Cheng Heng Lee and Another v Public Prosecutor

JurisdictionSingapore
Judgment Date30 October 1998
Date30 October 1998
Docket NumberCriminal Appeal No 6 of 1998
CourtCourt of Appeal (Singapore)
Cheng Heng Lee and another
Plaintiff
and
Public Prosecutor
Defendant

[1998] SGCA 76

M Karthigesu JA

,

L P Thean JA

and

Lai Kew Chai J

Criminal Appeal No 6 of 1998

Court of Appeal

Criminal Law—Statutory offences—Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 1997 Rev Ed)—Statutory presumptions—Whether presumption of knowledge of nature of drugs rebutted—Section 18 Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 1997 Rev Ed)—Criminal Law—Statutory offences—Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 1997 Rev Ed)—Trafficking by transporting—Meaning of “transporting?—Whether accused transporting drugs for purpose of trafficking—Criminal Procedure and Sentencing—Statements—Admissibility—Whether statements voluntarily made—Section 24 Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1990 Rev Ed)

The appellants were convicted of trafficking in a controlled drug under s 5 (1) (a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 1997 Rev Ed) (“the Art?). The first appellant Cheng was found to have transported two paper bags containing not less than 246g of diamorphine and the second appellant Sum was found to have delivered the diamorphine to Cheng.

The Prosecution’s case against Cheng, based largely on his investigation statements, was that on 21 July 1997 one Ah Tai instructed him to collect drugs from a man coming from Malaysia the following day and to give them to one Ah Kiat. On 22 July 1997, Cheng met Sum and collected the two paper bags from him. Both were arrested by Central Narcotics Bureau officers shortly after. As against Sum, the Prosecution relied on his investigation statements where he admitted to having taken possession of the two paper bags from a man in Malaysia on 21 July 1997, and had kept the two bags with him until he delivered them to Cheng the following day. Both Cheng and Sum were presumed to have had possession of the drugs and knowledge of their nature under ss 18 (1) (a) and 18 (2) of the Act respectively. In their defence, both Cheng and Sum claimed that they did not know of the nature of the contents in the two paper bags. Cheng alleged that he was merely an innocent courier who had taken the bags from Sum as he was doing a favour for Ah Kiat. He also alleged that his statements had not been voluntarily made. As for Sum, his evidence was that he went to Singapore on 22 July 1997 as he had been instructed by his boss, one Leon Chew, to collect plans relating to a certain project from one Eddy Tan. Sum received a call from his friend, one Ai Chai, on the night of 21 July 1997. Ai Chai asked Sum to collect two bags from a man which were to be taken to Singapore. Sum did as instructed, without questioning Ai Chai as to the precise contents of the two bags. Sum testified that he did not think it necessary to ask Ai Chai any questions as he trusted the latter.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) The trial judge did not err in holding that Cheng’s statements had been voluntarily made and in admitting the statements at the trial. During the voir dire, there were inconsistencies in Cheng’s evidence regarding the promises and threats which were allegedly made to him by the investigating officer. The trial judge had the opportunity to observe Cheng’s conduct and demeanour during the voir dire and there were sufficient grounds for him to find that Cheng was not a credible witness: at [29] and [31].

(2) Trafficking in a controlled drug by transporting the drug was made out if a person transferred a controlled drug from one place to another for the purpose of ultimate distribution and not for personal consumption, even if he did not part with or transfer possession of the drug to another person. In the instant case, there was no evidence that the drugs were for Cheng’s own consumption. In any event, the quantity of drugs was far greater than the quantity likely to be needed for his own consumption. The inference was irresistible that he was transporting the drugs for the purpose of trafficking in them: at [40] and [42].

(3) The trial judge rightly rejected Sum’s defence. Sum should have suspected that the contents of the bags might be illicit in the light of the surreptitious circumstances in which he had received the bags, and he should have inspected the bags to ascertain their contents. He had little basis to trust Ai Chai given the short period of his acquaintance with the latter. His explanation of his trip to Singapore was rejected in the light of the inconsistencies in his evidence as well as in the evidence of Eddy Tan and Leon Chew: at [45], [46] and [48].

