Case Details
- Citation: [2026] SGCA 11
- Court: Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore
- Date: 2026-03-10
- Judges: Tay Yong Kwang JCA
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Khartik Jasudass
- Defendant/Respondent: Public Prosecutor
- Legal Areas: Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Criminal review
- Statutes Referenced: Criminal Procedure Code, Misuse of Drugs Act
- Cases Cited: [2015] SGHC 199, [2021] SGCA 10, [2021] SGCA 13, [2025] SGCA 22, [2026] SGCA 11
- Judgment Length: 12 pages, 2,971 words
Summary
In this case, the applicant, Khartik Jasudass, was convicted of trafficking in diamorphine and sentenced to life imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane. His appeal against the conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in 2016. The applicant subsequently filed two applications seeking permission to review the Court of Appeal's decision, both of which were dismissed.
In the present application, the applicant sought permission to review the dismissal of his previous application for review. The Court of Appeal held that the application was statutorily barred and that there was no basis to invoke the court's inherent power of review, as the applicant did not present any new material that conclusively showed a miscarriage of justice.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
On 27 August 2012, the applicant and his co-accused, Puniyamurthy, were arrested while riding a motorcycle into Singapore. The motorcycle had three bundles of drugs hidden in it, and the two men had already delivered one bundle to a buyer and collected $2,500. The two remaining bundles contained a total of 26.21g of diamorphine.
In their statements to the police and in court, the applicant and Puniyamurthy claimed that they had been forced to deliver the drugs by a man named Raja, who had threatened them and their families. The applicant and Puniyamurthy were charged with trafficking in diamorphine in furtherance of their common intention.
At the trial, the main issue concerning the applicant was whether he knew the nature of the drugs he was carrying. The trial judge rejected the applicant's claim that he was ignorant of the drugs and found that the presumption of knowledge under the Misuse of Drugs Act had not been rebutted. The judge also rejected the applicant's defense of duress, finding that the threats from Raja did not operate on the applicant's mind at the material time of the offense.
The applicant's appeal against his conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in 2016. He subsequently filed two applications seeking permission to review the Court of Appeal's decision, both of which were also dismissed.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The key legal issues in this case were:
1. Whether the applicant had rebutted the presumption of knowledge under the Misuse of Drugs Act, given his claim that he did not know the nature of the drugs he was carrying.
2. Whether the applicant could rely on the defense of duress, based on the threats made by Raja against the applicant and his family.
3. Whether the applicant should be granted permission to review the Court of Appeal's previous decisions dismissing his appeals and applications for review.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
On the issue of the presumption of knowledge, the trial judge and the Court of Appeal both found that the applicant had failed to rebut the presumption. The courts held that the applicant's failure to make further inquiries about the nature of the drugs he was carrying, despite being aware that he was involved in drug trafficking, amounted to wilful blindness and did not constitute a valid defense.
Regarding the defense of duress, the courts found that the applicant's own admission that he was "out of Raja's reach" when he entered Singapore undermined his claim that the threats from Raja operated on his mind at the material time. The courts held that the Alleged Threats, even if true, did not constitute a valid defense of duress.
In analyzing the applicant's applications for review, the Court of Appeal in the present case noted that the applicant's first application for permission to review the Court of Appeal's decision in 2016 was dismissed in 2021. The court held that the present application was statutorily barred, as the law does not allow for more than one application for permission to review a decision of an appellate court.
The court further held that there was no basis to invoke its inherent power of review, as the applicant did not present any new material that conclusively showed a miscarriage of justice. The court reiterated that the requirements for the exercise of its inherent power of review mirror the requirements for the exercise of its statutory power of review under the Criminal Procedure Code, which the applicant had failed to satisfy.
What Was the Outcome?
The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's present application for permission to review the Court of Appeal's previous decision in CM 19, which had dismissed the applicant's earlier application for permission to review the Court of Appeal's decision in CCA 26 (the applicant's original appeal against his conviction and sentence).
The practical effect of the Court of Appeal's decision is that the applicant's conviction and sentence of life imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane remain in place, as the court found no basis to disturb the previous rulings.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case is significant for several reasons:
1. It reaffirms the high threshold for rebutting the presumption of knowledge under the Misuse of Drugs Act, even in cases where the accused claims ignorance of the nature of the drugs. The courts have consistently held that a mere assertion of ignorance is not enough, and that the accused must show they made reasonable inquiries to ascertain the nature of the drugs.
2. The case provides further guidance on the defense of duress in drug trafficking cases, emphasizing that the threats must be operating on the accused's mind at the material time of the offense. The applicant's own admission that he was out of the purported threatener's reach undermined his duress defense.
3. The case highlights the strict statutory limitations on the ability to seek review of appellate court decisions in criminal matters. The court made clear that the law does not allow for multiple applications for permission to review, and that the court's inherent power of review can only be invoked in exceptional circumstances where there is conclusive evidence of a miscarriage of justice.
This judgment serves as an important precedent for the Court of Appeal's approach to criminal review applications, reinforcing the finality of appellate court decisions and the high bar that must be met to justify disturbing them.
Legislation Referenced
Cases Cited
Source Documents
This article analyses [2026] SGCA 11 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.