Chota bin Abdul Razak v Public Prosecutor

• Judge: L P Thean J
• Judgment Date: 14 March 1991
• Neutral Citation: [1991] SGHC 42
• Citation: [1991] SGHC 42
• Defendant Counsel: Seng Kwang Boon (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Sant Singh and Gurbachan Singh (Sant Singh & Partners; Khattar Wong & Partners)
• Date: 14 March 1991
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 107/90/01
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Plea of guilty,ss 5 & 33 Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185),Statement of facts,Criminal Law,Whether a substantive offence,Common intention,Drug trafficking,Complicity,Whether sentence manifestly excessive,Amount of drugs substantial,Court not to be influenced by subsequent legislation enhancing punishment,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Purpose to enable court to ascertain whether accused understood plea and that ingredients of offence made out,Sentencing,s 34 Penal Code (Cap 224),Principles,Appeal,s 180 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68)

The accused, Chota bin Abdul Razak (the accused), in the district court in DAC 2754 of 1987 pleaded guilty to the following charge against him:

You, Chota bin Abdul Razak (m/28), I/C No 1410767-C, are charged that you, on or about 26 March 1987, at about 4.45pm at the void deck of Block 637, Ang Mo Kio Ave 6, Singapore, in furtherance of the common intention with one Tan Chuan Ten (m/27), I/C No 2183701-F, did traffic in a controlled drug specified in Class B of the First Schedule of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185), to wit, by transporting 2.6kg (net) of cannabis in motor pick-up GD 8441D from Ang Mo Kio Street 61 to the car park in front of Block 637, Ang Mo Kio Ave 6, without authorization under the said Act or the Regulations made thereunder, and you have thereby committed an offence under s 5(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185), read with s 34 of the Penal Code (Cap 224), and punishable under s 33 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185).

He was convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five years and three strokes of the cane. Against the sentence of imprisonment, this appeal is now brought.

The facts as admitted by the accused before the learned district judge were briefly these. On 26 March 1987 at about 4.30pm, a motor pick-up was seen by a party of narcotics officers entering the car park in front of Block 637, Ang Mo Kio Ave 6; these narcotics officers had prior to the time taken up their respective positions in the vicinity. In the motor pick-up were the accused and one Tan Chuan Ten (Tan). The motor pick-up stopped at a parking lot in front of Block 637, and the accused alighted from the vehicle and went to the first floor of the block of flats, while Tan waited at the void deck. The accused was carrying a polythene bag when he went to the first floor. A few minutes later the accused came down, still carrying the polythene bag. He placed the bag on the front passenger seat of the motor pick-up and then joined Tan. A short while later the accused went across to Block 635 where he was seen standing at the telephone stand. When the accused went back to join Tan, he and Tan were arrested. The polythene bag was seized and found to contain 2.6kg of cannabis.

The main arguments of counsel for the accused have been centred on the rather unusual circumstances in which the accused pleaded guilty to the charge, and it is necessary to recount briefly the events leading to his plea and conviction, which have been set out quite fully in the grounds of decision of the learned district judge. The accused was arrested on 26 March 1987 and was produced in the district court and charged. He was released on bail on 4 April 1987. Subsequently, his case was mentioned on three occasions and eventually was fixed for hearing on 9 May 1988. On that day, the case, for some reason, was not heard, and was further mentioned on two other occasions, and on the second occasion it was fixed for hearing on 13 March 1989; five days were allocated for hearing this case.

In the meanwhile, on 22 December 1988 the accused was arrested in connection with two offences of trafficking in and possession of drugs alleged to have been committed on 2 September 1988. On 23 December 1988, he was produced in court and charged for these two offences in DAC 13751 of 1988 and DAC 13752 of 1988; no bail was granted and he was remanded in custody.

The case in DAC 2754 of 1987 was not heard on 13 March 1989 as fixed. It is not clear from the record what happened on that day in relation to this case. Presumably, the accused intended to plead guilty to this charge and it was agreed or decided that all the three charges against the accused should be brought up and dealt with together. On 10 May 1989, the accused appeared before the district judge, Mr Yong Yung Sui; he was represented by counsel. He pleaded guilty to the three charges in DAC 2754 of 1987, DAC 13751 of 1988 and DAC 13752 of 1988 respectively. However, the accused disputed certain facts presented by the prosecution in connection with the charge in DAC 2754 of 1987. I was told, and this was not disputed by the prosecution, that what the accused disputed was the complicity of Tan in the commission of the offence. He admitted that he did traffic in the amount of cannabis as charged. So, in effect, he disputed that there was a common intention subsisting between him and Tan. With reference to the two charges in DAC 13751 of 1988 and DAC 13752 of 1988, there was no dispute on the facts presented by the prosecution. However, his pleas of guilty to the three charges were not accepted and the hearing of all the three cases was adjourned. The reason for this is not clear. Probably the learned district judge was of the view that as all the three cases concerned the same accused they should be dealt with together, and he adjourned the hearing to enable the prosecution and the defence to resolve their differences on the facts in relation to the charge in DAC 2754 of 1987.

Strangely enough, seven days later, on 17 May 1989, the accused appeared before another district judge, Mr Colin Chai, to answer only the charges in DAC 13751 of 1988 and DAC 13752 of 1988. The charge in DAC 2754 of 1987 was not brought up for disposal then. The reason for this is again unclear. The accused was still represented by counsel. There was nothing on record to indicate that counsel had asked for an adjournment of the hearing of the two cases or asked for the case in DAC 2754 of 1987 to be brought forward so that all three of them could be dealt with together. Be that as it may, the accused pleaded guilty to the two charges and was convicted and sentenced, in respect of the charge in DAC 13751 of 1988, to a term of imprisonment of three years and three strokes of cane, and in respect of the charge in DAC 13752 of 1988, to a term of imprisonment of one year, the two terms of imprisonment to run consecutively, with the first term to commence on 23 December 1988.

There remained the charge in DAC 2754 of 1987, which was not brought before the court until about 11 months later. On 20 February 1990, the accused appeared before the district judge, Mr FG Remedios. On that occasion he pleaded guilty to the charge and admitted the statement of facts and also additional facts which clarified the statement; there was then no dispute of any fact. He was convicted and sentenced to a term of five years` imprisonment and three strokes of cane, and the sentence of imprisonment was ordered to commence on that day pursuant to s 234(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) (CPC).

The main complaint of the accused has been directed at the manner in which the proceedings in respect of DAC 2754 of 1987 had been conducted in the district court. It was submitted by his counsel that when the accused appeared before the district judge, Mr Yong Yung Sui on 10 May 1989 and pleaded guilty to this charge and...