The statement was admitted into evidence as P34 and no issues as to the voluntariness or accuracy of the statement were raised.[note: 197]

75 At paragraph 76 of P34, the Accused stated that the communications between him and one “VK Rajes” were in respect of delivery of parcels from Shopee. PW32 testified that he was unable to confirm whether the Accused was indeed a deliveryman for Shopee.[note: 198] In respect of P1 of P34, PW32 Samir recalled that the number registered in the screenshot was submitted for tracing soon after the Accused’s arrest. However, he testified that CNB officers were unable to trace the number of the person saved in the Accused’s handphone as “Yati”.[note: 199] Similarly for P2 and P3 of P34, PW32 Samir testified that CNB officers were unable to establish the identity of one VK Rajes[note: 200] or Kishan.[note: 201]

76 In the subsequent tranche of hearings, PW32 Samir informed that CNB officers resubmitted the numbers of “Yati”, “V K Rajes” and “Kishan” for screening. PW32 Samir testified he checked had requested an M1 screening for the period of 1 July 2020 to 30 September 2020 in respect of the number XXX which was the number of one “Yati” as per WhatsApp[note: 202]. This number was found to be registered to one Noriyati Binte Hussein in August 2020.[note: 203] The screening result was marked P60 and admitted into evidence without objection.

77 PW32 Samir then testified that likewise, the numbers of “VK Rajes” and “Kishan” had been screened for the period of 1 July 2020 to 30 September 2020.[note: 204] PW32 Samir testified that the subscriber associated with the name VK Rajes was found to be deceased.[note: 205] The number XXX was found to be registered to one Mohammad Rafi Bin Mohammad Iqbal who used it as a prepaid number from 14 May 2020 to 1 March 2021. The result of this screening was marked P61 and admitted into evidence without objection.

78 PW32 Samir then was shown the updated translated documents comprising the voice notes which were sent between the Accused and noted that his interpretation of the events remained as before[note: 206], that the Accused appeared to have been trafficking drugs in his references to “grams”, “bricks” and “books”.[note: 207] He also confirmed in respect of s/n 14 of P55-T2, which was an audio message which was found in the Accused’s phone SS-HP1, that although it had not been visible as a screenshot[note: 208] it had been retrieved from SS-HP1 after a forensic examination off the Accused’s phone.[note: 209]

79 PW32 Samir then testified in respect of the translation of the voice note between Yati and the Accused[note: 210] that from context and his understanding as a CNB officer, the term “abok-abok” referred to loose Cannabis which was broken off during the cutting of a brick of Cannabis.[note: 211] He clarified that the word was from Malay, his native language, and was usually used to refer to dust or small/light things. As such, he was certain that from context, here it referred to loose Cannabis.[note: 212] He also testified that he was certain that the Accused and Yati were referring to the price and weight of the Cannabis elsewhere in the voice note in their references to “3k” and “200g” and he noted that $3000 is the price of Cannabis at 250grams. [note: 213]

The section 23 statements by the Accused

80 PW32 Samir testified that he also served two charges on the Accused and recorded his statements under section 23 of the CPC on 30 March 2022. A document entitled The Second Charge was served at 9:14am and the section 23 statement was recorded in an interview room in Changi Prison Complex. The Accused elected to give his statement in the English language and the warning under section 23 of the CPC was duly administered and acknowledged by the Accused and countersigned by PW32 Samir.[note: 214] The Accused provided his statement, and this was signed by both him and PW32 Samir. In this regard, PW32 clarified that “Anand” referred to in the Accused’s statement was PW30.[note: 215] The Second Charge and statement were admitted into evidence without objection as P35.

81 A document entitled The Third Charge was served at 9:20am and the section 23 statement was recorded from the Accused. Similarly, the Accused elected to give his statement in the English language and the warning under section 23 of the CPC was duly administered and duly administered and acknowledged by the Accused and countersigned by PW32 Samir.[note: 216] PW32 also testified that he amended the dates on the Second Charge and the Third Charge.[note: 217] He also clarified that the typographical error in respect of the block numbers in both charges.[note: 218] The Third Charge and statement were admitted into evidence without objection as P36.

The section 22 CPC Statements by PW30 Premanand

82 PW32 Samir testified that he did not recall PW30 Premanand informing him that he felt unwell or drunk during the recording of P21.[note: 219] PW32 Samir then provided his testimony in relation to P22 and P23, being the statements by PW30 Premanand under section 22 of the CPC. In respect of P22, PW32 Samir clarified that he erroneously wrote that PW30 Premanand was being interviewed as an Accused person, and subsequently amended this to “witness”. He testified that this amendment was made clear to PW30 Premanand.[note: 220] He clarified that he did not inform PW30 Premanand about the proceedings in respect of the Accused, neither did he ask PW30 Premanand questions which he did not record in P22.[note: 221] PW32 Samir also provided his testimony in response to the following allegations by PW30 Premanand in his evidence-in-chief:

(a) PW32 Samir did not tell PW30 Premanand to state it was the Accused, not Rajah who had sold him the drugs in P22;[note: 222]

(b) PW32 Samir did not tell PW30 Premanand that he could not confirm whether PW 30 Premanand would be charged for his offence;[note: 223]

(c) PW32 Samir did not imply to PW30 Premanand or promise in any way that PW30 Premanand would not be charged in the instant case if he implicated the Accused via his statement.[note: 224]

83 PW32 Samir also testified that “Saraboy” referred to in P22 was a nickname used by PW30 Premanand to refer to the Accused, although PW30 Premanand had stated that he merely knew the Accused by the name “Sara”[note: 225] in his oral testimony. PW32 Samir also testified that it was PW30 Premanand who first provided the description of the “white plastic bag” in P22.[note: 226]

84 In respect of P23, PW32 Samir noted that the same mistake whereby he wrote “accused” instead of “witness” was made in the recorders note.[note: 227] He also recalled that in this instance, it was PW30 Premanand who amended the word “accused” to “witness”, and the amended words in P23 appeared in PW30 Premanand’s handwriting.[note: 228] PW32 Samir also testified that he did not show PW30 Premanand the footage referred to at paragraph 22 of P23 and further clarified that he did not recall whether he informed PW30 Premanand that the Accused was facing a capital charge as alleged by PW30 Premanand.[note: 229]

85 PW32 Samir was then questioned on the other matters pertaining to PW30 Premanand’s testimony. In this regard, PW32 Samir maintained that he did not inform PW30 Premanand that he would not be charged if he “obeyed what the officers ask[sic] him to do.”[note: 230] PW32 Samir also testified that he did not state to PW30 Premanand that his name had already been provided to the authorities by other accused persons, as a tactic to elicit a confession from him.[note: 231] PW32 Samir also denied PW30 Premanand’s allegation that the contents of P23 came from him, and that PW30 Premanand merely assented to the same.[note: 232]

Cross-examination of PW32 Samir

86 The Defence asked PW32 Samir to comment on whether a DNA test was done in respect of PW30 Premanand. Records were obtained which showed that no interpretable DNA profile could be obtained from the swabs obtained from the exhibits marked A1, A1-1, A2 and A2-1. As such, DNA evidence was not pursued in respect of PW30.[note: 233]

87 The Defence also repeatedly queried PW32 Samir on matters outside his knowledge such as how many officers went to the Accused’s Unit on the day of the arrest[note: 234] and why PW5 Yeo did not take photos or videos of the items allegedly being thrown from his bedroom.[note: 235] He also asked repeatedly about charging decisions by the Attorney-Generals’ Chambers, including why he was charged with trafficking.[note: 236] These queries were objected to as they dealt with matters outside PW32 Samir’s knowledge.[note: 237] However, PW32 Samir informed that he recommended the charges against the Accused given the totality of the evidence against him in this case.

PW33 – Senior Staff Sergeant Au Yong Hong Mian

88 Senior Staff Sergeant Au Yong Hong Mian (“PW33 Au”) of CNB Intelligence Division was the Urine Test Operator on 28August 2020. In this role, PW33 Au testified that he registered the Accused and generated the IUT barcode which was then pasted onto the test tube. Once the Accused’s urine was procured, he siphoned it into the test tube and put it into the IUT machine. He testified that he signed the Urine Test Result Slip which was admitted as P5. He also testified that he had no interactions with the Accused save for the foregoing. His testimony was unchallenged.

PW34 – Durgaarshni d/o Muthumanickam

89 Durgaarshni d/o Muthumanickam (“PW34 Durgaarshni”) is a transcriber. PW34 Durgaarshni testified that she transcribed and translated a number of voice notes exchanged between the Accused and two persons, VK Rajes and Kishan. The audio files, and transcriptions of the Accused’s communication with one VK Rajes were admitted as P55-A1 and the translations of the same were admitted as P55-T1. The contents of both of P55-A1 and PP55-T1 were admitted without objection.[note: 238] The audio files, and transcriptions of the Accused’s communication with Kishan were admitted as P55-A2 and the translations of the same were admitted as P55-T2 without objection.[note: 239]

90 PW34 Durgaarshni explained that she did not translate the word “Bhai” in P55-T1 and P55-T2, but only transcribed it as it sounded, because she did not know the context of its use.[note: 240] From her knowledge, she thought it meant “brother”.[note: 241]

91 PW34 Durgaarshni also testified that she did not translate the word “katti” in P55-T, which literally meant “brick” or “block”[note: 242] which appeared repeatedly in the text exchange. She said that she was not sure what it meant here, as it could also mean “ice” (ketamine), in street slang.[note: 243] She said that the other words were exact translations of the Accused’s conversation with Kishan.

PW35 Siva Kumar s/o Singaram

92 Siva Kumar s/o Singaram (“PW35 Sivakumar”) is the brother of PW30 Premanand. He testified that he knew the Accused as “Sara” and that he was his “neighbourhood friend.”[note: 244] His short testimony focused on whether he knew that the Accused had been arrested at the time and whether he had communicated the same to PW30 Premanand. PW35 Sivakumar stated that when he visited his brother in the Drug Rehabilitation Centre, he informed PW30 Premanand that the Accused had been arrested by the authorities.[note: 245] In cross-examination he further recalled that he did not know the details of the charges faced by the Accused and indeed did not know whether the Accused and PW30 Premanand had been arrested for the same case.[note: 246]

PW36 Tang Sheau Wei June

93 Tang Sheau Wei June (“PW36 Tang”) is the DNA analyst working in the DNA Profiling Laboratory of HSA. She testified that she made laboratory report number DN-2043-01643 under Section 263 of the CPC dated 6 November 2020 (the “DNA Report”). The DNA report pertained to exhibits F1 to BP-B1.[note: 247] PW36 Tang testified that all seven exhibits were swabbed individually for DNA evidence.[note: 248] She also noted that different swabs were also used for different areas of each exhibit[note: 249] and that there was one wet swab and one dry swab for each area of each exhibit.[note: 250] Both swabs were then put into the same tube, to be extracted for DNA identification and processing.[note: 251] PW36 Tang testified that for this case, she was also provided with the S-Barcode (being the barcode corresponding to the Accused’s DNA profile) and once she analysed the DNA in the exhibits, she compared the results to the S-Barcode provided.[note: 252]

94 In her oral testimony, PW36 Tang clarified that F1C[note: 253] as received by HSA from CNB[note: 254] was not as per the photograph, but instead was a bundle consisting of “tapes and plastic sheets” as the drugs had been removed for testing separately. Therefore, F1C which was swabbed by PW36 Tang was the clear outer wrapping of the drugs only.[note: 255] She testified that two swabs of F1C exhibit, along with two control swabs made up F1C-SW.[note: 256] F1C-SW was analysed by her and PW36 Tang testified that F1C-SW was found to contain the Accused’s DNA.[note: 257]

95 The DNA Report noted that the probability of this DNA being from another person was 1 in 48 septillion for a Chinese person, 1 in 19 septillion for a Malay person and 1 in 660 sextillion for an Indian person.[note: 258] In short, it was highly improbable. In oral testimony, PW36 Tang clarified that if a person touched an article, this could result in their DNA being found on the article.[note: 259] In cross-examination the Defence asked whether DNA could be found on item without the person having touched it.[note: 260] PW36 Tang clarified that a person did not have to touch an item for DNA to be present on it, and this could have come from indirect contact or the transfer of bodily fluids onto an item.[note: 261] The DNA report was admitted into evidence and marked P31 without objection from the Defence.[note: 262]

PW37 Mohammad Rafi bin Mohamed Iqbal

96 PW37 Mohammad Rafi bin Mohamed Iqbal (“PW37 Rafi”) testified that he was the mobile subscriber for the number XXX for the period of 1 July 2020 to 30 September 2020.[note: 263]. PW37 Rafi testified that this line was a prepaid line provided by Singtel which he had registered for on behalf of a friend.[note: 264] However, PW37 Rafi was reluctant to provide the name of the friend on whose behalf he had registered the line.[note: 265] After much prodding, PW37 Rafi testified that he had registered the SIM Card on behalf of one “Kishan”.[note: 266]

97 PW37 Rafi testified that he purchased the SIM on 14 May 2020 on behalf of Kishan, and that the SIM card had been passed from PW37 Rafi to Kishan on the same day.[note: 267] He testified that he had not met with Kishan since November 2021.[note: 268] He testified that he did not know the Accused[note: 269] and was then taken through messages exchanged between Kishan and the Accused[note: 270] including the audio clips which formed P55-A2 and he testified that he had no knowledge of any of the messages or audio clips sent between Kishan and the Accused.[note: 271] His evidence was unchallenged by the Defence.

