Case Details
- Citation: [2022] SGHC 150
- Title: Public Prosecutor v Saridewi bte Djamani
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore (General Division)
- Criminal Case No: 28 of 2018
- Date of decision: 28 June 2022
- Judges: See Kee Oon J
- Hearing dates: 7–11, 17–18 February, 8 March 2022
- Proceedings: Findings on remittal following an appeal
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Public Prosecutor
- Defendant/Respondent: Saridewi bte Djamani
- Legal areas: Criminal Law — Statutory offences; Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Appeal; Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Trials
- Statute(s) referenced: Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed)
- Key statutory provision(s) (as described): s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act
- Controlled drug: Diamorphine (Class A controlled drug under the First Schedule to the MDA)
- Sentence at trial: Death penalty
- Appeal route: CCA 30/2018 (appeal against conviction and sentence); CM 15/2019 (leave to rely on further ground)
- Remittal basis: Court of Appeal remitted for additional evidence under s 392 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed)
- Fresh evidence issue: Whether Saridewi was suffering from methamphetamine withdrawal during the statement-taking period (18 to 24 June 2016)
- Statement-taking period and recording provisions: First statement recorded on 21 June 2016 under s 23 of the CPC; remaining three statements recorded on 22 and 23 June 2016 under s 22 of the CPC
- Expert evidence tendered on remittal: Dr Jacob Rajesh (psychiatrist; prepared multiple reports including one for remitted hearing); Dr Mohamed Zakir Karuvetil (consultant in addiction medicine at IMH; prosecution expert reports)
- Length of judgment: 50 pages, 13,567 words
- Cases cited (as provided): [2016] SGHC 191; [2018] SGHC 204; [2022] SGCA 10; [2022] SGHC 150
Summary
Public Prosecutor v Saridewi bte Djamani [2022] SGHC 150 concerns a remitted hearing in an appeal against conviction and sentence for a capital charge under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The central controversy was not the quantity of diamorphine, but the reliability and admissibility of multiple statements recorded from the accused during 18 to 24 June 2016. Saridewi alleged that she was suffering from methamphetamine withdrawal during the statement-taking period, which, she argued, impaired her ability to provide accurate answers.
After the trial judge originally rejected her account as afterthoughts, the Court of Appeal remitted the matter for further evidence under s 392 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The remittal directed the trial judge to make findings on whether experts agreed that Saridewi was suffering from methamphetamine withdrawal between 18 and 24 June 2016, what the symptoms of such withdrawal are, the extent (mild to severe) of her condition, and the implications for her ability to give reliable statements. In the remitted hearing, the court evaluated competing expert reports and assessed the credibility and plausibility of Saridewi’s explanations for why she allegedly did not disclose withdrawal symptoms to doctors at the time.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
At trial, Saridewi was convicted after a full trial on one charge under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act for possessing six packets and seven straws containing not less than 30.72 grams of diamorphine, a Class A controlled drug. The statutory framework for Class A trafficking offences carries the mandatory consequence of the death penalty, and the trial court sentenced Saridewi to suffer the death penalty.
Although the conviction turned on possession of a large quantity of diamorphine, Saridewi’s defence strategy focused heavily on the statements recorded from her during the investigation. The judgment extract indicates that multiple statements were taken over several days: the first statement was recorded on 21 June 2016 under s 23 of the Criminal Procedure Code, while the remaining three statements were recorded on 22 and 23 June 2016 under s 22. Saridewi’s position was that her mental state during the statement-taking period prevented her from thinking properly and answering accurately, thereby undermining the reliability of the statements.
In the original trial, Saridewi adduced evidence from Dr Julia Lam, who opined that she suffered from persistent depressive disorder and substance abuse disorder. The trial judge rejected Dr Lam’s assessment on the basis that the exclusionary criterion was not properly applied to distinguish symptoms attributable to the physiological effects of methamphetamine abuse during the relevant period. The trial judge also found that Saridewi’s claims of drug withdrawal were afterthoughts because she did not raise complaints or exhibit withdrawal symptoms when examined by the doctors who assessed her during the material time.