Lim Lye Huat Benny v PP [1995] 3 SLR (R) 689; [1996] 1 SLR 253 (refd)

Ong Ah Chuan v PP [1979-1980] SLR (R) 710; [1980-1981] SLR 48 (folld)

Poh Kay Keong v PP [1995] 3 SLR (R) 887; [1996] 1 SLR 209 (refd)

PP v Hla Win [1995] 2 SLR (R) 104; [1995] 2 SLR 424 (refd)

Sim Ah Cheoh v PP [1991] 1 SLR (R) 961; [1991] SLR 150 (refd)

Syed Feisal bin Yahya v PP [1992] 1 SLR (R) 853; [1992] 2 SLR 190 (folld)

Tan Ah Tee v PP [1979-1980] SLR (R) 311; [1978-1979] SLR 211 (refd)

Tan Boon Tat v PP [1992] 1 SLR (R) 698; [1992] 2 SLR 1 (refd)

Tan Meng Jee v PP [1996] 2 SLR (R) 178; [1996] 2 SLR 422 (refd)

Tan Siew Chay v PP [1993] 1 SLR (R) 267; [1993] 2 SLR 14 (refd)

Warner v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969] 2 AC 256 (refd)

Yeo Choon Huat v PP [1997] 3 SLR (R) 450; [1998] 1 SLR 217 (refd)

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) ss 121, 122 (5), 122 (6)

Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1990 Rev Ed) s 24 (consd)

Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 1997 Rev Ed) s 18 (consd);ss 2, 5 (1) (a), 17, 18 (1), 18 (1) (a), 18 (2)

Peter Low, Christine Sekhon and Jason Peter Dendroff (Peter Low Tang &Belinda Ang) for the first appellant

N K Rajah and Lie Chin Chin (Rajah Velu & Pnrs) for the second appellant

Jasbendar Kaur (Deputy Public Prosecutor) for the respondent.

M Karthigesu JA

(delivering the grounds of judgment of the court):

1 This was an appeal against conviction of the offence of trafficking in a controlled drug under s 5 (1) (a)of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185). We dismissed the appeal and now give our reasons.

The facts

2 The first appellant (“Cheng?) was arrested on 22 July 1997 at approximately 10.35am in a taxi SH 7521A at the junction of Geylang Road and Lorong 22 Geylang. Two paper bags (“P93 and P98?) containing a total of not less than 246g of diamorphine were recovered from the rear seat of the taxi. The second appellant (“Sum?) was arrested on the same day at 10.38am in his car JBS 9887 at the car park of a factory building at 51 Kampong Bugis. Cheng was charged with trafficking in a controlled drug by transporting the diamorphine from Guillemard Road near Lorong 24A Geylang to the junction of Geylang Road and Lorong 22 Geylang, whilst Sum was charged with trafficking in a controlled drug by delivering the diamorphine to Cheng.

3 The events leading up to the appellants’ arrests date back to 20 July 1997. On that day, Cheng went to one Tan Eng Soon’s flat at #08-511 Block 171 Ang Mo Kio Avenue 4. He brought with him a plastic bag (“the Nature’s Farm plastic bag?) which he left at the flat, promising to return after 6.00pm to collect it. He also gave Tan Eng Soon $200. When Cheng failed to collect the plastic bag that evening, Tan Eng Soon inspected it and found it to contain three pairs of shorts placed on top of a box. Inside the box were an electric sealer, a digital weighing scale and many empty plastic sachets, all of which Tan Eng Soon realised were paraphernalia used for packing drugs. He was unhappy with his discovery and telephoned Cheng, who agreed to remove the plastic bag from his flat the following day.

4 On 21 July 1997, Cheng went to Tan Eng Soon’s flat and collected the Nature’s Farm plastic bag. Later on in the day, he was observed by CNB officers to be having drinks with one Khoo Hong Kiat (“Ah Kiat?) at a canteen at Block 21 Defu Lane 10. He had the Nature’s Farm plastic bag with him then. At approximately 2.25pm, Cheng and Ah Kiat left the canteen and took a taxi to Hotel 81 Star at Lorong 18 Geylang, with the former still carrying the plastic bag. They alighted at Lorong 16 Geylang and walked to Hotel 81 Star at Lorong 18. They went to Room 02-02 at the hotel, which was occupied by one of Cheng’s friends, Tan Boon Leong, and left the plastic bag in the room. After ten to 15 minutes, Cheng and Ah Kiat were observed leaving the hotel and taking a taxi to MG KTV lounge at Tanjong Katong Road. They remained at the lounge till about 6.00pm, after which they proceeded to a coffee shop at Block 722 Ang Mo Kio Avenue 6. They had a drink at the coffee shop before parting company.