PW38 Noriyati Binte Hussein

98 PW38 Noriyati Binte Hussein (“PW38 Yati”) testified that she was the current mobile subscriber for the number associated with P60 and confirmed that she was the person the Accused was texting in P34-1A.[note: 272] She testified that she has known the Accused for approximately 15 years and that she had been introduced to him by a friend for the purposes of obtaining Cannabis.[note: 273] She testified that over the years she had purchased Cannabis from the Accused approximately two or three times.[note: 274]

99 She testified that the text messages between herself and the Accused on 18 August 2020 in P34-1A related to the purchase of 250 grams of Cannabis.[note: 275] She testified that on 18 August at 14:33pm, she had sent the Accused a missed call as he was late to their meet-up,[note: 276] which was for the purposes of passing her the Cannabis.[note: 277] The exchange is reproduced below:

Accused:	Come down after 10 mins from now. I am ging shop buy cig then walk. Need to go atm also. [14:42]
Yati:	Eyy bo, tot i shld just let u now…fyi- d weight is only 220g [15:32] Hwvr, for yr sake i’l just forgo tis matter tis time coz its too troublesme [15:35] Anywy, tks mucho for yr help n al I appreciate dat…[15:35]
Accused:	No worries, actually sorry I forgot to tell you, it’s only 200, because 250 they quote me 3k. So I just took 200 only, ah for the money, because I didn’t have excess to top-up also, so I managed ah…ah..I’m sorry about the abok-abok thing ah. They pack ah, not I pack ah. So the brick you preserve, the abok you try to, you know, share with your friends. [15:42] [Voicenote transcription]
Yati:	oh ok then [15:44] Tq [15:48]

100 PW38 Yati testified that her message to the Accused at 3:32pm, pertained to the fact that although she had ordered 250 grams of Cannabis for $3000 from the Accused, she had realised that the Accused had only delivered 200 grams of Cannabis after she had weighed it.[note: 278] As such, she had messaged the Accused to inform him of this discrepancy in the weight of the Cannabis.[note: 279] She clarified that the Accused’s voice message in response at 3:42pm had been to inform her that he had been told that the price of 200 grams of Cannabis was $3000 and as such, the delivery was for 200 grams of Cannabis only.[note: 280]

101 She also clarified that the words “abok abok” in the message referred to the loose Cannabis.[note: 281] She testified that the packaging of the Cannabis in this case was very messy. As such, in his message the Accused was suggesting that PW38 Yati keep the neatly packed Cannabis for herself and share the messily packed Cannabis with her friends.[note: 282] She also clarified that “brick” as used by the Accused in his voice message referred to neatly packed Cannabis[note: 283] and noted that this sort of packaging was used to refer to Cannabis packaged in the manner of F1A in P3-15.[note: 284] She testified that 18 August 2020 was the last time she had obtained Cannabis from the Accused.[note: 285]

102 PW38 Yati was then examined on P30, being the Accused’s statement recorded on 3 September 2020 at 2:38pm. She testified that she did not have a nephew and in that regard, the Accused’s version of the events in paragraph 40, whereby the meetup at Marine Parade on 18 August 2020 at 2:42pm was to “give her nephew’s salary, about $100 plus” was false.[note: 286] She also confirmed that the Accused’s explanation that “200g” referred to the “weight of the parcel” was false, and that it referred to the weight of the cannabis delivered to her by the Accused.[note: 287] The Defence did not cross-examine PW38 Yati and her evidence was admitted wholly unchallenged.

103 At the close of the Prosecution’s case, I was satisfied that the Prosecution had established a prima facie case against the Accused, to warrant calling upon the Accused to enter his defence. The Accused elected to testify in court.

Defence’s Case

104 The Accused mounted a bare denial to the charges without presenting any witnesses or evidence to support his defence.

Defence’s Evidence-in-Chief (“EIC”)

105 The Accused’s EIC was relatively short as it consisted of a bare denial.[note: 288] He maintained that he did not give the drugs to PW30 Premanand, as recorded on P34 to P36.[note: 289] In respect of DAC-902914-2022 and DAC-902915-2022 he testified that his DNA was not found on the drugs found on PW30 Premanand[note: 290] and then went on to state that the statement P21 given by PW30 Premanand was similar to his own version of events in his statement, although he did not specify which statement he was referring to.[note: 291]

106 In respect of DAC-904675-2021, the Accused maintained that he had not thrown anything from the window of the Unit [note: 292] and further, that no member of his household had thrown the Drugs from the Unit.[note: 293] He testified that the Drugs were discovered at the base of his building and were never in his possession at any given time. The Accused pointed out that PW5 Yeo's account was solely based on his claim that “he saw someone throwing this thing down”[note: 294] highlighting that PW5 Yeo, being the sole observer at his window, might have potentially “missed out on some other things that could have happened right there at that point of time.”[note: 295]However, no alternative explanations or evidence were provided regarding these other occurrences. The Accused also repeatedly questioned why PW5 Yeo did not capture a contemporaneous photograph or video of the act of throwing the Drugs from the Unit. [note: 296]

107 The Accused then testified that after the Drugs had been found on the ground floor, it had been brought up to his room where it had been dropped onto the floor. [note: 297] He stated that one officer took the contents of the Drugs out of a white colour plastic bag and passed these contents to another officer who was squatting or sitting down on the floor of the bedroom.[note: 298] While doing so, one of the blocks of drugs had dropped onto the floor,[note: 299] causing his DNA to be found on the outer layer of the Drugs.[note: 300] The Accused alleged that, at the time, he was being restrained on the bed, preventing him from raising any protest.[note: 301]

108 He also testified that PW32 Samir had claimed that he was in possession of a photograph showing that the Accused met one “Abdullah” at Serangoon North and this photograph showed the Accused “taking something from Abdullah”.[note: 302] He stated that he did not take anything from Abdullah when he met him at Serangoon North and queried why CNB had not obtained the CCTV footage from the carpark for him to prove this point.[note: 303] However, the Accused chose not to call the said “Abdullah” as a witness to testify to this fact.[note: 304]

109 The Accused then raised an interesting point regarding PW2 Tan's testimony, which indicated that the Accused had shown resistance during his arrest at the Unit. The Accused expressed his confusion about why PW2 Tan made such a statement, asserting that he had simply inquired, "why am I being arrested."[note: 305] The court raised a valid concern and asked for clarification on how the Accused could remember these details, considering his earlier cross-examination of the officers where he claimed to have lost consciousness during the arrest.[note: 306] In response, the Accused testified that although he had experienced a brief period of unconsciousness, lasting less than a minute, he insisted that he could still recall the events of that night. [note: 307] This explanation, however, raises doubts about the plausibility of the Accused's version of events.

Cross-Examination of the Accused

110 During the extensive cross-examination spanning two days, the Accused presented a multitude of inconsistent stances. In light of this, I have deemed it useful to provide a comprehensive summary of his evidence, focusing on each issue separately. This approach is necessary to expose the numerous contradictions that arose from the Accused's evidence.

The Accused’s Statements to CNB officers

111 The Accused did not dispute the voluntariness or accuracy of any of the statements taken from him. He also agreed that all the information contained in all the statements came from him and did not raise any concerns regarding how PW23 Asilah recorded the statements. The Accused exclusively challenged in court only those facts that incriminated him in the case.

Issues raised by the Accused in his EIC

(1) The Drugs falling in the bedroom of the Unit

112 The Accused’s DNA was found on F1C-SW, which consisted of swabs taken from the outer surface of the packaging of one of the drug blocks (F1C) In his EIC, the Accused testified that one of the Cannabis blocks “fell into [his] room” while officers were handling the Drugs and other exhibits, thereby resulting in the presence of his DNA being found on F1C-SW.

113 During cross-examination, the Accused was asked why he did not bring this fact up to PW 4 Goh in his contemporaneous statement P6. The Accused conceded that he only told PW4 Goh that F1, being the white plastic bag containing the Drugs,[note: 308] was placed on his bed at the time of the processing of the exhibits in P27 and that he did not inform PW4 Goh that any of the contents of the plastic bag had fallen into his room at any point.[note: 309] The Accused could not provide an explanation for his failure to communicate this fact to PW4 Goh. Furthermore, he conceded that no one else witnessed a block falling onto his bed.[note: 310] These concessions raise serious doubts about the veracity of the Accused's account.

(2) Being pinned to the bed by a CNB officer during the search.

114 Initially, the Accused did not provide the name of the officer whom he claimed had restrained him on the bed.[note: 311] However, later on, he identified PW8 Phang as the officer responsible for pinning him down. [note: 312] Nevertheless, the Accused admitted that he did not cross-examine PW8 Phang regarding the alleged restraint. The Accused's explanation for this lack of cross-examination was that, during PW8 Phang's testimony, he was unaware that PW8 Phang "was the one who was arresting [him] and pinning [him] to his bed". [note: 313]

115 However, when he was asked why he could now identify PW8 Phang as the officer who pinned him to the bed, the Accused prevaricated with the response “No, I didn’t say he. But if he was the one who put the cuffs on my bed –on my hand, then definitely that---the---that was the same guy who pinned me to the bed.”[note: 314] The Accused testified that being restrained on the bed had caused him some pain.[note: 315] However, he admitted that he did not mention any pain or injury to PW29 Lin in either P24 or in P25, despite reporting other medical conditions such as the asthma attack he had suffered a month earlier.[note: 316]

(3) Being un-cooperative at the point of arrest

116 During cross-examination, regarding his alleged uncooperative behaviour at the time of arrest, the Accused acknowledged that he had indeed asked CNB officers repeatedly about the reason for his arrest. He further admitted that he struggled and exhibited signs of restlessness during the arrest.[note: 317] This admission contradicted his earlier testimony in the EIC, where he claimed to have been cooperative during the arrest. Additionally, throughout the trial, the Accused consistently cross-examined CNB officers on the matter of his cooperation, despite now admitting to his non-compliant actions.

(4) Falling unconscious while arrested

117 During cross-examination, the Accused admitted that he never mentioned losing consciousness in any of his statements, nor did he inform any of the officers or PW29 Lin about it at any point.[note: 318] He also did not dispute the accuracy of PW29 Lin's report and acknowledged its veracity.[note: 319] When questioned by the Prosecution about why he failed to inform PW29 Lin about losing consciousness during his arrest, the Accused was unable to provide an answer. Additionally, on the final day of the trial and for the first time in cross-examination, he testified that the CNB officers who arrested him had "beat" him. [note: 320] However, no further details regarding this claim were provided.

(5) Search of the Accused’s bedroom in the Unit

118 In his EIC, the Accused stated that the search of his bedroom took place before he accompanied the CNB officers to the ground floor to retrieve the Drugs. However, during cross-examination, the Accused admitted that he did not dispute PW7 Izree's testimony regarding the discovery of items BP-A1, BP-B1, BP-B1A, BP-B1B, BP-B1C, and BP-B1D in his bedroom after he was escorted to the ground floor of Block 236 to retrieve the Drugs[note: 321] The Accused justified his lack of cross-examination by explaining that other officers had claimed to have no recollection of the events, which led him to refrain from questioning PW7 Izree on this particular point. [note: 322]

Issues in respect of the CCTV Footage

(1) What was the black block or box?

119 In his statement P33, the Accused claimed that the black block or bundle depicted in Photos 6, 7, and 8 (which were CCTV footage screenshots) was, in fact, a black box containing the weighing scale BP-B1A and the plastic bags in the red packet marked BP-B1D. [note: 323] However, during cross-examination, he altered his account, asserting that the black box or block visible in the mentioned photos contained electronic items such as his portable speaker, Apple EarPods, power bank, and electrical wires.[note: 324] He testified that he was carrying three plastic bags and BP-B1A (including both the weighing scale and its box) in one of these plastic bags, rather than in the black box as previously stated in P33.

120 When questioned on this discrepancy between his accounts, the Accused stated that he “might have been confused at that point of time”[note: 325] when he made P33 and this was what led to the difference in his account of what was in the black box or block When confronted about this inconsistency between his accounts, the Accused attributed it to potential confusion during the time he made P33, stating that he “might have been confused at that point of time,”[note: 326] resulting in a disparity in his description of the contents of the black box or block.[note: 327]

Cross-Examination on Exhibits

(1) BP-B1B - The knife stained with Cannabis

121 The Accused testified that he had not touched drugs since his release from prison in June 2020. The Accused was asked about the knife labelled BP-B1B in P3-17 and how it came to be stained with cannabinol derivatives as per P13 if he had not touched drugs since June 2020. During his testimony, the Accused asserted that he had not come into contact with drugs since his release from prison in June 2020. However, when questioned about the knife labelled BP-B1B in document P3-17, which was found to be stained with cannabinol derivatives according to document P13,[note: 328] the Accused did not dispute that the knife belonged to him. The Accused did not dispute that the knife was his and suggested that the knife might have been stained with Cannabis back in 2017 when he "probably would have used the knife to cut marijuana." [note: 329] Furthermore, he claimed that during a previous raid on the Unit in 2017, CNB officers might have overlooked certain items, [note: 330] implying that the knife was likely a remnant from that time. [note: 331]

122 He was then questioned on why this was in direct contradiction to his statements in P29 at paragraph 32 where he had he confirmed that the knife belonged to him and stated that the last time the knife had been used was when he was cooking on 26 August 2020.[note: 332] He then stated that paragraph 32 of P29 was indeed true[note: 333] and claimed that he had an identical set of knives and did not know which knife he was being shown and hence he claimed that he had cut fruit or opened the weighing scale box (BP-B1A) in P29.[note: 334] He also could not remember whether he had opened the box BP-B1A with BP-B1B,[note: 335] and later testified that he did not open the box at all.[note: 336]

(2) BP-A1 - The black tape and plastic wrapping

123 In paragraph 50 of his statement P33, the Accused explicitly claimed that BP-A1 did not belong to him and he had no knowledge of its origin. During cross-examination, he reaffirmed this stance and asserted that he was unaware of how BP-A1 ended up in his wastepaper basket. [note: 337] According to him, the CNB officers informed him that they discovered BP-A1 in the wastepaper basket, but he maintained that he had no knowledge of who left it there, despite being the sole occupant of the room prior to his arrest. [note: 338] This again raises serious questions about the presence of BP-A1 in his possession and the Accused's lack of awareness regarding its source.

