Er Boon Huai and Another v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lai Kew Chai J
• Judgment Date: 05 August 1991
• Neutral Citation: [1991] SGCA 26
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 6 of 1991
• Date: 05 August 1991
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1991
• Plaintiff Counsel: Appellants in person
• Citation: [1991] SGCA 26
• Defendant Counsel: Jasvender Kaur (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Sentencing,s 231 Whether justified,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Term of imprisonment more than that of co-accused,Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68),Forms of punishment,Additional imprisonment term in lieu of caning

Cur Adv Vult

The two appellants had on 25 March 1991 pleaded guilty to the following charge:

You, Er Boon Huai and Lai Ah Kau, are charged that between 11.45am and 11.55am on 27 April 1988, in furtherance of the common intention of you both, did traffic in a controlled drug specified in `Class A` of the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) by transporting three packets containing a total of not less than 10g and not more than 15g of diamorphine in motor car PBE 9696 from the carpark at Block 75, Pipit Road, to the carpark serving Blocks 54 and 76, Pipit Road, via Circuit Road, without any 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 read with s 34 of the Penal Code (Cap 224) and punishable under s 33 of the Misuse of Drugs Act.

They admitted the facts outlined by the prosecution and were convicted. The first appellant, Er Boon Huai, who was 33 years of age, was sentenced to 24 years` imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane. The second appellant, Lai Ah Kau, who on the date of the conviction was 50 years and nine months old, was sentenced to 27 years` imprisonment. They now appeal against the sentences imposed.

The facts that gave rise to the offence were that on 25 April 1988, the second appellant telephoned the first appellant and told him that he had a buyer for three pounds of heroin at $6,400 per pound. The first appellant made the necessary arrangements with his supplier and told the second appellant that he would deliver the three pounds to the second appellant on 27 April 1988.

At about 11am on 27 April 1988, the first appellant collected the three pounds of heroin from near Beauty World in Bukit Timah area and drove to Pipit Road. He parked his car near Block 75, Pipit Road, and went up to the flat at Block 75, #09-227, where the second appellant was waiting. The buyer arrived at the flat shortly thereafter and left after speaking with the second appellant. The second appellant told the first appellant that the buyer had told him that he would collect the diamorphine later and had asked the second appellant to keep the diamorphine until collection.

The two appellants then went to where the first appellant`s car was parked. Rather than take the drugs from where the car was parked, the two drove off, went into Circuit Road, then returned to Pipit Road and stopped at the car park serving Blocks 54 and 76....