On appeal, Saridewi sought to introduce additional expert evidence through CM 15/2019. The further evidence was prompted by new psychiatric reports prepared by Dr Jacob Rajesh, including a report specifically prepared in response to the Court of Appeal’s questions for the remitted hearing. The prosecution responded with expert reports from Dr Mohamed Zakir Karuvetil. The remittal therefore shifted the inquiry from the trial judge’s earlier assessment of credibility and afterthought to a more structured evaluation of whether methamphetamine withdrawal was medically plausible during the statement-taking period and, if so, whether it could have affected Saridewi’s ability to provide reliable statements.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The remitted hearing was framed by specific questions from the Court of Appeal. The first issue was evidential and medical: whether the experts agreed that Saridewi was suffering from methamphetamine withdrawal between 18 and 24 June 2016. This required the court to examine diagnostic criteria, symptom profiles, and the extent to which the available evidence supported a conclusion of withdrawal during the relevant window.
The second issue concerned the content and nature of withdrawal symptoms. The court was asked what the symptoms of methamphetamine withdrawal are and whether the experts agreed on the symptom set relevant to the case. This was not merely academic; it was directly tied to whether Saridewi’s alleged symptoms could explain inconsistencies or falsehoods in her statements.
The third issue was legal in its practical implications: the extent of Saridewi’s condition (mild to severe) and the implications for her ability to give reliable statements. The remittal also required the court to identify particular symptoms that would have impeded her ability to provide such statements, and to assess whether it was plausible that physicians who examined her at the time would have missed those symptoms. Finally, the trial judge was permitted to consider any other relevant issues arising from the additional evidence and determine whether the totality of the new evidence affected earlier rulings on the statements and, consequently, the outcome of the trial.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court’s analysis began with the procedural context and the scope of the remittal. The remitted hearing was not a re-trial of the entire case; it was a targeted inquiry into whether methamphetamine withdrawal symptoms could have affected the reliability of Saridewi’s statements recorded under ss 22 and 23 of the CPC during 18 to 24 June 2016. The court therefore treated the medical evidence and the accused’s testimony as central to determining whether the earlier rejection of the withdrawal narrative should be revisited.
On the factual side, the court considered Saridewi’s evidence at the remitted hearing. Notably, she admitted that she had lied on several matters in her statements recorded between 21 and 23 June 2016. She explained that she lied to create an untruthful narrative about her drug trafficking activities in order to avoid the capital charge. However, she also provided an alternative explanation: she claimed she was unable to think properly because her mind “shut down”, leading her to answer questions without thinking through her responses. The court had to reconcile these explanations and assess whether withdrawal symptoms could realistically account for the admitted falsehoods.
Saridewi also testified that she did not disclose withdrawal symptoms to doctors because she believed addicts rarely tell doctors of withdrawal symptoms, as they want to be bailed out. She further testified that she informed Dr Lee (an IMH doctor who assessed her in July 2016) that she was not suffering from drug withdrawal because she was “hoping to get bailed out”. This aspect of her evidence was significant because it directly engaged the remittal question of plausibility: if she truly had withdrawal symptoms during the statement-taking period, would physicians examining her at the time have noticed them? The court therefore scrutinised whether her explanations were consistent with medical expectations and with her conduct during the relevant period.
On the medical evidence, the court addressed the remittal questions through expert reports. The extract indicates that Dr Rajesh’s reports covered: (i) Saridewi’s persistent depressive disorder; (ii) diagnostic criteria for methamphetamine withdrawal; (iii) whether Saridewi was suffering from methamphetamine withdrawal; and (iv) the severity of withdrawal symptoms and their impact on the reliability of Saridewi’s statements. Dr Zakir’s reports similarly addressed diagnostic criteria, whether withdrawal was present, and the severity and reliability implications. The court also considered evidence from multiple physicians and nurses who examined Saridewi, including Dr Tan, Dr Vethamony, Dr Chan, Dr Wong Kia Boon, Dr Cheok Liangzhi, Dr Lee, and others.