(3) BP-B1E – the plastic bags

124 The Accused was then cross-examined on BP-B1D and BP-B1E which were the plastic bags inside BP-B1D. He was unable to provide an explanation for why the two plastic bags found on PW30 Premanand were found to have been consecutively manufactured with 44 bags in BP-B1E.[note: 339] Initially, he claimed to have purchased 100 plastic bags,[note: 340] but quickly retracted his statement and admitted uncertainty about the exact number of bags he had bought. Furthermore, he was unable to account for why there were only 91 bags found in his bedroom when he had purportedly purchased the bags earlier that day. [note: 341]

The Accused’s Explanations in respect of his WhatsApp Messages

125 The Accused did not dispute that he sent any of the WhatsApp messages to any of the three persons.

(1) WhatsApp messages with VK Rajes

126 The Accused testified that VK Rajes was a childhood friend, despite having stated in P30 at [39] that he got to know VK Rajes around 20 years prior. He was then questioned regarding the following exchange dated 26 August 2020 with VK Rajes:

VK Rajes:	If anyone 1 let u no bai [19:40]
[Forwarded]
VK Rajes:	50g = 300 100g = 750 150 = 1100 200 = 1450 Half = 4000 1bk = 7500 [19:42]
VK Rajes:	Tis one got guy offer me tis price
VK Rajes:	Bhai you see for yourself the difference in price that your friend gave and my friend gave you see for yourself. [19:47] [voicenote transcription and translation][note: 342]

During cross examination, the Accused initially claimed that the foregoing exchange with VK Rajes was regarding parcel delivery. However, he later admitted that VK Rajes was not involved in parcel delivery or any other work at the time due to his diabetes. [note: 343] The Accused's explanation for the message timestamped 19:47 was that it contained a price list for parcel delivery, with the numbers on the left indicating the quantity of parcels to be delivered and the corresponding payment on the right. [note: 344] Although the Accused denied using terms like "one bk" or "half" for parcel delivery, he acknowledged understanding their meaning.

127 The Accused claimed that his intention was to recruit VK Rajes for parcel delivery, which is why VK Rajes had sent him the pricing list. [note: 345] However, this contradicted his previous statement in P30, where he mentioned that the message pertained to a contract offered by VK Rajes, which he chose not to accept[note: 346]. When questioned about this inconsistency, the Accused provided the following explanation:

DPP:

Okay. So in your statement, you said that the message was to tell you about a job offer, which you chose not to take. Whereas now in Court, you say that it’s just to tell you about price comparison. So explain.

Accused:

Okay, sure. This---whatever is asked about “VK Rajes” and whatever I’ve said about this parcel delivery in my statement is accurate and the truth. As for the reply or the similar prices, you know, I---I couldn’t probably give him the price list that I can get also. And back---at there---you see, as you carry on, you can see I even mentioned that I was---I’m offered currently with one parcel for $1.70. Just now in Court, I also said the same thing. So it’s a recollection of whatever I know about my parcel deliveries. So this statement back then would have been more accurate about the prices, about the parcels rather than now. So whatever is written here is probably from I say out fresh in my mind.[note: 347]

In short, his position was that the version in his statements was true and that any discrepancy was to be attributed to a loss of memory.

(2) WhatsApp messages with Kishan

128 The Accused stated in P30 that his messages with Kishan were about parcel delivery. In his cross-examination he stated that he recruited Kishan to do parcel delivery for him and that the messages labelled P34-3A and P34-5A were about parcel delivery and car repair. In respect of the messages labelled P34-3A, he alleged that “katti” meant a “block of 30 parcels, which means about 90—usually, it’s about 90 to 100 parcels”.[note: 348] He then testified that “brick” referred to a “cluster of (housing) blocks. In his explanation, 30 blocks equated to a cluster and approximately 100 parcels for delivery.[note: 349]

129 In respect of P34-4A he claimed that "shipment" referred to a quantity of parcels, but he could not recall the specific number of parcels in a shipment. Regarding P34-5A, the Accused claimed that he paid Kishan $700 for 30 blocks of parcel delivery[note: 350]. He alleged that three "katti" represented three housing blocks, with each "katti" containing 30 parcels. Initially, he stated that in his first voice message he said "one book is about 750". However, he later claimed that he misspoke and meant to say "block" instead of "book". However, during cross-examination, he admitted that he did not know the Tamil word for "block" and acknowledged that he could not have misspoken as he previously claimed.[note: 351] Consequently, he agreed that he did mention "half-book" to Kishan but did not provide an explanation for its meaning.[note: 352]

130 He then testified that the message forwarded from VK Rajes was to inform Kishan how much he would be paid for delivering a number of blocks. Although he first stated that the numbers in the forwarded message referred to quantity of parcels and the amount of money to be paid, he then claimed it was information about how much a competitor was paying his workers. He then changed his explanation again and stated that it referred to what a competitor was charging online platforms for delivery. During his evidence, the Accused claimed that the forwarded messages from VK Rajes were intended to inform Kishan about the payment he would receive for delivering a certain number of blocks. Initially, he stated that the numbers in the forwarded message indicated the quantity of parcels and the corresponding payment. However, he later altered his explanation, suggesting that the message contained information about how much a competitor was paying their workers. [note: 353] Subsequently, he changed his explanation once again, stating that it referred to what a competitor was charging online platforms for delivery services.

131 Regarding the message, the Accused admitted that he did not know the meaning of "g" in "50g", but he believed that "50" referred to 50 parcels. [note: 354] He then claimed that although the message stated a "book" was priced at 7,500, it was actually meant to indicate $1,000. [note: 355] He admitted to forwarding the message despite not understanding its content and assumed it contained numerous typographical errors. [note: 356]However, his accounts throughout this exchange kept changing and were wholly inconsistent.

(3) WhatsApp messages with Yati

132 The Accused was cross-examined on PW38 Yati’s testimony which directly contradicted the Accused’s account of his WhatsApp messages with her. The Accused conceded that he did not cross-examine PW38 Yati or challenge her evidence on the stand. However, the Accused maintained that PW38 Yati had a nephew despite her statement otherwise, and repeated that he had asked the nephew to do deliveries for him,[note: 357] although he could not account for why PW38 Yati would pretend not to have a nephew if she did. In respect of his messages to her, the Accused first stated that the amount “200” in the messages referred to the weight of the parcels[note: 358], then subsequently stated that it referred to the number of parcels.[note: 359] He then testified that he did not know why he stated in his message that PW38 Yati should “share [the brick] with her friends” when he was referring to the “cluster of blocks”.[note: 360]

Key Issues to be Determined

133 The case herein turns on two key issues:

(a) Issue One: Whether the Drugs were in the possession of the Accused for the purposes of trafficking; and

(b) Issue Two: Whether the Accused trafficked A1-1 and A2-1 to PW30 Premanand. As part of their trafficking case against the Accused, the Prosecution applied to impeach the credit of PW30 Premanand in respect of P21 and replace his oral testimony with P22 and P23 under section 147(3) EA.

The Law

The Law on Trafficking and Possession for the purposes of trafficking.

Statutory provisions

134 The material parts of s 5 of the MDA are as follows:

Trafficking in controlled drugs

5.—(1) Except as authorised by this Act, it shall be an offence for a person, on his own behalf or on behalf of any other person, whether or not that other person is in Singapore —

(a) to traffic in a controlled drug;

…

(2) For the purposes of this Act, a person commits the offence of trafficking in a controlled drug if he has in his possession that drug for the purpose of trafficking.

135 Under s 2 of the MDA, “traffic” is defined as:

Interpretation

…

(a) to sell, give, administer, transport, send, deliver or distribute; or

(b) to offer to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a),

otherwise than under the authority of this Act, and ‘trafficking’ has a corresponding meaning[.]

136 Section 18 of the MDA contains presumptions regarding the possession and knowledge of controlled drugs. The relevant subsections of s 18 read:

Presumption of possession and knowledge of controlled drugs

18.—(1) Any person who is proved to have had in his possession or custody or under his control —

(a) anything containing a controlled drug;

…

shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to have had that drug in his possession.

(2) Any person who is proved or presumed to have had a controlled drug in his possession shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to have known the nature of that drug.

137 Section 17 of the MDA contains presumptions concerning trafficking when an accused has in his possession more than a certain specified quantity of a controlled drug. The relevant parts read as follows:

Presumption concerning trafficking

Any person who is proved to have had in his possession more than —

…

(d) 15 grammes of cannabis;

…

whether or not contained in any substance, extract, preparation or mixture, shall be presumed to have had that drug in possession for the purpose of trafficking unless it is proved that his possession of that drug was not for that purpose.

138 To establish the offence of trafficking under section 5(1) MDA and possession for the purpose of trafficking in a controlled drug under section 5(1)(a) MDA read with section 5(2) MDA, the Prosecution must prove three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

(a) Possession for the purposes of trafficking: To prove possession for the purposes of trafficking, the Prosecution must demonstrate that the accused had physical possession, custody, or control of the controlled drug and that he was aware that had such possession, custody, or control;[note: 361]

(b) Knowledge: The accused's knowledge of the nature of the drug is crucial. This knowledge can be proven by showing that the accused had actual knowledge of the nature of the drugs, or by establishing that the accused was wilfully blind to the nature of the drugs in his possession. [note: 362] It is important to note that knowledge refers to the specific nature of the drug and not merely knowledge that it is a controlled drug;[note: 363]

(c) Presumption of trafficking: If the Prosecution intends to rely on the presumption of trafficking under section 17 of the MDA, they must prove both the fact of possession and the accused's knowledge of the nature of the item possessed. The presumptions of trafficking and knowledge of the nature of the drug under sections 17 and 18(2) of the MDA cannot be simultaneously applied in the same case. [note: 364] Similarly, if the Prosecution intends to rely on the presumptions under section 18 of the MDA, they must prove the fact of trafficking or possession for the purposes of trafficking.[note: 365]

139 The section 18(2) MDA presumption can only be rebutted if the accused can establish that he did not know the nature of the drugs in his possession. [note: 366]. However, this requires a high threshold, and it can be achieved by demonstrating that the accused believed he was in possession of something innocuous or a different contraband item or drug.[note: 367]

140 It is important for the accused to provide an account of what he believed the item to be, as the court will assess the veracity of his assertion against objective facts and examine his actions relating to the item. Factors such as the nature, value, quantity of the item, and any rewards for transporting it will be considered by the court. [note: 368] Mere claims of not knowing the proper or scientific name of the controlled drug or being ignorant or indifferent to its nature are not sufficient to rebut the section 18(2) presumption.[note: 369]

(c) Presumption of trafficking

141 The presumption of trafficking is found under section 17 of the MDA

Presumption concerning trafficking

17. Any person who is proved to have had in his possession more than –

… (d) 15 grammes of cannabis

Whether or not contained in any substance, extract, preparation or mixture, shall be presumed to have had that drug in possession for the purpose of trafficking unless it is proved that his possession of that drug was not for that purpose.

142 In summary, to establish the offence of trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking in a controlled drug, the Prosecution must prove possession, knowledge of the drug's nature, [note: 370] and that the possession was for the purpose of trafficking. Various methods can be used to prove knowledge, including actual knowledge, wilful blindness, or invoking legal presumptions. Additionally, the presumption of trafficking under section 17 of the MDA requires proof of both possession and knowledge.[note: 371]

The law on impeachment

143 To impeach a witness’s credit is to disparage or undermine his character and moral reliability and worth, so as to show that his testimony in court should not be believed because he is of such a character and moral make-up that he is one who is incapable of speaking the whole truth under oath and should not be relied on.[note: 372] The procedure for impeachment is set out in section 157(c) of the EA which reads:

Impeaching credit of witness

157. The credit of a witness may be impeached in the following ways by the adverse party or, with the consent of the court, by the party who calls him:

…

(c) by proof of former statements inconsistent with any part of his evidence which is liable to be contradicted.

This provision allows for the impeachment of a witness’s credit by proof of a former statement inconsistent with any part of his evidence in court which is liable to be contradicted.

What amounts to a “previous inconsistent statement”?

144 Given the multitude of possible combinations of inconsistent statements, it is impractical and overly restrictive to limit the application of statutory provisions to cases where a witness presents two conflicting affirmative versions of the facts. Instead, a more pragmatic approach is warranted, which involves evaluating the oral testimony in relation to the previous statement as a whole to determine if they are compatible, congruent, or consistent in substance, spirit, or form. The key factor to consider is the significance of the inconsistency or discrepancy.[note: 373]

145 In this regard, if a witness claims to have no memory of an event, it can be considered contradictory to a previous statement he provided. The court is entitled to infer that the witness is deliberately providing false information about his recollection, and to draw its own conclusions regarding the reasons behind the witness's refusal to testify truthfully. This presents evidence of an inconsistency between the witness's trial testimony (stating a lack of recollection of material details) and the content of his written statement (which contains a detailed recollection of said details).[note: 374]

Procedure for impeachment of a witness

146 The mechanics for the proof of the former inconsistent statement are found in sections 147(1) and 147(2) EA and the seminal case of Muthusamy v Public Prosecutor [1948] MLJ 57 (“Muthusamy”).

147 The evaluation of discrepancies and explanations should focus on the fundamental question of whether the witness is untruthful under oath and therefore an unreliable witness. If this is the case, the witness's credibility must be called into question and his credit impeached. It is important to note that impeaching a witness does not necessarily mean rejecting all of his testimony outright. In situations where inconsistencies arise, the court is entitled to scrutinise the evidence carefully and accept certain parts of the witness's testimony while disregarding others. [note: 375] In such instances, the court has the responsibility to meticulously analyse the entirety of the evidence to ascertain which aspects may be true and which should be disregarded. [note: 376]

Assessment of Evidence

148 It is important to note that from the beginning, the evidence presented by the Accused was riddled with significant and substantive inconsistencies and falsehoods. Moreover, the Accused wavered from and frequently contradictory positions he had previously affirmed in both his prior statements and in the earlier examination-in-chief (EIC). When confronted about the material inconsistencies between his oral testimony and statements provided to the CNB officers, the Accused initially requested the court to "take both into account."[note: 377] However, when pressed further on how to reconcile contradictory accounts, the Accused unequivocally stated that the court should solely consider his statements to CNB officers and disregard his statements given in court. [note: 378]

149 During CNB’s search of the Unit, PW7 Izree found and seized the following items (collectively the “Exhibits”):

Exhibit Marking	Location	Description
BA-A1	Dustbin under the computer table	Some black tape and clear plastic
BP-B1	Third drawer of the wooden cupboard	White coloured plastic bag
BP-B1A	Inside BP-B1	1 digital weighing scale with its box
BP-B1B		1 knife
BP-B1C		1 roll of clear tape
BP-B1D		1 red coloured pack of clear plastic bags and 1 ziplock packet containing numerous ziplock packets.
BP-B1E	Inside BP-B1D	91 empty ziplock packets

150 The integrity and chain of custody of the Exhibits seized were not challenged or called into question, and no allegations of tampering were made. After careful evaluation, I found that the Prosecution witnesses consistently presented a clear sequence of events. It was established that following the seizure by PW7 Izree, the Exhibits remained securely in the custody of the EMT within the Exhibit Management Room until these were ultimately transferred to HSA for analysis.

