Chan Heng Kong and another v Public Prosecutor
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Chan Sek Keong CJ |
Judgment Date | 06 March 2012 |
Neutral Citation | [2012] SGCA 18 |
Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
Docket Number | Criminal Appeal No 11 of 2010 |
Published date | 13 March 2012 |
Year | 2012 |
Hearing Date | 03 May 2011,16 March 2011 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Cheong Aik Chye (A C Cheong & Co) and Loo Khee Sheng (K S Loo & Co) (both assigned) |
Defendant Counsel | Wong Siew Hong (Infinitus Law Corporation) and Daniel Koh (Eldan Law LLP) (both assigned),Kan Shuk Weng and Gail Wong (Attorney-General's Chambers) |
Citation | [2012] SGCA 18 |
This is an appeal by two persons, Chan Heng Kong (“Chan”) and Sng Chun Heng (“Sng”), who were convicted and sentenced to the mandatory punishment of death in Criminal Case No 3 of 2009 for committing the following offences:
The respective offences which Chan and Sng were convicted of both related to the same events that occurred on 23 January 2008, and the drugs involved consisted of not less than 17.70g of diamorphine.
The background facts The parties involved in the events of 23 January 2008There were a total of four persons involved in the events that occurred on 23 January 2008, namely, Chan, Sng, Choong Peng and one Ang Cheng Wan (“Ang”). All four are Singaporeans. As mentioned earlier, Choong Peng is Sng’s younger brother.
Choong Peng was separately charged and convicted in Criminal Case No 1 of 2009 (“CC 1/2009”) for his involvement in the events of 23 January 2008. However, unlike Sng, he was charged with trafficking in only “not less than 14.99 grams of diamorphine”1 [emphasis in original omitted], and was eventually sentenced to 22 years of imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane. Ang, on the other hand, was initially charged with trafficking in 243.90g of granular substance believed to contain diamorphine. This charge was, however, subsequently withdrawn by the Public Prosecutor during the second pre-trial conference on 30 September 2008. Thereafter, a new charge of drug consumption was preferred against Ang in the Subordinate Courts.
The Prosecution’s summary of the events of 23 January 2008On the morning of 23 January 2008, two teams of Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) officers conducted surveillance at Block 12 Kampong Arang Road (“Block 12”), where Sng and Choong Peng resided, as well as at Woodlands Checkpoint. At the time, the CNB officers were acting on intelligence received that three Chinese men would, later that day, be receiving illegal drugs from a courier from Malaysia travelling in a silver car with a vehicle registration number containing the digits “702”.
At about 1.20pm on the same day, Sng and Choong Peng were seen at the void deck of Block 12. At about 1.45pm, Ang appeared and joined Sng at the void deck of Block 12 while Choong Peng headed in the direction of a nearby circular pavilion located between Block 12 and Block 14 Kampong Arang Road (“Block 14”). Shortly thereafter, Chan was seen driving a silver Toyota Corolla bearing vehicle registration number EP 702P (“EP 702P”) into the car park of Block 12. Chan stopped EP 702P next to the pavilion between Block 12 and Block 14 (“the Pavilion”), alighted and placed a red plastic bag near a rubbish bin at the Pavilion. Chan then returned to EP 702P and parked the car near the lift landing of Block 14.
A short while later, Choong Peng was seen approaching EP 702P. He entered the front passenger door of EP 702P and was observed engaging in a short conversation with Chan in the car. Choong Peng then alighted from EP 702P and moved towards the Pavilion to retrieve the red plastic bag that had been placed there earlier by Chan. After picking up the red plastic bag, Choong Peng joined Sng and Ang at the car park entrance near Block 12. From there, Sng, Ang and Choong Peng together took a taxi to a public housing estate at Chai Chee Avenue. The CNB officers trailed the trio and arrested them when the taxi stopped at Chai Chee Avenue.
After the arrest of Sng, Ang and Choong Peng, the red plastic bag which Choong Peng had earlier retrieved from the Pavilion was seized and was found to contain a pack of “Mamee Monster” snacks. Inside this “Mamee Monster” snack pack were smaller packs of “Mamee Monster” snacks containing a total of 30 sachets of white granular substance. The white granular substance was analysed by the Health Sciences Authority (“the HSA”) and was found to contain not less than 17.70g of diamorphine.
Chan was arrested separately in Geylang on the same day after his encounter with Choong Peng at Block 12. After his arrest, EP 702P was searched by the CNB officers. During the search, a black sling bag containing $7,500 worth of cash in Singapore currency was retrieved from the front passenger seat. Four packs of “Mamee Monster” snacks, each containing smaller “Mamee Monster” snack packs with drug items in them, were also found in a white paper bag bearing the label “Estebel 1833” (“the ‘Estebel 1833’ bag”) on the rear passenger seat. These drug items were analysed by the HSA and were found to contain not less than 71.57g of diamorphine.
