Chee Wee Tiong and Another v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Judge: Karthigesu JA
• Judgment Date: 08 August 1994
• Neutral Citation: [1994] SGCA 94
• Citation: [1994] SGCA 94
• Defendant Counsel: Loo Ngan Chor (Loo Ngan Chor & Co) and Lum Pak Meng (Khosa & Caines),Christine Lee (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Prabhakaran Nair (Ong Tan Nair & Kwek) and Oon Thian Seng (Harry Elias & Pnrs)
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 70 of 1993
• Date: 08 August 1994
• Subject Matter: Nexus between drugs and second appellant,Evidence,Statements,Trafficking in controlled drugs,Attendance,Witnesses,Abetment of trafficking,Statutory offences,Admissibility,s 399 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68),Misuse of Drugs Act,Whether trial judge in recalling witness acted in prejudicial manner,First appellant suffering from drug withdrawal symptoms,Criminal Law,ss 5 & 12 Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185),Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Admissibility of s 121 statements

The two appellants were jointly tried in the High Court on five separate charges of trafficking in a controlled drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185). At the close of the prosecution case, the trial judge amended all the charges. The first appellant was charged with trafficking by offering to deliver 39.04g of diamorphine under the first amended charge, and by transporting 7.11g of diamorphine under the second amended charge. He was also charged with abetting the second appellant by instigating the latter to traffic in 19.92g of diamorphine. The second appellant was charged with trafficking by delivering 39.04g of diamorphine under the first amended charge; he was also charged with trafficking by delivering 19.92g of diamorphine, (the act which the first appellant had been charged with abetting). Both the appellants were convicted on all the amended charges and they appealed against their convictions. We dismissed the appeals and now give our reasons.

On 24 April 1991, a team of eight narcotics officers spotted the first appellant walking towards the junction of Geylang Road and Lorong 39, Geylang. They stopped him and arrested him. A search on his person was carried out and he was found to have in his right trouser pocket a plastic bag containing 11 sachets of granular substance, and a cigarette packet containing three sachets of granular substance. These 14 sachets were seized and later marked `A4`. In his left pocket was a bunch of nine keys on a red key chain. When questioned, the first appellant stated that he had come from No 10A, Lorong 37, where he was living. The narcotics officers then took the first appellant to No 10A, which was a two-storey boarding house. One of the keys taken from the first appellant fitted the door of Room 3, which was on the upper floor of the building. Nothing incriminating was found in the room.

While the narcotics officers were at No 10A, the second appellant arrived at the house carrying a black clutch bag; he was detained and searched. He produced an identity card in the name of Chong Kwong Cher which was found to have been tampered with; when questioned he revealed his true name. In the black clutch bag which he was carrying, the officers found a pink plastic bag containing a big packet of granular substance, and a Cartier spectacle case and a dark red jewellery pouch which altogether contained four mini-packets of granular substance, one small packet of granular substance wrapped in paper, and two straws. The big packet, the four mini packets and the small wrapped packet were seized and later marked `A1`. The narcotics officers also found some keys in a black key pouch.

After the second appellant`s arrest, the narcotics officers interviewed the owner of the boarding house, Ding Sing Kwok, who stated that the second appellant had rented a room at the rear, Room 11 (the rear room), on the ground floor of the boarding house under the name of Chong Kwong Cher.

The officers then took the second appellant to the rear room. Although the room door was locked, the officers were able to open it from the inside by reaching the key in the lock through the louvres of a window that was beside the door. In the room, there was a cupboard with a locked top drawer, which was forced open by the officers. Inside the drawer were a red paper bag with the words `Merry Christmas` printed on it and a black plastic bag. Inside the red paper bag was a plastic bag of white substance (later marked `A3). Inside the black plastic bag was a box with the letters `GEC` on the cover; inside the box were 20 sachets of white substance, two digital weighing scales, a pair of metal tongs, a plastic spoon and some empty plastic bags. The 20 sachets was later marked `A2`. An imprint of the first appellant`s left middle finger was lifted from the metal tongs. There were no clothes or personal belongings in the room, either belonging to the first or the second appellant.

At the rear room, the keys from the bunch taken from the second appellant were tested on the lock of the rear room door and the lock on the top drawer of the cupboard. Two of those keys fitted the locks. The first appellant`s keys were later also tested on the top drawer of the cupboard drawer, and one of his keys fitted the drawer lock. The cupboard (with the top drawer) was seized by the narcotics officers. When questioned later at the Central Police Station, the first appellant admitted that he also had a key to the door of the rear room, and pointed out a key on his key chain.

The items seized from the first appellant when he was arrested, namely, the drug exhibit `A1` and the bunch of keys, were taken into custody by NO Lester Lim Hang Meng; these were subsequently handed over to NO Ong Peng Boon when he arrived at No 10A, who then passed them to SNO Chew at 9.50pm the same evening. The items seized from the second appellant when he was arrested, namely, the drug exhibit `A1` and the black key pouch, were handed by NO Sammi Sim to SNO Chew when the latter arrived at No 10A at 5.40pm. SNO Chew personally took custody of all the items found in the locked drawer in the rear room, the drug exhibits `A2` and `A3`, and the drug paraphernalia. On his return to his office, SNO Chew locked all the seized items in his cabinet.

The next day, he took out the various items suspected to contain drugs which he marked as `A1`, `A2`, `A3` and `A4`. He then sent the four items to the Department of Scientific Services for analysis. Dr Lee Tong Kooi testified that he had analysed the four items and found the substance in `A1`, `A2`, `A3` and `A4` to contain not less than 40.35g, 9.51g, 39.04g and 7.11g of diamorphine respectively. With respect to `A1`, Dr Lee stated that he had analyzed the drug content of the substance in the big packet, the four mini-packets and the small wrapped packet together, and the 40.35g was the total quantity of diamorphine found in those six receptacles.

Ding Sing Kwok, owner of the boarding house, gave evidence to the effect that he had given the second appellant the room on 6 April 1991, and that he had also given the second appellant a key to the rear room and a key to the main gate, while he himself retained a spare key to the rear room. He agreed that all his tenants had the key to the main gate, and that strangers could well enter the house without permission. He also stated that he had never seen the first appellant going to or inside the rear room. He stated that the cupboard in the rear room was not placed there by him.

SNO Chew with the assistance of an interpreter, Wu Nan Yong, recorded two long statements made by the first appellant. The admissibility of these two statements was contested on the grounds that they were made as a result of inducements or promises offered to him by SNO Chew while he was suffering from drug withdrawal symptoms. The trial judge accordingly held a voir dire, and, at the conclusion of the voir dire, he held that, on the totality of the evidence, he had no doubt that, at the time when the appellant made the statements, he had recovered from drug withdrawal symptoms and was in no way suffering from any withdrawal such that he could not possibly have made the statements or that his will was so overborne that he did not make the statements voluntarily. He rejected the first appellant`s allegations of promises or inducements offered by SNO Chew and his allegations that the statements had not been properly interpreted to him. The trial judge accordingly admitted in evidence the two statements.

Two long statements were also recorded from the second appellant, and as the second appellant did not challenge the voluntariness of these statements they were admitted in...