Heng Aik Peng v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 18 July 2002
• Date: 18 July 2002
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 56 of 2002
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Heng Aik Peng

Plaintiff

and

Public Prosecutor

Defendant

[2002] SGHC 153

Yong Pung How CJ

Magistrate's Appeal No 56 of 2002

High Court

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Statements–Discrepancies and minor inconsistencies–Facts in issue relatively immaterial–Whether district judge right in relying on such statements–Whether first instance findings of fact to be interfered with–Evidence–Proof of evidence–Lies–Reliance on accused's lies to corroborate guilt distinct from reliance to determine his credibility–Criteria to satisfy before convicting accused on basis of his lies–When to treat accused's lies with caution–Burden of proof–Standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt

The appellant (“Heng”) was charged under s 7 read with s 12 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2001 Rev Ed) for abetting one Peh to import a controlled drug into Singapore.

In his statement to the Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) after his arrest, Peh implicated Heng by alleging that it was he who suggested that Peh bring the drug back to Singapore. At the trial, Peh retracted his CNB statement and claimed that he brought in the drugs on his own accord.

The district judge found Peh's contention as to why he had implicated Heng illogical, and that his CNB statements were a truthful account of the events. He concluded that Peh's testimony was unreliable and substituted it with his CNB statements; on this basis, he convicted Heng.

Heng appealed and submitted that (a) the judge failed to adequately consider all the unsatisfactory features in Peh's statements, (b) even if Peh's explanation for lying was illogical, that did not mean that his statements contained the truth, and (c) the judge erred in concluding that he was an evasive witness simply because one aspect of his evidence was inconsistent with his CNB statement.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) As for submission (a), although there were some discrepancies in Peh's statements, the facts in issue were relatively immaterial, and despite the minor inconsistencies, they consistently maintained that Heng had asked Peh to carry the drugs into Singapore. Ultimately, the court was not convinced that the district judge's conclusions were unsupportable and wrong: at [18] and [19].

(2) As for submission (b), since Peh's explanation for making the false statements was illogical, the district judge's conclusion that Peh had lied in court and that his statements were true or were at least closer to the truth than to his testimony in court, was reasonable. In this regard, the Prosecution's burden of proof was one of beyond reasonable doubt and not certainty beyond a shadow of a doubt: at [22].

(3) It was important to distinguish between relying on an accused's lies as evidence of his guilt, and concluding that his evidence was not credible because of it. The accused might lie for reasons unconnected with guilt of the offences, and it was dangerous to convict him unless four criteria were satisfied, viz (a) the lie must be deliberate, (b) it must relate to a material issue, (c) the motive for the lie must be a realisation of guilt, and (d) the statement must clearly be shown to be a lie by independent evidence. However, the court could rely on his lies to conclude that his evidence lacked credibility, as that did not automatically lead to his conviction. Ultimately, the court need only treat his lies with caution when they were being relied on as corroborative evidence: at [25] and [27].

(4) As for submission (c), the trial judge had merely referred to Heng's lie as a basis for rejecting his evidence for lack of credibility. There was nothing unsound with this, and he did not rely on the lie as corroborative evidence in convicting Heng: at [26].

(5) Heng's appeal essentially centred on overturning the trial judge's findings of facts. In this regard, an appellate court would be slow to disturb the trial judge's findings unless they were wrong or clearly against the weight of the evidence. In the result, the court agreed with the trial judge's findings of fact: at [28].

Er Joo Nguang v PP [2000] 1 SLR (R) 756; [2000] 2 SLR 645 (distd)

Ler Wee Teang Anthony v PP [2002] 1 SLR (R) 770; [2002] 2 SLR 281 (folld)

Lim Ah Poh v PP [1992] 1 SLR (R) 192; [1992] 1 SLR 713 (folld)

Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372 (folld)

PP v Ang Soon Huat [1990] 2 SLR (R) 246; [1990] SLR 915 (folld)

PP v Yeo Choon Poh [1993] 3 SLR (R) 302; [1994] 2 SLR 867 (refd)

R v Goodway [1993] 4 All ER 894 (refd)

R v Lucas (Ruth) [1981] QB 720 (refd)

Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2001 Rev Ed) ss 7, 12

Ramesh Tiwary (Leo Fernando) for the appellant

Christopher Ong Siu Jin (Deputy Public Prosecutor) for the respondent.

Yong Pung How CJ

Introduction

1 The appellant, Heng Aik Peng (“Heng”), was charged under s 7 read with s 12 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2001 Ed) for abetting one Peh Gim Chuan (“Peh”), through a conspiracy, to import a controlled drug into Singapore. At the end of the trial, the district judge convicted Heng based on evidence in several statements made by Peh to the Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) and sentenced him to six years' imprisonment and six strokes of the cane. He appealed against his conviction and after considering arguments from his counsel, I dismissed the appeal. I now set out my reasons.

Facts

2 On 3 August 2001, CNB officers at Changi Airport suspected several men of being involved in the importation of controlled drugs and arrested them after they returned from Cambodia. Heng and two of his friends, Koh Swee Beng and Goh Thiam Soon, were arrested first. Several minutes later, Peh and another man, Wong Lew Keong (“Wong”), were also arrested. Upon examining Peh's luggage, the CNB officers found, inter alia, a “Johnson's baby powder” bottle which was filled with a suspicious white substance as well as a mineral water bottle. It was later discovered that the substance was the controlled drug, Ketamine, and that this drug was also dissolved in the liquid found in the mineral water bottle. The total amount of drugs in the two containers totalled 119.16g of Ketamine.

3 In the early hours of 4 August 2001, Peh made a statement to the CNB officers. Two further statements were recorded on 21 August 2001 and 23 November 2001. In these statements, Peh implicated Heng, alleging that Heng had brought him to Cambodia for the purpose of bringing the Ketamine back into Singapore. According to those statements, Peh met Heng about three months before his arrest. At that time, he was working...