151 The Accused's explanations regarding the presence of the Exhibits in his room at the time of their seizure were inconsistent and lacked credibility. In respect of his attempts to provide an implausible account as an explanation, he proffered what I have referred to as the "Food preparation" defence in my Grounds.

152 Additionally, two handphones, namely SS-HP1 and SS-HP2, were seized from the Accused. Detailed forensic analysis of these devices uncovered a significant number of WhatsApp messages, particularly those exchanged between the Accused and PW38 Yati, VK Rajes, and Kishan, which proved material to this case. In explaining these WhatsApp messages, the Accused presented what I refer to as the "Parcel delivery" defence. In my Grounds below, I will outline the compelling reasons why both of these defences put forth by the Accused must fail.

The Food preparation defence

153 In P27, the Accused stated that he was delivering parcels during COVID to earn an income whilst he saved to open up a food stall. In a perplexing turn of events, despite the Accused's lack of involvement in any food preparation business at the relevant time, [note: 379] he offered explanations suggesting that the Exhibits found in his room were being utilised for such a venture. Strikingly, in his initial statement (P6), the Accused claimed ignorance about the nature of BP-B1B[note: 380] and even cast doubt on whether CNB officers had truly discovered it during the search of his room.[note: 381] However, during cross-examination, he reluctantly admitted to having provided false information in his response to Q2 in P6. Moreover, in a subsequent statement (P29), he contradicted his earlier stance by confirming that BP-B1B did, in fact, belong to him.[note: 382]

154 These inconsistencies and admissions of falsehood only serve to undermine the credibility of the Accused's assertions and cast serious doubt on the veracity of his explanations. The Accused's attempts to explain the presence of BP-B1B and other exhibits in his room not only lack coherence but also demonstrate a clear lack of credibility. In his statement (P29), he claimed that BP-B1B had been used for cutting fruits a mere day before his arrest, despite his own admission that he did not engage in fruit cutting activities in his room. However, when confronted with the fact that BP-B1B was stained with Cannabis, the Accused suddenly changed his narrative, alleging that the knife had been used to cut Cannabis back in 2017 and was somehow overlooked by CNB officers during their search.[note: 383]

155 I did not accept his explanation that he had used BP-B1B to cut Cannabis in 2017. Such explanations are wholly unconvincing, particularly considering the existence of the Statement of Facts dated 19 December 2017, (the “2017 SOF”) which the Accused admitted without reservation. The 2017 SOF clearly stated that a penknife, not a knife, was seized from the Accused's computer table during his arrest, and the Accused himself acknowledged that the penknife was the instrument used for cutting Cannabis before his arrest in 2017. [note: 384] There was no mention of a knife at the time, and the Accused never asserted that he used both a penknife and a knife, let alone BP-B1B, for cutting Cannabis.

156 Furthermore, the fact that BP-B1B was found in the same location where the penknife was taken from in 2017, namely the computer table, reveals that the table had indeed been searched during that previous arrest. Consequently, the notion that BP-B1B was a remnant from the Accused's previous offence and somehow "overlooked" by CNB officers is untenable. The logical and irresistible inference to draw is that the Accused had been using BP-B1B to cut Cannabis prior to his most recent arrest, which explains the presence of Cannabis stains on the exhibit.

157 The Accused's explanation regarding the purchase of BP-B1A and BP-B1D on the day of his arrest is equally incredulous. He asserted that BP-B1A was intended for weighing food ingredients, while BP-B1D was meant for storing the said ingredients in the fridge. However, this explanation is implausible given the undeniable fact that nine bags were missing from the set of 100 bags in BP-B1E, and two of the missing bags were a perfect match for the bags found in the possession of PW30 Premanand.

158 Curiously, the Accused quickly abandoned this entire line of defence soon after making these statements. Notably, he failed to mention any involvement in a food preparation business during his examination-in-chief, cross-examination, or subsequent submissions. Overall, the Accused's defence lacks any supporting evidence and crumbles under scrutiny. Far from challenging the Prosecution's case, his defence proves utterly untenable and must unequivocally fail.

The parcel delivery defence

159 The Accused's explanations regarding his WhatsApp messages and his alleged involvement in parcel delivery services for various companies, such as Singpost, Shopee and/or Lalamove were riddled with inconsistencies and lack any substantial corroboration. When pressed to clarify the meaning of his messages, the Accused resorted to convoluted and inconsistent explanations that only further undermined his credibility.

160 Remarkably, the Accused failed to produce a single witness or any independent evidence to support his version of events. Despite claiming to have employed numerous individuals under him for the alleged deliveries, he did not subpoena any witnesses or present contracts, messages, or emails from the companies he supposedly worked for. This absence of tangible evidence raises serious doubts about the veracity of the Accused's claims.

161 In a feeble attempt to explain the absence of witnesses, the Accused baselessly alleged that the Prosecution had not provided him with a contact list from his phone, specifically mentioning a liaison person from Singpost named “Wayne”. However, the Prosecution effectively countered this allegation by presenting evidence that they had indeed sent the documents to the Accused in December 2022, supported by registered mail receipts.[note: 385]Consequently, it becomes evident that the Accused's failure to call any witnesses is not due to any oversight by the Prosecution, but rather a glaring indication that his entire explanation was a contrived afterthought.

162 Furthermore, during cross-examination, the Accused repeatedly demonstrated a startling inability to recall his own previous explanations, suggesting that he had deliberately fabricated the context of the messages in his statements. Indeed, at one point, when the Accused was explaining why there were such glaring discrepancies between his statement P30 and his oral testimony regarding his messages to VK Rajes, the Accused’s explanations became so convoluted and incomprehensible that even he struggled to keep up with the web of lies he had woven.[note: 386]

163 In stark contrast, the testimony of PW32 Samir provided a clear and consistent understanding of the context of the messages. He unequivocally stated that terms like "book" and "brick" were commonly used to refer to Cannabis,[note: 387] a testimony that was corroborated by PW38 Yati, [note: 388] who openly admitted to purchasing Cannabis from the Accused and refuted the Accused's claims about having a nephew involved in deliveries. [note: 389] It is important to note that PW38 Yati’s testimony, which was wholly unchallenged by the Accused, incriminated her in illegal drug purchase and consumption, making her admission all the more credible and undermining any potential motive to falsely implicate the Accused. Consequently, I accorded significant weight to her testimony as the accurate version of events in this case.

164 Far from raising any doubts about the Prosecution's case, the Accused's reliance on futile and convoluted lines of defence only served to further erode his credibility and strengthen the Prosecution's case. The Accused failed to provide a credible explanation or valid defence to account for his WhatsApp messages or the presence of exhibits in his room prior to his arrest on 27 August 2020, leaving the court with the unmistakable impression that he was involved in drug trafficking prior to his arrest. Nonetheless, I approached the Accused's evidence with caution, recognising its inherent unreliability, but I thoroughly evaluated it in the context of the plethora of evidence presented before the court.

Issue 1: Whether the Drugs were in the possession of the Accused for the purposes of trafficking.

165 Upon careful consideration of the evidence presented throughout the trial, I am undoubtedly convinced that the elements of the charge of possession for the purposes of trafficking, DAC-904675-2021, have been established beyond a reasonable doubt. My reasons for this determination is explained below.

166 The Prosecution in this case has relied on two key presumptions—knowledge of the nature of the drug under section 18(2) MDA and the presumption of trafficking under section 17(1)(d) MDA— to substantiate the offence. However, it is imperative to note that the Prosecution cannot invoke both presumptions simultaneously in the same case. Therefore, the Prosecution has erred in its submission by urging the court to consider these presumptions collectively.[note: 390]

167 Nevertheless, this procedural misstep does not undermine my conclusion since it remains uncontested that the Accused possessed actual knowledge of the nature of the drugs at the pertinent time. During his arrest, when shown photographs of A1 and A1A, the Accused accurately identified them as "Ganja," a colloquial term for Cannabis, as reflected in his contemporaneous statement:[note: 391]

Q5: What is this (shows a digital photo of A1 and A1A)

A5: A1 is a plastic. A1A is “Ganja”

168 Furthermore, the Accused never contested his awareness of the Drugs' nature in his oral testimony or during cross-examination.[note: 392] At no point during the proceedings did the Accused allege that he was mistaken about the nature of the drugs. The Accused was thus able to identify the nature of the drugs which were in his possession. Thus, it is evident that the Accused possessed actual knowledge regarding the drugs found in his possession. Consequently, there is no necessity to invoke the presumption of knowledge under section 18(2) of the MDA in this case. The remaining point of contention lies in establishing the actual possession of the Drugs by the Accused.

Possession of the Drugs

(1) Accused’s DNA found on F1C-SW

169 As noted above in the Accused’s EIC, the crux of the Accused’s case rests on his denial of ever having been in possession of the Drugs or any claim of ownership, despite his DNA being discovered on F1C-SW. According to the Accused, his DNA ended up on the outer layer of F1C due to one of the blocks inadvertently falling onto his bed during the processing of the seized exhibits.

170 I accepted PW36 Tang’s testimony and the findings in the DNA Report which confirm that the DNA found on the outer layer of F1C-SW indeed belongs to the Accused. The DNA Report established that the likelihood of the DNA originating from someone other than the Accused was exceedingly remote, with probabilities as low as 1 in 48 septillion for a Chinese person, 1 in 19 septillion for a Malay person, and 1 in 660 sextillion for an Indian person. [note: 393] The Accused neither challenged the DNA Report nor cast any doubt on the chain of custody leading to the swabs obtained by HSA.

171 I found the Accused’s explanation attributing the presence of his DNA to a block falling on his bed, to be an afterthought, given its inconsistency. Notably, his statement P26 did not include any mention of a block falling on his bed. The first instance of this claim arose in P27, where he vaguely referred to F1 being placed on his bed while its contents were being extracted, accompanied by an unspecified item being dropped on his bed by a CNB officer.[note: 394] Subsequently, in P34, he altered his statement to assert that "one of the blocks fell onto my bed...which might have my DNA because I sleep on my bed". [note: 395]

172 In stark contrast, the testimonies of the CNB officers remained consistent regarding the procedure followed for processing the exhibits retrieved in this case. All CNB officers affirmed that no exhibits were dropped on the bed or placed anywhere in the Accused's room, except on the designated brown paper for processing. Furthermore, the Accused did not challenge any of the CNB officers or cross-examine any of them regarding the alleged dropping of a block on his bed or contest their testimony regarding exhibit processing. The Accused also did not dispute the truthfulness of PW4 Goh's testimony, who confirmed that the Accused did not inform him of any block falling on his bed.[note: 396]

173 Consequently, there exists no objective evidence to support the Accused's account of events leading to the presence of his DNA on F1C-SW. Given these circumstances, the compelling inference to be drawn is that the Accused's DNA was found on F1C-SW precisely because it had been in his possession and handled by him prior to its discovery at location F.

(2) CCTV Footage

174 Supporting this inference is the compelling evidence provided by the CCTV footage, which unmistakably depicts the Accused entering the lift of Block 236 and removing a black block from a white plastic bag. Subsequently, the Accused is seen concealing this black block or bundle beneath his t-shirt and trousers to prevent these from getting wet. The Accused initially claimed that this black block contained a weighing scale (BP-B1A) and plastic bags from the red packet (BP-B1D) in statement P33.[note: 397] However, during his oral testimony, he contradicted himself by asserting that the black box actually contained electronic items purchased earlier that day. He attributed any inconsistencies in his accounts to him being confused during the recording of statement P33. [note: 398]

(3) The CNB officers’ testimony

175 The observations made by PW5 Yeo from the window of the Unit, coupled with the immediate retrieval of the Drugs, leave no room for doubt that the Accused discarded the Drugs from the bedroom window of his Unit. PW5 Yeo, stationed on the ground floor, witnessed a black silhouette appearing at the Unit's window, followed by an object being hurled out and landing on the grass patch, F, beneath Block 236 Bukit Panjang, just before the Accused's arrest in his unit. Subsequently, PW5 Yeo kept the item under surveillance until the Accused was escorted down. The Accused was then brought to the ground floor of Block 236 Bukit Panjang Road, where the seizure of F1, containing the Drugs (F1A1, F1B1, and F1C1), took place.

176 The Accused contended that PW5 Yeo could have misidentified the Unit, suggesting that the Drugs might have originated from elsewhere due to the night-time conditions. However, PW5 Yeo's account of identifying the window of the Unit by locating the dustbin chute was cogent and corroborated by photograph P3-2, which prominently displayed the unit number 41 on the rubbish chute. Conversely, the Accused failed to provide any explanation as to how a black silhouette could have been observed at his window prior to the object landing on F. Furthermore, there was no dispute that the Accused was the sole occupant of his room during the relevant period after his release from prison. The Accused's assertion that PW5 Yeo was mistaken about the source of the thrown Drugs lacks persuasiveness. The prompt retrieval of the Drugs from F, coupled with the discovery of the Accused's DNA on F1C-SW, strongly indicates that the Accused himself threw down the bag containing the Drugs.

For the purposes of trafficking

177 Importantly, the Accused did not contest the contents of HSA certificates P14 to P16, which incontrovertibly established that the Drugs contained no less than 306.61 grams of Cannabis. Consequently, the presumption of trafficking under section 17(1)(d) of the MDA was appropriately invoked. In general, a bare denial would be insufficient to rebut the statutory presumptions in the MDA or cause the evidential burden to shift to the Prosecution.[note: 399]

178 However, in this case, the Accused's account has been inherently incredible, marked by internal and external inconsistencies throughout. Consequently, I find that the Accused has failed to rebut the statutory presumption of trafficking under section 17(1)(d) of the MDA or shift the evidential burden to the Prosecution. Therefore, he is presumed to have possessed the aggregate quantity of Cannabis, as retrieved, for the purpose of trafficking.