In analysing whether Saridewi was suffering from methamphetamine withdrawal between 18 and 24 June 2016, the court had to evaluate both the diagnostic plausibility and the evidential basis for the diagnosis. This involved assessing whether Saridewi’s self-reported symptoms—sleepiness and/or lethargy, hypersomnia, depressed mood, anxiety, increased appetite, psychomotor retardation, and agitation—matched accepted withdrawal symptom patterns. The court also had to consider the severity of symptoms, because the remittal explicitly asked whether the condition was mild, moderate, or severe, and what specific symptoms would have impeded her ability to provide reliable statements.
Crucially, the court’s reasoning also turned on credibility and corroboration. The extract shows that Saridewi claimed she felt sleepy from 18 to 24 June 2016 “because of the withdrawal” and that she wanted the statement-taking process to be concluded quickly so she could continue to sleep. Yet the court had to weigh this against the absence of complaints or observable withdrawal symptoms during the doctors’ assessments at the time, as found in the original trial. The remittal therefore required the court to test whether it was plausible that withdrawal symptoms would have been missed by physicians who examined her during the relevant period, and if so, to explain why.
Finally, the court considered the implications of any finding of withdrawal for the earlier rulings on the statements. The legal question was not simply whether withdrawal existed medically, but whether it could have affected the accused’s capacity to give reliable statements during the statement-taking period. The court’s analysis thus linked medical severity to functional impairment: the more severe the withdrawal, the greater the potential impact on cognition, attention, and the ability to respond coherently to questions. Conversely, if withdrawal was mild or not present, the court would likely treat the withdrawal narrative as insufficient to undermine the reliability of the statements.
What Was the Outcome?
The extract provided does not include the final dispositive paragraphs of the judgment. However, the structure of the remitted hearing and the Court of Appeal’s directions make clear that the trial judge’s findings on withdrawal symptoms and severity were intended to determine whether the earlier conviction should stand or whether the statements should be re-evaluated in light of the new evidence.
In practical terms, the outcome of the remitted hearing would have affected whether Saridewi’s statements remained reliable and admissible for conviction, and therefore whether the conviction and death sentence were upheld or adjusted. The remittal mechanism under s 392 of the CPC underscores that the Court of Appeal sought medically grounded findings before deciding the appeal on the merits.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case matters because it illustrates how Singapore courts handle appeals that introduce fresh expert evidence on mental state and physiological withdrawal during statement-taking. In capital cases under the Misuse of Drugs Act, the reliability of statements can be decisive. The judgment demonstrates that courts will not treat withdrawal allegations as mere afterthoughts; instead, they will require structured medical findings tied to diagnostic criteria and symptom severity, and then connect those findings to functional impairment relevant to statement reliability.
For practitioners, the case is also a reminder that credibility and plausibility remain central. Even where an accused adduces expert reports, the court will scrutinise the accused’s explanations for inconsistencies, including why withdrawal symptoms were allegedly not disclosed to doctors at the time. The remittal questions explicitly required the court to assess whether it was plausible that physicians would have missed the symptoms, which signals that courts expect a coherent narrative consistent with clinical observation.
From a research perspective, the case is useful for understanding the evidential pathway from medical diagnosis to legal consequences. It bridges psychiatric/medical concepts (withdrawal symptomatology, severity, diagnostic criteria) with criminal procedure questions (the effect of mental state on the reliability of statements recorded under ss 22 and 23 of the CPC). This makes the case particularly relevant for defence counsel seeking to challenge statement reliability on grounds of withdrawal or mental impairment, as well as for prosecutors assessing the strength of such challenges.
Legislation Referenced
- Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed), in particular s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2)
- Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed), in particular s 22 and s 23 (statement recording provisions) and s 392 (remittal for additional evidence)
Cases Cited
- [2016] SGHC 191
- [2018] SGHC 204
- [2022] SGCA 10
- [2022] SGHC 150
Source Documents
This article analyses [2022] SGHC 150 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.