Subsequent to the arrest of Sng, Choong Peng, Chan and Ang, a search was also conducted at Sng’s bedroom in his residence at unit #04-11 of Block 12 (“the Flat”), in the course of which more drugs were found. These drugs were analysed by the HSA and were found to contain not less than 11.97g of diamorphine.
The charges against Sng and Chan Multiple charges were initially preferred against Sng and Chan.2 However, all those charges, save for the ones which Sng and Chan were convicted of in the court below (see
Sng’s and Chan’s respective cases at the trial
YOU ARE CHARGED at the instance of the Attorney-General as Public Prosecutor and the charges against you are:That you,SNG CHUN HENG ,on or about the 23rd day of January 2008 in Singapore, did abet one Sng Choong Peng in trafficking in a controlled drug specified in Class “A” of the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185, to wit, by instigating Sng Choong Peng to be in possession for the purpose of trafficking 30 packets of substances containing not less than 17.70 grams of
diamorphine , without any authorisation under the Misuse of Drugs Act or the regulations made thereunder, when you instructed him to collect the said drug from a certain person which he did on 23rd January 2008 at or about 1.55 p.m. in the vicinity of Kampong Arang Road, Singapore, and you have thereby committed an offence under section 5(1)(a) read with section 5(2) and section 12 and punishable under section 33 of the Misuse of Drugs Act.…
That you,CHAN HENG KONG ,on the 23rd day of January 2008 at about 1.55 p.m. at the vicinity of Kampong Arang Road, Singapore, did traffic in a controlled drug specified in Class “A” of the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185, to wit, by delivering to one Sng Choong Peng 30 packets of substances containing not less than 17.70 grams of
diamorphine , without any authorisation under the Misuse of Drugs Act or the regulations made thereunder, and you have thereby committed an offence under section 5(1)(a) and punishable under section 33 of the Misuse of Drugs Act.…
[emphasis in original]
The case put forth by Sng at the trial was as follows:
As for the case advanced by Chan at the trial, it was as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ali bin Mohamad Bahashwan v PP
...doubt that he himself intended to traffic in the offending drugs. That part of the Court of Appeal's decision in Chan Heng Kong v PP[2012] SGCA 18 which held otherwise should no longer be followed: at [3], [75] and [82]. (4) The rule would operate as follows. If there was evidence that the ......
-
Ramesh a/l Perumal v PP
...Bahashwan v PP [2018] 1 SLR 610 (folld) Aziz bin Abdul Kadir v PP [1999] 2 SLR(R) 314; [1999] 3 SLR 175 (refd) Chan Heng Kong v PP [2012] SGCA 18 (refd) Cosimo Antonio Manisco v R (1995) 79 A Crim R 213 (refd) Hishamrudin bin Mohd v PP [2017] SGCA 41 (refd) Jagatheesan s/o Krishnasamy v PP ......
-
Public Prosecutor v Azlin bte Arujunah and another
...no “‘active suggestion, support, stimulation or encouragement’ of the primary offence”: Chan Heng Kong and another v Public Prosecutor [2012] SGCA 18 at [34]. In this context, Ridzuan’s understanding of what Azlin intended by her request to “deal with” the Child did not involve the specific......
-
PP v Aishamudin bin Jamaludin
...(“Ramalingam”), Quek Hock Lye v Public Prosecutor [2012] 2 SLR 1012 (“Quek Hock Lye”) and Chan Heng Kong and another v Public Prosecutor [2012] SGCA 18 (“Chan Heng Kong”). At the outset, we stress that none of these three cases concerned differing common intention charges. Nonetheless, they......
-
CULPABILITY IN THE MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT
...v Sng Chun Heng [2011] 3 SLR 437 at [75] and [77]. No specific comment was made by the Court of Appeal, Chan Heng Kong v Public Prosecutor[2012] SGCA 18, on these passages but it was noted (at [22]) that “Chan knew ‘[i]n [his] heart’ that he was dealing with illegal drugs when he brought th......
-
Administrative and Constitutional Law
...Ravinthran v AG’), Quek Hock Lye v Public Prosecutor[2012] 2 SLR 1012 (‘Quek Hock Lye v PP’) and Chan Heng Kong v Public Prosecutor[2012] SGCA 18 (‘Chan Heng Kong v PP’). In the earlier decision of Law Society of Singapore v Tan Guat Neo Phyllis[2008] 2 SLR(R) 239, the Court of Three Judges......
-
Criminal Law
...application, unlike the definition adopted in Phang Wah v PP. Wilful blindness 13.23 The appellants in Chan Heng Kong v Public Prosecutor[2012] SGCA 18 were convicted by the High Court for offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (‘MDA’). For the purposes of this chapte......
-
Criminal Procedure, Evidence and Sentencing
...of prosecutorial discretion as set out in Ramalingam Ravinthran v AG. In the first of these cases, Chan Heng Kong v Public Prosecutor[2012] SGCA 18 (‘Chan Heng Kong v PP’), for example, the Court of Appeal clarified the precise boundaries of prosecutorial discretion. The facts of Chan Heng ......