179 Hence, after a thorough examination of the evidence presented during the trial, I find that the Prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Accused was in possession of the Drugs for the purposes of trafficking and possessed full knowledge of the drugs' nature, namely Cannabis.

Issue 2: Did the Accused traffic A1-1 and A2-1 to PW30 Premanand?

180 Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that the elements of the charges of trafficking, being DAC-904675-2021 and DAC-902914-2022, are made out beyond a reasonable doubt. My reasons are set out below.

Whether PW30 Premanand’s credibility had been impeached in respect of P21

181 Upon scrutiny of the evidence and the credibility of witness PW30 Premanand, I am convinced that his credit should be impeached due to significant inconsistencies and contradictions in his statements and his oral testimony in court. These inconsistencies raise serious doubts about the reliability and truthfulness of his testimony, particularly regarding his claims about the source of the Cannabis. I will deal with some of the significant material contradictions that lead to my conclusion below.

182 In his initial statement, P21, PW30 Premanand asserted that he purchased the Cannabis from an individual named "Raja". However, during subsequent statements, P22 and P23, PW30 Premanand admitted that he had actually acquired the two packets of Cannabis found in his possession on 27 August 2020 from the Accused.[note: 400] Strikingly, during his oral testimony, PW30 Premanand attempted to retract his admissions from P22 and P23, reverting back to his original claims as stated in P21.This sudden change in his narrative in court, attempting to retract his admissions, casts serious doubt on the veracity of his testimony.

183 In light of these conflicting accounts, the Prosecution rightfully sought to impeach PW30 Premanand's credibility, relying on section 157(c) EA to challenge the portions of P21 and his testimony in court. Furthermore, the Prosecution requested that both P21 and his court testimony be substituted with the relevant contents of P22 and P23, citing section 147(3) EA.

184 It is pertinent to note that there is no dispute regarding the fact that PW30 Premanand made statements P21, P22, and P23. Upon careful evaluation, I find that the Prosecution has successfully impeached PW30 Premanand's credibility in respect of P21 and his oral testimony. Consequently, I accepted the substitution of his oral testimony and relevant portions of P21 with the contents of P22 and P23. The material discrepancies between PW30 Premanand's oral testimony and P21, which strike at the core of the charges, are highlighted below.[note: 401]

(a) PW30 Premanand’s drug supplier: One crucial inconsistency revolves around PW30 Premanand's drug supplier. In P21, he explicitly stated that he acquired the Cannabis from an individual named Raja. However, when questioned about this in P22 and P23, PW30 Premanand’s response deviated significantly:

Q6) Do you know if “Saraboy”, “Opar Ravi” and the other person is involved in drugs?

A6) I do not know. I only get my “Ganja” from Saraboy only. [Saraboy - refering to Accused]

Later in his oral testimony, when asked to explain why he answered the question about the Accused being involved in drugs in this manner, PW30 Premanand claimed that he had been asked another question along with Q6, but that PW32 Samir had not recorded this second question.[note: 402] He then provided three differing explanations of what this “second question” was.[note: 403]

DPP:	What question did he ask you that resulted in you giving answer 6?
PW30 Premanand:	That “Is it true that you are taking drugs from Saraboy? Okay, you know that you have given statement earlier and all this stuff?” So, I said this.
Prosecution:	Okay, so make sure I have recorded it correctly. The question that was actually asked at question was, “Is it true that you are taking drugs from Saraboy and all this stuff? You have given the statement earlier.” Did I miss out anything? What is the---did I get the question correctly?
PW30 Premanand:	Can you repeat the question please? Sorry.
DPP:	Okay. Okay, maybe it’s easier, can you repeat the question one more time? What question did the IO asked you, then you answered, “I do not know. I only get my ganja from Saraboy only?”
PW30 Premanand:	He---he also asked me that “Who do you get the stuff from?”, that I have to give a statement like this. And in my earlier statement, I have already said that by the way, he was threatening me.
DPP:	Okay. I think we need to take this step by step. First, was the question at question 6 asked by the IO to you?
PW30 Premanand:	Yes.
DPP:	It was? Okay. As written, “Do you know if Saraboy, Opar Ravi, and other person is involved in drugs?
PW30 Premanand:	Yes
DPP:	This question was asked by the IO to you?
PW30 Premanand:	Yes.
DPP:	Okay. And you gave an answer to that question, correct?
PW30 Premanand:	I gave an answer to the question, and—
DPP:	Okay.
PW30 Premanand:	--- there was another question asked.
DPP:	Okay, so what was your answer to that question then, if you say it’s not answer 6?
Court:	What are you thinking for so long?
PW30 Premanand:	This is the answer.
DPP:	Okay. So, the answer was, as written, “I do not know. I only get my ganja from Saraboy only.”
PW30 Premanand:	Yes
DPP:	Correct. But you are saying he asked you another question.
PW30 Premanand:	Because I could have just said that I don’t know. I don’t have the need to say I took ganja from Saraboy
DPP:	Okay. So basically, you are saying he asked two questions but he combined the answers in one answer.
PW30 Premanand:	Yes.
DPP:	Okay. And he did not record down this second question.
PW30 Premanand:	Yes.
DPP:	Okay. Can you repeat one more time what was this second question that is allegedly not recorded in here? Just the question. What is the question?
PW30 Premanand:	“Who do you take from?” Must have been like this. I don’t really remember.

(b) PW30’s Singaram’s reason for going to Block 236: A significant inconsistency regarding PW30 Premanand's reason for going to Block 236 further diminishes his credibility and warrants a thorough examination of his evidence. In his initial statement (P21), PW30 Premanand failed to mention the involvement of the Accused or provide any information pertaining to the Accused.[note: 404] However, during his oral testimony, he claimed that his original intent for going to Block 236 was to meet Raja and collect the Cannabis he had ordered. He further stated that, as an afterthought while en route to Block 236, he called the Accused and proposed meeting up for drinks.[note: 405] In his oral testimony, PW30 Premanand asserted that the contents of P21 accurately reflected the events that transpired on 27 August 2020. However, it is worth noting that when questioned about whether he provided the information in paragraph 3 of P21, he exhibited hesitation and took a considerable amount of time to respond. [note: 406] Conversely, in P22 and P23, his testimony remained consistent. He stated that it was the Accused who had contacted him, informing him that the Cannabis he had ordered, referred to as "ganja," was ready for collection at Block 236. Subsequently, PW30 Premanand went to Block 236 to obtain the ordered "ganja" from the Accused, after which he was apprehended. [note: 407]

(c) PW30 Premanand’s account of how the transaction took place: Another critical aspect highlighting the unreliability of PW30 Premanand's oral testimony is his contradictory account regarding the transaction itself. In P21, he stated that he went to the level 12 staircase to meet Raja, who arrived from the level 11 staircase and handed him two packets of 'ganja'. PW 30 Premanand then gave Raja $50 and departed using the lift on level 12.[note: 408] However, during his oral testimony, he claimed that he took the lift to the 10th floor and walked up one floor to meet Raja along the “corridor of the 11th floor”, [note: 409] as Raja descended the stairs from the 12th floor. [note: 410] PW30 Premanand then descended to the 10th floor to meet the Accused.[note: 411] When questioned about these inconsistencies, PW30 Premanand simply stated that he could not recall why he made such statements in P21.[note: 412] In contrast, in P22 and P23, his account remained consistent, stating that he went to the Accused's residence, took the lift to the 10th floor, and met the Accused at the staircase where the Cannabis was exchanged.[note: 413]

(d) Details of the Accused’s plastic bag: Moreover, there is an additional discrepancy regarding the details of the Accused's plastic bag. While recording P21, PW30 Premanand did not mention any details about a plastic bag. However, in his oral testimony, he asserted that the Accused was holding a red plastic bag when they met. [note: 414] Astonishingly, PW30 Premanand was unable to provide an explanation for this discrepancy.

185 These conflicting versions of events further undermine PW30 Premanand's credibility and raise doubts about the accuracy of his oral testimony tailored along P21. The disparities in his accounts regarding the location of the transaction and the presence of a plastic bag demonstrate a lack of consistency and coherence. These discrepancies, coupled with his inability to provide reasonable explanations for them, significantly diminish the reliability and trustworthiness of his oral testimony.

186 PW30 Premanand provided multiple explanations for his change in story between P21 and P22 and P23. Initially, he claimed to have been threatened by PW32 Samir before the recording of P22, suggesting that he feared being charged alongside the Accused. However, he later stated that this self-induced fear originated during a prison visit from his brother, PW35 Sivakumar. According to PW30 Premanand, his brother informed him that the Accused was facing serious charges. When questioned, he initially claimed that his brother brought up the topic during the visit, but later changed his statement, saying that he himself initiated the discussion. When asked to clarify further, PW30 Premanand eventually stated that he could not remember the details.

187 Ultimately, his explanations, where provided, were inconsistent, as he prevaricated multiple times whilst on the stand. Based on his refusal to testify truthfully about his actual recollection, I had no hesitation in concluding that PW30 Premanand deliberately lied under oath. This further supported the material inconsistencies between his oral testimony and his previous statements.

188 In light of the foregoing, it is clear that PW30 Premanand’s explanations of the material inconsistencies between his testimony in court, and his previous statements (P22 and P23) was completely unconvincing and his oral testimony in court showed that he was an unreliable witness who was “incapable of speaking the whole truth under oath and should not be relied on”.[note: 415]

189 However, as noted above, even when a witness’ credit is impeached, it does not automatically lead to a total rejection of his evidence. The court must carefully scrutinise the whole of the evidence to determine which aspects are true and which aspects should be disregarded. In this case, P22 and P23 are clearly corroborated by external evidence and therefore I allowed the Prosecution’s application to substitute and replace P21 and P30 Singaram’s oral testimony with the statements P22 and P23.

External Evidence corroborating P22 and P23

(1) The Forensic evidence regarding the plastic bags

190 I accepted PW28 Teo’s evidence and P19 which showed that 44 bags in BP-B1E and the two bags A1 and A2 seized from PW 30 Premanand showed the highest level of association[note: 416] were consecutively manufactured.[note: 417] When asked how likely it was that another bag from elsewhere would appear to also have been consecutively manufactured with the bags in question, PW28 Teo categorically stated that it was “practically impossible”.

191 The Accused attempted a feeble counter to this forensic evidence by suggesting that someone else might have purchased the same bags from the same shop and used them to traffic drugs to PW30 Premanand. However, I found the Accused's argument highly unconvincing. It was implausible to believe that the seller had only delivered 91 bags, considering that the Accused claimed to have purchased 100 bags earlier that day. Furthermore, the notion that someone else had coincidentally bought the exact same bags from the same shop and used them for drug trafficking seemed far-fetched.

192 PW28 Teo emphasised that even if someone else had acquired bags from the same store, it would be practically impossible for them to match the level of association found in BP-B1E. Therefore, the compelling inference to be drawn from this forensic evidence is that A1 and A2 originated from BP-B1E, which was in the Accused's possession, and that the Accused used these bags to traffic drugs to PW 30 Premanand.

(2) Corroborating Evidence that the Accused was trafficking in drugs.

193 There is also a great deal of corroborating evidence showing that the Accused was operating a drug trafficking business involving the sale of Cannabis in August 2020. Despite his ham-fisted defence of “food preparation” as above at paragraphs 151 to 156, it is clear that the Exhibits found in the Accused’s room had nothing to do with any alleged food preparation business, and that the knife found in his room was used to cut Cannabis prior to its seizure by CNB.

194 This finding is further bolstered by the messages sent between the Accused and PW38 Yati, VK Rajes, and Kishan. Once again, despite the Accused’s repeated claims otherwise, it is clear that the messages had nothing to do with “parcel delivery”, as I found above at paragraphs 157 to 162. His bizarre attempts at explaining the context of the WhatsApp messages showed that the Accused himself could not keep up with the strange explanations he had come up with, regarding what constituted a “brick”, a “block” and a “shipment”. In that regard, as I noted above, the irresistible inference to be drawn from the overwhelming evidence is that the Accused was involved in the business of trafficking Cannabis for his own financial benefit.

195 For all the foregoing reasons, I found the Accused guilty and convicted him accordingly on all three charges.

Sentencing

Antecedents

196 The Accused has a number of related and unrelated antecedents. However, for the purposes of sentencing, I have only considered his drug related antecedents which are for both consumption and possession of drugs, for which he was sentenced to a global sentence of 3 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.

Sentencing guidelines for Unauthorised Trafficking in Cannabis

197 It must be observed at the outset that the Court of Appeal in Saravanan Chandaram held that cannabis mixture is a Class A controlled drug under the MDA, based on the plain meaning of the relevant provisions and the intention of Parliament to impose capital punishment for offences involving cannabis mixture.[note: 418] Furthermore, the court clarified that the sentencing range for trafficking offences related to Cannabis should be determined by considering the gross weight of the Cannabis mixture involved, rather than the quantity of THC or Cannabis present.[note: 419] In so holding, the court highlighted that the various sentencing thresholds in the Second Schedule to the MDA, as well as the case precedents for offences involving Cannabis mixture were based on the gross weight of Cannabis mixture.[note: 420] Therefore, when sentencing the Accused herein, I have based the indicative sentencing range to be applied on the gross weight of the Cannabis mixture where applicable.

198 In Vasentha d/o Joseph v Public Prosecutor [2015] SGHC 197 (“Vasentha”), which was a case involving the trafficking of diamorphine, Menon CJ, set out the sentencing approach for drug trafficking and importation. He articulated that in considering sentencing, with the exception of prescribed mandatory minimum or maximum sentences, the sentencing judge should approach it as follows:[note: 421] firstly, the quantity of diamorphine should be taken into account as it serves as a reliable indicator of the seriousness of the offence and the harm caused to society, thus providing a suitable starting point. Once the indicative starting point has been determined, the sentencing judge should then consider necessary adjustments upwards or downwards based on two key factors: the offender's level of culpability and the presence of relevant aggravating or mitigating factors. In certain cases where no adjustment is required, the indicative starting point may indeed be the suitable sentence to be given. It is important to note that these starting points are not fixed or rigid, and sentencing judges should carefully consider the unique circumstances of each case when determining the appropriate sentence to be imposed.[note: 422] Lastly, in appropriate cases, the judge may also take into consideration the period of time the offender spent in remand prior to conviction, which can be accounted for by either backdating the sentence or discounting the intended sentence.