5 On 22 July 1997, a team of CNB officers kept watch at Cheng’s residence at #08-2646 Block 428 Ang Mo Kio Avenue 3 from approximately 5.30am. At 6.55am, Cheng was seen leaving his flat and walking to a coffee shop at Block 450, which was opposite his flat. There, he met one Chua Meng Guan (“Chua?) and one Ang Lim Joo (“Ang?), who had both arrived earlier. At about 8.40am, Sum joined them. A short while later, Ang left the coffee shop. Cheng, Sum and Chua remained there till 9.55am, when they left in Sum’s car JBS 9887. CNB officers trailed Sum’s car from Ang Mo Kio to Guillemard Road. At about 10.20am, the car stopped at a petrol kiosk along Guillemard Road. All three men were seen alighting from the car. Sum handed two paper bags from the car (ie P93 and P98) to Cheng. Cheng carried the bags and boarded a taxi SH 7521 A with Chua. The two men left in the taxi, while Sum drove off in his car.

6 The taxi was intercepted by CNB officers at the junction of Geylang Road and Lorong 22 Geylang, and Cheng and Chua were arrested. P93 and P98 were found on the rear passenger seat of the taxi between the two men. Sum was likewise arrested by CNB officers at 51 Kampong Bugis and was taken to the hotel. At the hotel, the investigating officer, Inspector Gopala Krishnan, brought Cheng to the reception counter and asked him to identify from a video recording two persons...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Tan Kiam Peng v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • September 28, 2007
    ...Ltd [2006] 1 WLR 1476; [2006] 1 All ER 333 (refd) Chan Chi Pun v PP [1994] 1 SLR (R) 654; [1994] 2 SLR 61 (refd) Cheng Heng Lee v PP [1998] 3 SLR (R) 747; [1999] 1 SLR 504 (refd) Chou Kooi Pang v PP [1998] 3 SLR (R) 205; [1998] 3 SLR 593 (refd) Compania Maritima San Basilo S A v Oceanus Mut......
  • Public Prosecutor v Apinyowichian Yongyut and others
    • Singapore
    • District Court (Singapore)
    • May 13, 2015
    ...bin Din v PP [1995] 1 SLR(R) 419; Vadugaiah Mahendran v PP [1995] 3 SLR(R) 719; Chai Chien Wei Kelvin, Cheng Heng Lee and another v PP [1998] 3 SLR(R) 747. 31 PP v Ramasamy al Sebastian [1990] 2 SLR(R) 197; Tang Tuck Wah v PP [1991] 1 SLR(R) 576; Ismail bin Abdul Rahman v PP [2004] 2 SLR(R)......
  • Public Prosecutor v Mohamed Ansari bin Mohamed Abdul Aziz and another
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • November 14, 2019
    ...Limb I now turn to whether SI Fathli’s Inducement operated as an inducement. In Cheng Heng Lee and another v Public Prosecutor [1998] 3 SLR(R) 747 at [30], the Court of Appeal held that had the investigating officer truly told the accused, “You better cooperate with me and I will help you. ......
  • Mohd Arsad bin Hassan v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • August 23, 2004
    ...to examine the package in question, and the person failed to make any effort to find out what the contents were: see Cheng Heng Lee v PP [1999] 1 SLR 504 at 19 The same requirement may be applied to the appellant’s defence. The question can be raised whether he had reasonable grounds to bel......
2 books & journal articles
  • CULPABILITY IN THE MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2013, December 2013
    • December 1, 2013
    ...Fong[1996] 1 SLR(R) 734]. See Michael Hor, “Illegal Immigration: Principle and Pragmatism in the Criminal Law” (2002) 14 SAcLJ 18. 62 [1998] 3 SLR(R) 747 at [46]. See also, eg, the dissenting judgment in Public Prosecutor v Hla Win[1995] 2 SLR(R) 104 at [50] (“he did not take the trouble to......
  • MISUSE OF DRUGS AND ABERRATIONS IN THE CRIMINAL LAW
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2001, December 2001
    • December 1, 2001
    ...offence (Creighton[1993] 3 SCR 3), actual foresight of substantial risk, or recklessness, is constitutionally required for murder. 63 [1999] 1 SLR 504, p 520. 64 [2000] 1 SLR 683. Thean JA and Lai J were members of the Court of Appeal in both Cheng Heng Lee and Abdul Ra’uf. 65 31 May 1999, ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT