Abdul Aziz bin Ahtam v Public Prosecutor

• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 02 December 1996
• Neutral Citation: [1996] SGHC 275
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Whether prosecution established act of transportation involving purpose of ultimate distribution,Presumed possession,(follow title of statute: eg misuse of drugs act),Substitution of conviction for minor offence,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Drugs found in vehicle driven by accused,Evidence adduced did not support charge against accused,Statutory offences,Substitution of conviction for lesser offence of possession of controlled drug,Charge of drug trafficking not supported by evidence,s 21 Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185),Trafficking in controlled drugs,Trafficking by transporting,No evidence of mens rea of trafficking,Revision of proceedings,s 175 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68),Whether defence should have been called to charge of trafficking by transportation
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1996
• Citation: [1996] SGHC 275
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Defendant Counsel: Winston Cheng Howe Ming (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ang Sin Teck (Raja, Loo & Chandra)

The petitioner was tried in a district court on a charge of having not less than 330g and not more than 500g of cannabis in his possession for the purpose of trafficking, together with Goh Kim Hong (Goh) and Teo Tiang Hoe (Teo), in furtherance of the common intention of all three of them. This was an offence contrary to s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) (MDA). This charge was brought against him and Goh jointly (hereinafter referred to as the main charge).

In an alternative charge, the petitioner and Goh were charged with trafficking in the cannabis by transporting it in a motor car bearing registration number SZ 8607K (the car). Teo was charged separately in the High Court and convicted of a capital charge, involving other quantities of cannabis in addition to the amount which formed the subject matter of the joint charge against Goh and the petitioner.

Brief facts

The offence allegedly took place on 18 June 1994 along Dunearn Road. The petitioner was then driving the car when it was stopped at a police road block along Dunearn Road at about 1.40am. Goh was seated in the front passenger seat, while Teo was seated in the rear. All three were arrested after the discovery of various packets of vegetable matter and one block of vegetable matter in a sports bag in the boot of the car. The vegetable matter was subsequently confirmed upon chemical analysis to be cannabis.

On discovering the block of cannabis, one Police Constable Lee Tuan Loy asked Teo whether it belonged to him. Teo said that some of the things were his, but some were not. The petitioner and Goh both denied owning the block of cannabis. A statement was subsequently recorded from the petitioner under s 121 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) (CPC). In this statement, the petitioner gave an account of the events leading to their arrest.

The proceedings below

Goh and the petitioner were jointly tried before a district judge. The prosecution relied substantially on the fact that the drugs were found in the car and the s 121 statement made by the petitioner. The material portions of the statement were as follows:

4 On 18 June 1994 at about 12.45am, I was arrested with two friends, Alan Goh Kim Hong and Michael Teo in a motor car SZ 8607K along Dunearn Road by a party of police officers at a road block. At the time of the arrest, the police officers found a sports bag containing cannabis. They also found an envelope containing cannabis below the driver`s seat and a yellow container with some cannabis. The police officers also found some packets of cannabis in the attache case lying on the back seat and a bottle from the back pocket of the front passenger seat. We were subsequently placed under arrest and brought to Tanglin Police Station...

6 On 17 June 1994 at about 7.30pm as I was crossing the road from Tanjong Pagar to Amara Hotel, Michael Teo honked at me. He was the driver of the car, SZ 8607K and was with one Alan Goh. I then went into the back seat of the car. It was a chance meeting. When I entered the car, I saw that the bottle was already at the back pocket of the front passenger seat and the yellow container was on top of the handbrake. The attache case was also at the back seat on the right side and it belongs to Michael Teo. Michael drove the car to Peninsula Plaza where he alighted leaving Alan and I in the car. Michael told us that he was going to meet a friend. Before alighting, Michael told me to pass the attache case to him. I saw him opening the case and taking out two to three long type window envelope bearing the name `Sumida`. I also noticed that the envelopes contained cannabis. Michael then placed the envelopes in the pocket of his trouser before handing back the attache case to me. He then left the car. He came back less than 5 minutes later. Michael Teo then drove the car off to Ginza Plaza at West Coast Road. Upon arriving there, he alighted from the car and told us that he was meeting a friend leaving Alan and I inside the car. Michael Teo returned to the car about 5 minutes later. He then drove the car to the hawker centre on the opposite side of the road. I then saw him walking to the hawker centre. When he came back, Michael Teo drove to the McDonald`s Drive Thru Restaurant at East Coast Parkway. After collecting our food, we continued with our journey to Tampines where there was a police road block. That time was between 9.45pm and 10.00pm. However, we were checked and we were allowed to pass through.

7 We then travelled through various places and it was actually a joyride. Michael Teo was the driver throughout the journey. When I first entered the car at about 7.30pm along Tanjong Pagar Road, Michael Teo has already started to smoke cannabis in the car. The bottle with a pipe attached was used to smoke the drug which were taken out from the yellow container. The bottle was passed between Michael Teo and I throughout the car journey. Along the Pan Island Expressway, I told Michael Teo that I wanted to go home as I needed to go to work the following day. I also told him I wanted to borrow the car as I intended to go out with my fiancee the next day. Along Eng Neo Avenue, Michael Teo told me to take over the wheel as he was feeling tired. At the same time, he told me that the `thing` was under the driver`s seat and was for me. The `thing` Michael Teo referred to was cannabis and it was for my own consumption. From Eng Neo Avenue, I drove along Dunearn Road as I intended to send Michael Teo back to his rented room at No 60 Watten Estate. I remember that throughout the journey, Alan Goh was seated in the front seat and I noticed that he was rather quiet and seldom talked. I also remember that when I took over the driving, he told me that he wanted to bring the sports bag back. This sports bag was the one found in the boot when we were arrested. However, along Dunearn Road, we were stopped by the road block and arrested.

8 I also remember that after we left the McDonald Drive Thru Restaurant, Michael Teo asked me to take something from the boot of the car. I then lowered down the back rest of the back seat and I saw the sports bag there in the boot. I then asked Michael Teo why the sports bag was still inside there and he replied that he forgot to bring out. I knew that the sports bag contained a block of cannabis. I suspected that the block of cannabis was still inside the bag. The first time I saw the sports bag containing the block of cannabis was sometime on 14 June 1994 in the evening when he came in the car, SZ 8607K to pick me up after my work. We then picked Alan Goh at his block and we proceeded to one of the car parks in Marina South to smoke cannabis. Upon arriving there, Michael Teo opened up the boot of the car and showed Alan Goh and I the sports bag. He opened up the sports bag...