199 The Court of Appeal in Suventher Shanmugam v Public Prosecutor [2017] 2 SLR 115 (“Suventher”) noted that the “Vasentha” approach has subsequently been used to derive equivalent sentencing ranges for the offences of trafficking other types of drugs. The Court of Appeal cited, inter alia, the case of Public Prosecutor v Sivasangaran s/o Sivaperumal [2016] SGDC 214 (“Sivasangaran”) with approval, as an example of a case in which a sentencing framework has been derived for trafficking in up to 330grams of Cannabis.[note: 423] The framework set out in Sivasangaran is as follows:

Cannabis (grams)	Imprisonment (years)	Caning (strokes)
Up to 99.1	5 to 6	5 to 6
99.1 to 165.1	6 to 7	6 to 7
165.1 to 231.2	7 to 8	7 to 8
231.2 to 264.2	8 to 9	8 to 9
264.2 to 297.2	10 to 13	9 to 10
297.2 to 329.9	13 to 15	10 to 11

Parties’ Submissions

Prosecution’s Sentencing Submission

200 The Prosecution is seeking the following sentence:

Charge No.	Suggested Sentence
DAC-904675-2021	13-15 years’ imprisonment and 10-11 strokes of the cane
DAC-902914-2022	5-6 years’ imprisonment and 5-6 strokes of the cane
DAC-902915-2022	5-6 years’ imprisonment and 5-6 strokes of the cane

The Prosecution has sought a range of sentences for each offence, bringing the global sentence sought to 18 – 21 years’ imprisonment and 20 to 23 strokes of the cane. However, they have erroneously cited the case of Vasentha as authority for the sentence sought,[note: 424] although this guideline sentence is actually derived from Sivasangaran, as noted above.

Mitigation plea

201 In mitigation the Accused pleaded for leniency and cited the hardship his elderly parents will face whilst he is incarcerated. He stated that his father requires assistance with his daily activities as his lungs are deteriorating. He also stated that his mother requires assistance within the household as she is unable to cope with the housework due to her age and the fact that she has to care for his father. He stated that as he is the sole breadwinner and caregiver, his incarceration would burden his family both emotionally and financially.

Application of the sentencing guidelines to the facts of this case

202 In accordance with the sentencing framework set out at above, the first step is to ascertain the indicative starting sentence based on the quantity of Cannabis involved. Adopting a similar extrapolation for sentencing guidance as done in Sivasangaran and endorsed by the Court of Appeal, the indicative starting sentences for the offences in this case are as follows:

Charge Number	Amount of Cannabis	Indicative sentence
DAC-904675-2021	306.61 grams of Cannabis	13 – 15 years’ imprisonment and 10-11 strokes of the cane.
DAC-902914-2022	3.70 grams of fragmented vegetable matter containing THC	5 – 6 years’ imprisonment and 5-6 strokes of the cane
DAC-902915-2022	8.21 grams of fragmented vegetable matter containing Cannabis Mixture	5 – 6 years’ imprisonment and 5-6 strokes of the cane

203 The foregoing is in line with the range sought by the Prosecution. In my judgment, the starting sentence for DAC-904675-2021 should be 13 years’ imprisonment and 10 strokes of the cane, for DAC-902914-2022 to be 5 years’ imprisonment and 5 strokes of the cane and for DAC-902915-2022 to be 5 years’ imprisonment and 5 strokes of the cane, given the respective weights of the Cannabis mixtures involved in this case.

204 The next step is to consider whether it is necessary to adjust the sentence according to the culpability of the Accused. Here, the Accused was clearly operating a drug trafficking business where he solicited orders for Cannabis, as evinced by his sale of drugs to PW38 Yati and PW30 Premanand. Nevertheless, given that the Accused is going to be facing a rather stiff overall sentence, I have determined that an upward adjustment to the indicative starting sentence is not necessary at this stage.

205 The third step is to consider whether there is a need to make adjustment for aggravating or mitigating factors. Here the Accused claimed trial and repeatedly led false evidence in court. Although claiming trial is not an aggravating factor per se, no discount would be given to offenders who elect to claim trial.[note: 425] The Accused also took active steps to avoid detection of his drug activities by throwing the drugs in DAC-904675-2021 out of the window of his bedroom. In Vasentha, Menon CJ, held that an offender’s attempt to “conceal or dispose of the evidence of his offence, such as drugs or paraphernalia, in order to avoid prosecution or a heavier sentence should be treated as an aggravating factor”.[note: 426]

206 On the other end of the scale, I then considered the mitigating factors in this case. The Accused has shown a complete lack of remorse for his actions in his conduct throughout the trial. Further, I did not find that the Accused either had “decreased culpability” by virtue of any mental disorder, any “behavioural credit” or any “increased sensitivity” such that he would suffer more than most offenders from the normal penalty.[note: 427] Finally, the Accused has pleaded for leniency on account of the hardship his parents will suffer while he is in prison. In that regard, it is well-settled law that except in the most exceptional circumstances, hardship to the offenders’ family has very little, if any mitigating value.[note: 428] Here, I have found no such exceptional circumstance to justify a departure from this principle and in this case, the offender must face the result of his own actions.

207 Having regard to all the relevant factors, I arrived at the following sentences for the Accused:

(a) DAC-904675-2021: 13 years’ imprisonment and 10 strokes of the cane;

(b) DAC-902914-2022: 5 years’ imprisonment and 5 strokes of the cane; and

(c) DAC-902915-2022: 5 years’ imprisonment and 5 strokes of the cane.

208 Under section 307 CPC, if at one trial a person is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for at least three distinct offences, the court must order the sentences for at least two of those offences to run consecutively. In considering whether to allow the sentences to run concurrently, I bore in mind the proportionality and totality principles which state that where individual sentences are each of several years (as is the case herein), the concern of proportionality should weigh more heavily on a judge’s mind when determining whether the aggregate sentence offends the totality principle.[note: 429] Generally, the longer the aggregate sentence, the greater the risk of a disproportionate sentence.[note: 430]

209 It is clear that the Accused’s crime is grave and his culpability for all three offences is high. I was therefore of the view that DAC-904675-2021 and DAC-902915-2022, which is the offence involving the higher amount of cannabis mixture, should run consecutively, and DAC-902914-2022 should run concurrently. This brings the global sentence to be imposed on the Accused to 18 years’ imprisonment and 20 strokes of the cane.

Conclusion

Period in Remand

210 The Accused was arrested on 27 August 2020 and kept in custody for investigations. He was charged in court on 29 August 2020 was in remand until 29 March 2022 (being 1 year 7 months and 1 day), at which point he was released on bail. As such, there was a discontinuous period of remand in this case. In Vasentha, Menon CJ held that where there has been a discontinuous period of remand in custody, the sentence imposed should give the offender credit for the period spent in remand, by way of reduction to the global sentence.[note: 431] Therefore, I reduced the Accused’s sentence for DAC-904675-2021 by 1 year and 7 months, bringing his global sentence to 16 years and 5 months’ imprisonment and 20 strokes of the cane, to take into account the time he spent in remand prior to being released on bail.

211 For the reasons given above, I impose the following sentences:

(a) For DAC-904675-2021 - 11 years’ and 5 months’ imprisonment and 10 strokes of the cane.

(b) For DAC-902915-2022 - 5 years’ imprisonment and 5 strokes of the cane. This sentence is to run consecutively with DAC-904675-2021.

(c) For DAC-902914-2022 - 5 years’ imprisonment and 5 strokes of the cane. This sentence is to run concurrently.[Context] [Hide Context]

^{[note: 1]}Notes of Evidence (“NE”) Day 1, Page 6, Lines 5 – 9.

^{[note: 2]}NE Day 1, Page 5, Line 29.

^{[note: 3]}This was in reference to P21, which was admitted later in the proceedings.

^{[note: 4]}NE Day 6, Page 7, Line 5.

^{[note: 5]}NE Day 6, Page 7, Lines 28 – 32.

^{[note: 6]}NE Day 6, Page 7 Lines 12 – 22.

^{[note: 7]}NE Day 1, Page 12, Lines 21 – 23.

^{[note: 8]}NE Day 1, Page 11, Lines 16 – 20.

^{[note: 9]}NE Day 1, Page 11, Lines 24 – 25.

^{[note: 10]}NE Day 1, Page 11, Lines 26 – 32.

^{[note: 11]}NE Day 1, Page 13, Lines 8 – 10.

^{[note: 12]}NE Day 1, Page 12, Lines 29 – 31.

^{[note: 13]}Labelled A

^{[note: 14]}NE Day1, Page 12, Lines 1 – 3.

^{[note: 15]}NE Day 1, Page 14, Lines 27 – 32 and Day 15, Line 1.

^{[note: 16]}NE Day 1, Page 13, Lines 19 – 27.

^{[note: 17]}NE Day 1, Page 14, Lines 16 – 18.

^{[note: 18]}NE Day 1, Page 14, Lines 12 – 15.

^{[note: 19]}This was later labelled and sent to the Forensics, Chemistry and Physics Lab at HSA for examination.

^{[note: 20]}NE Day 1, Page 15, Lines 8 – 11.

^{[note: 21]}NE Day 1, Page 15, Lines 12 – 13 and Day 1, Page 16 Lines 26 – 29.

^{[note: 22]}NE Day 1, Page 15, Lines 26 – 30.

^{[note: 23]}NE Day 1, Page 16, Lines 11 – 14.

^{[note: 24]}NE Day 1, Page 16, Lines 15 – 17.

^{[note: 25]}NE, Day 1, Page 28, Line 20

^{[note: 26]}NE, Day 1, Page 28, Line 23.

^{[note: 27]}NE, Day 1, Page 31, Line 14 – 17.

^{[note: 28]}NE Day 1, Page 35, Lines 24 – 26.

^{[note: 29]}NE Day 1, Page 35, Line 15

^{[note: 30]}NE Day 1, Page 35, Lines 29 –32.

^{[note: 31]}NE Day 1, Page 36 Line 4. This was marked as area F in P3-5 to P3-7.

^{[note: 32]}NE Day 1, Page 36, Lines 13 – 16.

^{[note: 33]}NE Day 1, Page 36, Lines 5 – 8.

^{[note: 34]}NE Day 1, Page 36, Lines 19 – 32.

^{[note: 35]}NE Day 1, Page 36, Lines 3 – 7 and 31 – 32.

^{[note: 36]}NE Day 1, Page 44, Lines 19 – 22.

^{[note: 37]}NE Day 1, Page 44, Lines 19 – 22.

^{[note: 38]}NE Day 1, Page 55, Line 3.

^{[note: 39]}NE Day 1, Page 54, Lines 5 – 7 and 22 – 26.

^{[note: 40]}NE Day 1, Page 55, Lines 23 – 25.

^{[note: 41]}NE Day 1, Page 57, Lines 24 – 25.

^{[note: 42]}NE Day 1, Page 58, Lines 13 – 18.

^{[note: 43]}NE Day 1, Page 61, Lines 16 – 19.

^{[note: 44]}NE Day 1, Page 62, Lines 4 – 8.

^{[note: 45]}NE Day 1, Page 62, Line 26.

^{[note: 46]}NE Day 2, Page 2, Line 29 to Page 3 Line 2.

^{[note: 47]}NE Day 2, Page 3, Lines 14 – 17.

^{[note: 48]}NE Day 2, Page 2, Lines 1 – 6.

^{[note: 49]}NE Day 2, Page 6, Lines 1 – 6.

^{[note: 50]}NE Day 2, Page 7, Lines 14 – 17.

^{[note: 51]}NE Day 2, Page 5, Lines 26 – 29.

^{[note: 52]}NE Day 2, Page 16, Lines 1 – 4.

^{[note: 53]}NE Day 2, Page 15, Line 20.

^{[note: 54]}NE Day 2, Page 11, Lines 17 – 21.

^{[note: 55]}NE Day 2, Page 29, Line 2.

^{[note: 56]}NE Day 2, Page 29, Line 27 – 28.

^{[note: 57]}NE Day 2, Page 30 Line 30 and Page 31, Lines 4 – 5.

^{[note: 58]}NE Day 2, Page 34, Lines 27 – 29.

^{[note: 59]}P57.

^{[note: 60]}NE Day 2, Page 41, Line 2.

^{[note: 61]}NE Day 2, Page 47, Line 6 – 16.

^{[note: 62]}NE Day 2, Page 49, Line 28.

^{[note: 63]}NE Day 2, Page 51, Lines 7 – 8.

^{[note: 64]}NE Day 2, Page 51, Lines 10 – 14.

^{[note: 65]}NE Day 2, Page 52, Lines 18 – 21.

^{[note: 66]}NE Day 2, Page 53, Lines 24 – 28.

^{[note: 67]}NE Day 2, Page 54, Lines 5 – 9.

^{[note: 68]}NE Day 2, Page 54, Lines 24 – 25.

^{[note: 69]}NE Day 2, Page 57, Lines 29 – 31.

^{[note: 70]}NE Day 2, Page 58, Lines 10 – 11.

^{[note: 71]}NE Day 2, Page 57, Lines 1 – 5.

^{[note: 72]}NE Dat 2, Page 58, Lines 22 – 26.

^{[note: 73]}NE Day 2, Page 61, Lines 16 – 18.

^{[note: 74]}NE Day 2, Page 62, Lines 25 – 28.

^{[note: 75]}NE Day 2, Page 63, Lines 12 – 16.

^{[note: 76]}NE Day 2, Page 65, Lines 18 – 21.

^{[note: 77]}NE Day 2, Page 68, Lines 14 – 15.

^{[note: 78]}NE Day 2, Page 69, Lines 12 – 21.

^{[note: 79]}NE Day 2, Page 69, Line 28.

^{[note: 80]}NE Day 2, Page 73, Lines 17 – 24.

^{[note: 81]}NE Day 2, Page 73, Lines 29 – 32.

^{[note: 82]}NE Day 2, Page 76, Lines 10 – 17.

^{[note: 83]}NE Day 2, Page 79, Lines 11 – 13.

^{[note: 84]}NE Day 2, Page 78, Lines 7 – 8 and Page 79, Lines 1 – 2.

^{[note: 85]}NE Day 2, Page 91, Line 25.

^{[note: 86]}NE Day 2, Page 82, Lines 26 – 30.

^{[note: 87]}NE Day 2, Page 84, Line 17.

^{[note: 88]}NE Day 2, Page 85, Lines 12 – 14.

^{[note: 89]}NE Day 2, Page 80, Lines 10 – 12.

^{[note: 90]}NE Day 4, Page 9, Lines 25 – 28.

^{[note: 91]}NE Day 2, Page 86, Lines 14 – 18.

^{[note: 92]}NE Day 2, Page 94, Lines 7 – 8.

^{[note: 93]}NE Day 2, Page 98, Line 32 to Page 99, Lines 1 and 8 – 9.

^{[note: 94]}NE Day 2, Page 100, Lines 12 – 14.

^{[note: 95]}NE Day 2, Page 101, Line 7, and Lines 17 – 18.

^{[note: 96]}NE Day 4, Page 1, Lines 21 – 26.

^{[note: 97]}NE Day 4, Page 3, Lines 14 – 16.

^{[note: 98]}NE Day 4, Page 3, Line 29.

^{[note: 99]}NE Day 4, Page 4, Lines 19 – 25.

^{[note: 100]}NE Day 3, Page 2, Lines 3, 19 and 24.

^{[note: 101]}NE Day 3, Page 3, Line 3.

^{[note: 102]}NE Day 3, Page 6, Line 2.

^{[note: 103]}NE Day 3, Page 7, Lines 17 – 18.

^{[note: 104]}NE Day 3, Page 8, Lines 3 – 7.

^{[note: 105]}NE Day 3, Page 8, Lines 17 – 23.

^{[note: 106]}NE Day 3, Page 11, Line 1.

^{[note: 107]}NE Day 3, Page 11, Line 22.

^{[note: 108]}NE Day 3, Page 11, Lines 23 – 27.

^{[note: 109]}NE Day 3, Page 16, Lines 6 – 9.

^{[note: 110]}NE Day 3, Page 12, Line 11.

^{[note: 111]}NE Day 3, Page 14, Lines 18 – 20.

^{[note: 112]}NE Day 3, Page 17, Lines 1 – 2.

^{[note: 113]}NE Day 3, Page 18, Line 11 – 15.

^{[note: 114]}NE Day 3, Page 19, Lines 14 – 24.

^{[note: 115]}NE Day 3, Page 20, Lines 19 – 28.

^{[note: 116]}NE Day 3, Page 21, Line 31.

^{[note: 117]}NE Day 3, Page 22, Lines 11 – 18.

^{[note: 118]}NE Day 3, Page 22, Lines 19 – 22.

^{[note: 119]}NE Day 3, Page 24, Lines 6 – 13.

^{[note: 120]}NE Day 3, Page 30, Lines 7 – 10.

^{[note: 121]}NE Day 3, Page 30, Lines 26 – 30.

^{[note: 122]}NE Day 3, Page 37, Line 22.

^{[note: 123]}NE Day 3, Page 27, Lines 9 – 11.

^{[note: 124]}NE Day 3, Page 39, Lines 8 – 12.

^{[note: 125]}NE Day 3 Page 40, Line 2.

^{[note: 126]}NE Day 3, Page 43, Lines 8 – 12.

^{[note: 127]}NE Day 3, Page 41, Line 1 and Line 31.

^{[note: 128]}Identified as P32 at NE Day 4, Page 12, Line 5.

^{[note: 129]}NE Day 4, Page 11, Lines 11 – 19.

^{[note: 130]}Day 4, Page 15, Lines 8 – 10.

^{[note: 131]}Day 4, Page 13, Lines 6 – 8.

^{[note: 132]}Day 4, Page 15, Lines 15 – 20

^{[note: 133]}Day 4, Page 15, Lines 26 – 29.

^{[note: 134]}Day 4, Page 16, Line 14.

^{[note: 135]}Day 4, Page 12, Lines 6 – 9.

^{[note: 136]}Day 4, Page 17, Line 6.

^{[note: 137]}Day 4, Page 17, Line 24.

^{[note: 138]}Day 4, Page 17, Lines 19 – 21.

^{[note: 139]}Day 4, Page 17, Lines 30 – 31.

^{[note: 140]}Day 4, Page 18, Lines 10 – 20.

^{[note: 141]}Day 4, Page 18, Lines 22 – 24.

^{[note: 142]}Day 4, Page 18, Lines 24 – 25.

^{[note: 143]}NE Day 4, Page 20, Lines 20 – 22, Page 49, Lines 31 – 32, Page 50, Lines 1 – 13.

^{[note: 144]}NE Day 4, Pages 23, 24 and 25.

^{[note: 145]}NE Day 4, Page 27, Lines 13 – 22.

^{[note: 146]}P22 at [4] and at [17].

^{[note: 147]}P22 at [5].

^{[note: 148]}P23 at [24].

^{[note: 149]}NE Day 4, Page 87, Line 7 and Line 21.

^{[note: 150]}NE Day 4, Page 88, Line 8.

^{[note: 151]}NE Day 4, Page 88, Line 9

^{[note: 152]}NE Day 4, Page 4, Line 17.

^{[note: 153]}NE Day 4, Page 33, Lines 5 – 6.

^{[note: 154]}NE Day 4 Page 61, lines 25 – 26.

^{[note: 155]}NE Day 4, Page 31, Lines 20 – 21.

^{[note: 156]}NE Day 4, Page 100, Line 10 and NE Day 5, Page 8, Line 32.

^{[note: 157]}NE Day 5, Page 3, Lines 3 – 6.

^{[note: 158]}NE Day 5, Page 3, Line 29.

^{[note: 159]}NE Day 5, Page 3, Line 32.

^{[note: 160]}NE Day 5, Page 5, Lines 4 – 9.

^{[note: 161]}NE Day 5, Page 23, Lines 18 – 28. He identified the grass patch as being the same as in P3-4 to P3-7 at NE Day 5, Page 25, Lines 1 5 – 19.

^{[note: 162]}NE Day 5, Page 23, 30 – 31.

^{[note: 163]}He identified this bedroom as being the same as in photographs P3-12 to P3-14 (see NE Day 5, Page 25, Line 22.)

^{[note: 164]}He identified these exhibits as being the same as in photographs P3-15 to P3-18.

^{[note: 165]}NE Day 5, Page 24, Lines 1–10.

^{[note: 166]}NE Day 5, Page 26, Lines 13 – 24.

^{[note: 167]}NE Day 5, Page 26, Line 26.

^{[note: 168]}NE Day 5, Page 27, Lines 1 – 3.

^{[note: 169]}P57

^{[note: 170]}NE Day 5, Page 29, Lines 3 – 7.

^{[note: 171]}NE Day 5, Page 30, Lines 1 – 2.

^{[note: 172]}NE Day 5, Page 30, Lines 15 – 22.

^{[note: 173]}NE Day 5, Page 33, Line 1.

^{[note: 174]}P29, photograph 11.

^{[note: 175]}NE Day 5, Page 34, Lines 12 – 13.

^{[note: 176]}NE Day 5, Page 31, Lines 11 – 20.

^{[note: 177]}NE Day 5, Page 34, Lines 14 – 17.

^{[note: 178]}P32-1.

^{[note: 179]}NE Day 5, Page 37, 10 – 11.

^{[note: 180]}NE Day 5, Page 37, Lines 1 – 8, A1-1 and A2-1 (P32).

^{[note: 181]}NE Day 5, Page 36, Lines 18 – 26.

^{[note: 182]}BP-B1A and BP-B1A-1.

^{[note: 183]}BP-B1B

^{[note: 184]}NE Day 5, Page 38, Lines 14 – 25.

^{[note: 185]}NE Day 5, Page 39, Lines 10 – 12. Exhibits marked P38 – P-54 were marked and admitted into evidence at this juncture.

^{[note: 186]}NE Day 5, Page 44, Lines 26 – 27, P37-1 and P37-2.

^{[note: 187]}NE Day 5, Page 46, Line 8.

^{[note: 188]}NE Day 5, Page 46, Lines 19 – 23 and Lines 27 – 29.

^{[note: 189]}NE Day 5, Page 47, Lines 7 – 13.

^{[note: 190]}NE Day 5, Page 49, Lines 11 – 13 and 17 – 18.

^{[note: 191]}NE Day 5, Page 50, Lines 19 – 25.

^{[note: 192]}NE Day 5, Page 52, Lines 3 – 10.

^{[note: 193]}NE Day 5, Page 52, Lines 16 – 19.

^{[note: 194]}NE Day 5, Page 58, Line 7.

^{[note: 195]}NE Day 5, Page 57, Lines 30 – 32 and Page 58 Lines 1 – 4.

^{[note: 196]}NE Day 5, Page 57, Line 17.

^{[note: 197]}NE Day 5, Page 59, Lines 13 – 14.

^{[note: 198]}NE Day 5, Page 78, Lines 10 –13.

^{[note: 199]}NE Day 5, Page 66, Lines 30 – 31 and Page 67, Lines 1 – 2.

^{[note: 200]}NE Day 5, Page 67, Lines 13 – 15.

^{[note: 201]}NE Day 5, Page 67, Line 24.

^{[note: 202]}P34, Photo 1.

^{[note: 203]}NE Day 6, Page 41, Line 5.

^{[note: 204]}NE Day 6, Page 43, Lines 2 – 3.

^{[note: 205]}NE Day 6, Page 42, Line 14.

^{[note: 206]}NE Day 6, Page 48, Lines 23 – 24.

^{[note: 207]}NE Day 5, Page 69, Line 18 to Page 71, Line 9.

^{[note: 208]}P34 Photo 5.

^{[note: 209]}NE Day 6, Page 47, Lines 21 – 31.

^{[note: 210]}P55-T3.

^{[note: 211]}NE Day 6, Page 52, Lines 30 – 32.

^{[note: 212]}NE Day 6, Page 53, Lines 3 – 7.

^{[note: 213]}P34, Photo 1 and NE Day 6, Page 53, Lines 17 – 21.

^{[note: 214]}NE Day 5, Page 73, Lines 31 – 32.

^{[note: 215]}NE Day 5, Page 75, Line 6.

^{[note: 216]}NE Day 5, Page 76, Lines 19 – 23.

^{[note: 217]}NE Day 5, Page 75, Lines 18 – 19.

^{[note: 218]}NE Day 5, Page 72, Lines 25 – 27.

^{[note: 219]}NE Day 6, Page 38, Line 28.

^{[note: 220]}NE Day 6, Page 25, Lines 20 – 22.

^{[note: 221]}NE Day 6, Page 26, Lines 29 – 30.

^{[note: 222]}NE Day 6, Page 28, Line 7.

^{[note: 223]}NE Day 6, Page 29, Line 3.

^{[note: 224]}NE Day 6, Page 29, Line 7.

^{[note: 225]}NE Day 6, Page 33, Lines 28 to Page 34, Lines 1 – 2.

^{[note: 226]}NE Day [2008] EWHC 774; 6, Page 34, Line 28.

^{[note: 227]}NE Day 6, Page 36, Lines 20 – 22.

^{[note: 228]}NE Day 6, Page 36, Lines 22 – 26.

^{[note: 229]}NE Day 6, Page 37, Lines 1 – 2 and 14.

^{[note: 230]}NE Day 6, Page 37, Lines 21 – 26.

^{[note: 231]}NE Day 6, Page 37, Lines 27 – 31.

^{[note: 232]}NE Day 6, Page 38, Line 12.

^{[note: 233]}NE Day 6, Page 61, Lines 2 – 6.

^{[note: 234]}NE Day 6, Page 58, Lines 1 – 10.

^{[note: 235]}NE Day 6, Page 59, Lines 28 – 29.

^{[note: 236]}NE Day 6, Page 62, Lines 2 – 4.

^{[note: 237]}NE Day 6, Page 62, Lines 8 – 16.

^{[note: 238]}NE Day 6, Page 14, Line 21.

^{[note: 239]}NE Day 6, Page 23, Line 14.

^{[note: 240]}NE Day 6, Page 13, Lines 26 – 27.

^{[note: 241]}NE, Day 6, Page 13, Lines 28 – 30.

^{[note: 242]}NE Day 6, Page 19, Line 1.

^{[note: 243]}NE Day 6, Page 19, Line 7.

^{[note: 244]}NE Day 8, Page 2, Line 30.

^{[note: 245]}NE Day 8, Page 4, Lines 3 – 4.

^{[note: 246]}NE Day 8, Page 5, Lines 6 – 9.

^{[note: 247]}Described in the DNA Report at pages 4 to 5.

^{[note: 248]}NE Day 8, Page 11, Lines 1 – 3.

^{[note: 249]}NE Day 8, Page 11, Line 11.

^{[note: 250]}NE Day 8, Page 11, Line 17 – 18.

^{[note: 251]}NE Day 8, Page 11, Lines 19 – 20.

^{[note: 252]}NE Day 8, Page 11, Lines 25 to 31 and Page 12, Line 1.

^{[note: 253]}Photo of F1C is at P3-16.

^{[note: 254]}NE Day 8, Page 16, Lines 10 – 11.

^{[note: 255]}NE Day 8, Page 15, Lines 3 – 4.

^{[note: 256]}NE Day 8, Page 9, Lines 13 – 15.

^{[note: 257]}The DNA Report Page 15.

^{[note: 258]}The DNA Report, Page 15.

^{[note: 259]}NE Day 8, Page 12, Lines 16 – 18.

^{[note: 260]}NE Day 8, Page 17, Lines 17 – 21.

^{[note: 261]}NE Day 8, Page 17, Lines 22 – 26.

^{[note: 262]}NE Day 8, Page 7, Lines 4 – 6.

^{[note: 263]}P61.

^{[note: 264]}NE Day 8, Page 20, Lines 28 – 32.

^{[note: 265]}NE Day 8, Page 21 and Page 22, Lines 1 – 25.

^{[note: 266]}NE Day 8, Page 22, Line 26.

^{[note: 267]}NE Day 8, Page 24, Line 5.

^{[note: 268]}NE Day 8, Page 23, Lines 1 – 2.

^{[note: 269]}NE Day 8, Page 24, Lines 17 – 19.

^{[note: 270]}P34-3A, P34-4A and P34-5A.

^{[note: 271]}NE Day 8, Pages 25 to 28.

^{[note: 272]}NE Day 8, Page 33, Lines 4 – 5.

^{[note: 273]}NE Day 8, Page 32, Lines 11 – 19.

^{[note: 274]}NE Day 8, Page 33, Lines 1 – 2.

^{[note: 275]}NE Day 8, Page 36, Lines 5 – 8.

^{[note: 276]}NE Day 8, Page 39, Line 26.

^{[note: 277]}NE Day 8, Page 46, Line 6.

^{[note: 278]}NE Day 8, Page 38, Line 21.

^{[note: 279]}NE Day 8, Page 38, Line 24.

^{[note: 280]}NE Day 8, Page 38, Lines 26 – 29.

^{[note: 281]}NE Day 8, Page 40, Lines 1 – 2.

^{[note: 282]}NE Day 8, Page 40, Lines 5 – 10.

^{[note: 283]}NE Day 8, Page 40, Lines 12 – 13.

^{[note: 284]}NE Day 8, Page 41, Line 4.

^{[note: 285]}NE Day 8, Page 42, Line 5.

^{[note: 286]}NE Day 8, Page 44, Lines 16 – 23.

^{[note: 287]}NE Day 8, Page 46, Line 11.

^{[note: 288]}NE Day 9, Page 10, Lines 20 – 24.

^{[note: 289]}NE Day 9, Page 2, Lines 23 – 31.

^{[note: 290]}NE Day 9, Page 2, Lines 16 – 17.

^{[note: 291]}NE Day 9, Page 2, Lines 17 – 19.

^{[note: 292]}NE Day 9, Page 5, Lines 14 – 15.

^{[note: 293]}NE Day 9, Page 9, Lines 12 – 13.

^{[note: 294]}NE Day 9, Page 4, Lines 25 – 27.

^{[note: 295]}NE Day 9, Page 6, Lines 14 – 16.

^{[note: 296]}NE Day 9, Page 8, Lines 28 – 31 and Page 9, Lines 1-2.

^{[note: 297]}NE Day 9, Page 4, Lines 15 – 17.

^{[note: 298]}NE Day 9, Page 7, Lines 29 – 32 and Page 8, Lines 1 – 2.

^{[note: 299]}NE Day 9, Page 8, Lines 3 – 4.

^{[note: 300]}NE Day 9, Page 4, Lines 15 – 17.

^{[note: 301]}NE Day 9, Page 8, Lines 3 – 6.

^{[note: 302]}NE Day 9, Page 8, Lines 16 – 19.

^{[note: 303]}NE Day 9, Page 8, Lines 19 – 20.

^{[note: 304]}NE Day 9, Page 8, Line 27.

^{[note: 305]}NE Day 9, Page 9, 15 – 19.

^{[note: 306]}NE Day 9, page 9, Lines 20 – 25.

^{[note: 307]}NE Day 9, Page 9, Lines 29 – 30.

^{[note: 308]}P3-15, NE Day 9, Page 25, Lines 27 – 30.

^{[note: 309]}NE Day 9, Page 27, Lines 15 – 17.

^{[note: 310]}NE Day 11, Page 3, Line 5.

^{[note: 311]}NE Day 9, Page 8, Lines 3 – 6.

^{[note: 312]}NE Day 9. Page 90 Lines 10 – 11.

^{[note: 313]}NE Day 9, Page 91, Lines 29 – 32.

^{[note: 314]}NE Day 9, Page 92, Lines 10 – 12.

^{[note: 315]}NE Day 10, Page 61, Lines 17 – 31.

^{[note: 316]}NE Day 10, Page 64, Lines 26 – 28.

^{[note: 317]}NE Day 9, Page 80, Lines 9 – 15.

^{[note: 318]}NE Day 10, Page 65, Lines 7 – 9.

^{[note: 319]}NE Day 10, Page 64, Line 2.

^{[note: 320]}NE Day 10, Page 65, Line 2.

^{[note: 321]}NE Day 9, Page 85, Lines 15 – 18.

^{[note: 322]}NE Day 9, Page 85, Lines 21 – 26.

^{[note: 323]}P33, Paragraph 54.

^{[note: 324]}NE Day 9, Page 99, Lines 8 – 10.

^{[note: 325]}NE Day 9, Page 102, Line 11.

^{[note: 326]}NE Day 9, Page 102, Line 11.

^{[note: 327]}NE Day 9, Page 102, Lines 16 – 20.

^{[note: 328]}Report No.ID-2032-01475-003

^{[note: 329]}NE Day 9, Page 13, Lines 20 – 21.

^{[note: 330]}NE Day 9, Page 13, Lines 5 – 10.

^{[note: 331]}NE Day 9, Page 13, Lines 14 – 15.

^{[note: 332]}NE Day 9, Page 17, Lines 14 – 16.

^{[note: 333]}NE Day 9, Page 17, Line 13.

^{[note: 334]}NE Day 9, Page 18, Lines 14 – 16.

^{[note: 335]}NE Day 9, Page 163, Lines 6 – 7.

^{[note: 336]}NE Day 9, Page 163, Lines 19 – 24.

^{[note: 337]}NE Day 9, Page 21, Lines 2 – 4.

^{[note: 338]}NE Day 9, Page 21, Line 33 and Page 22, Lines 23 – 26.

^{[note: 339]}NE Day 9, Page 106, Lines 3 – 13.

^{[note: 340]}NE Day 9, Page 106, Line 12.

^{[note: 341]}NE Day 9, Page 107, Lines 28 – 32.

^{[note: 342]}P30, Photograph 14.

^{[note: 343]}NE Day 9, Page 72, Line 22.

^{[note: 344]}NE Day 9, Page 73, Lines 30 – 33.

^{[note: 345]}NE Day 9, Page 74, Lines 23 – 25.

^{[note: 346]}P30, at [38].

^{[note: 347]}NE Day 9, Page 77, Lines 7 – 22.

^{[note: 348]}NE Day 9, Page 34, Lines 12 – 13.

^{[note: 349]}NE Day 9, Page 33, Lines 18 – 32 and Page 34, Lines 1 – 8.

^{[note: 350]}NE Day 9, Page 50, Lines 11 – 30.

^{[note: 351]}NE Day 9, Page 37, Lines 1 – 22.

^{[note: 352]}NE Day 9, Page 38, Lines 1 – 13.

^{[note: 353]}NE Day 9, Page 39, Lines 18 – 20.

^{[note: 354]}NE Day 9, Page 40, Lines 9 – 10.

^{[note: 355]}NE Day 9, Page 42, Lines 18 – 20.

^{[note: 356]}NE Day 9, Page 40, Lines 25 – 28 and Page 42, Lines 24 – 29.

^{[note: 357]}NE Day 9, Page 65, Lines 15 – 22.

^{[note: 358]}NE Day 9, Page 67, Line 6.

^{[note: 359]}NE Day 9, Page 67, Line 27.

^{[note: 360]}NE Day 9, Page 69, Lines 22 – 27.

^{[note: 361]}Adili Chibuike Ejike v Public Prosecutor [2019] 2 SLR 254 (“Adili”) at [34]).

^{[note: 362]}See Adili at [71].

^{[note: 363]}Saravanan Chandram v Public Prosecutor [2020] 2 SLR 95 (“Saravanan Chandram”) at [185]; See also Ramesh a/l Perumal v Public Prosecutor [2019] 1 SLR 1003 (“Ramesh”) at [65]. Notably, knowledge that the item contained an illicit substance is also not sufficient as per Ramesh at [67].

^{[note: 364]}See Ramesh at [58].

^{[note: 365]}Muhammad Ridzuan bin Md Ali v Public Prosecutor [2014] 3 SLR 721 (“Ridzuan”) at [59].

^{[note: 366]}Gobi a/l Avedian v Public Prosecutor [2021] 1 SLR 180 (“Gobi”) at [57] and [60].

^{[note: 367]}See Gobi at [59].

^{[note: 368]}See Saravanan at [34]; See also Ramesh at [40].

^{[note: 369]}See Gobi at [64] and [65] and 94.

^{[note: 370]}This particular interpretation of “possession” is confined to section 17 of the MDA. See Zainal bin Hamad v Public Prosecutor [2018] 2 SLR 1119 (“Zainal”) at [51].

^{[note: 371]}See Ramesh at [58] – [59].

^{[note: 372]}Kwang Boon Keong Peter v Public Prosecutor [1998] 2 SLR(R) 211 (“Peter Kwang”) at [19].

^{[note: 373]}Public Prosecutor v Heah Lian Khin [2000] 2 SLR(R) 745 (“Heah Lian Khin”) at [44].

^{[note: 374]}See Heah Lian Khin at [44].

^{[note: 375]}Yeo Kwan Wee Kenneth v Public Prosecutor [2004] 2 SLR(R) 45 at [26].

^{[note: 376]}Public Prosecutor v Somwang Phatthanasaeng [1990] 2 SLR(R) 414 at [43].

^{[note: 377]}NE Day 10, Page 21, Line 17.

^{[note: 378]}NE Day 10, Page 21, Line 7 – 32 and Page 22 Lines 1 – 5.

^{[note: 379]}P27 at [1].

^{[note: 380]}P6, A2 and A3.

^{[note: 381]}P6, A2 and A3.

^{[note: 382]}P29 at [32].

^{[note: 383]}P13.

^{[note: 384]}P62, [4] and [10].

^{[note: 385]}Day 10, Page 17, Lines 8 – 17.

^{[note: 386]}NE reproduced above at [127].

^{[note: 387]}Above at [77].

^{[note: 388]}Above at [99].

^{[note: 389]}P30 at [40].

^{[note: 390]}See the Prosecution’s closing submissions at [38]. Notably, the Prosecution also cited the section they sought to rely on inaccurately throughout their submission as section 17(d) MDA and not 17(1)(d) MDA.

^{[note: 391]}Q5 and A5 of P6T.

^{[note: 392]}NE Day 9, Page 129, Lines 18 – 33 and Page 130, Lines 1 – 9.

^{[note: 393]}The DNA Report, Page 15.

^{[note: 394]}P27, at [14].

^{[note: 395]}P34, at [67].

^{[note: 396]}NE Day 9, Page 23, Lines 17 – 33 and Page 24, Lines 1 – 22.

^{[note: 397]}P33, at [54].

^{[note: 398]}NE Day 9, Page 102, Line 11.

^{[note: 399]}Beh Chew Boo v Public Prosecutor [2020] 2 SLR 1375 at [71].

^{[note: 400]}P22 at [3] and [4] and P23 at [23] and [24].

^{[note: 401]}See Peter Kwang at [26].

^{[note: 402]}NE Day 4, Page 53, Lines 26 – 32.

^{[note: 403]}NE Day 4, Page 53, Lines 16 – 32 and Page 54, Lines 1 – 17.

^{[note: 404]}P21 at [3].

^{[note: 405]}NE Day 4, Page 24, Line 22 – 31 and Page 25, Lines 1 – 5.

^{[note: 406]}NE Day 4, Page 43, Line 23.

^{[note: 407]}P22 at [16] and P23 at [23] – [25].

^{[note: 408]}P21 at [3].

^{[note: 409]}NE Day 4, Page 17, Lines 1 – 24

^{[note: 410]}NE Day 4, Page 83, Lines 7 – 17.

^{[note: 411]}NE Day 4, Page 17, Lines 25 – 29.

^{[note: 412]}NE Day 4, Page 88, Lines 26 – 30.

^{[note: 413]}P22, [16] and P23, [23] – [24].

^{[note: 414]}NE Day 4, Page 19, Lines 16 – 17.

^{[note: 415]}See Peter Kwang at [19].

^{[note: 416]}NE Day 3, Page 30, Lines 26 – 30.

^{[note: 417]}NE Day 3, Page 30, Lines 26 – 30.

^{[note: 418]}See Saravanan Chandram at [138] – [139].

^{[note: 419]}See Saravanan Chandram at [150] – [151].

^{[note: 420]}See Saravanan Chandram at [141] – [142].

^{[note: 421]}See Vasentha at [44].

^{[note: 422]}See Vasentha at [47] – [48].

^{[note: 423]}See Suventher at [28]. Although the Court of Appeal mentioned cannabis mixture, it should be noted that the decision in Sivasangaran in fact relied on the indicative starting points for the offence of trafficking in diamorphine in Vasentha at [47] and adopted starting points for trafficking in cannabis based on weight of the cannabis that the prosecution had extrapolated. (see at [19]).

^{[note: 424]}See Prosecution’s sentencing submissions at [4].

^{[note: 425]}Mohd Shahrin bin Shwi v Public Prosecutor [1996] 3 SLR(R) 174 at [21] – [22]; See also Kreetharan s/o Kathireson v Public Prosecutor [2020] SGCA 91 at [37] and Kow Keng Siong, Sentencing Principles in Singapore (Academy Publishing, Second Ed, 2019 at [20.147].

^{[note: 426]}See Vasentha at [69].

^{[note: 427]}Nigel Walker, Aggravation, Mitigation and Mercy in English Criminal Justice (Blackstone Press Limited,1999) at p 95, cited with approval in Chew Soo Chuan v Public Prosecutor [2016] SGHC 6; [2016] 2 SLR 78 at [32] by the High Court.

^{[note: 428]}Lai Oei Mui Jenny v Public Prosecutor [1993] 2 SLR(R) 406 at [11]; See also Public Prosecutor v Yue Mun Yew Gary [2013] 1 SLR 39 at [67] – [68].

^{[note: 429]}Muhammad Sutarno bin Nasir v Public Prosecutor [2018] 2 SLR 647 at [24].

^{[note: 430]}Public Prosecutor v Raveen Balakrishnan [2018] SGHC 148; [2018] 5 SLR 799 at [80].

^{[note: 431]}See Vasentha at [86].