Ko Mun Cheung and Another v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Goh Joon Seng J
• Judgment Date: 30 April 1992
• Neutral Citation: [1992] SGCA 30
• Date: 30 April 1992
• Subject Matter: Words and Phrases,ss 7 & 18(2) Failure to rebut,Importing controlled drugs,Whether drugs were imported into Singapore,Accused arrested at airport whilst on transit,Statutory presumption,Statutory offences,Criminal Law,Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185),Misuse of Drugs Act,'Import',s 2 Interpretation Act (Cap 1),ss 7 & 20 Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185)
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 4 of 1990
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Defendant Counsel: Ismail Hamid (Deputy Senior State Counsel),P Suppiah (P Suppiah & Co)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Alan Wong (William Lai & Alan Wong)

The two appellants, Ko Mun Cheung (`Ko`) and An Man Keny Chiu Sum Hing (`AMK`) arrived at Changi International Airport on 12 December 1986 on board Thai International Airways flight TG405 from Bangkok. As Ko cleared the customs checkpoint, he was arrested by Chew Khai Chow, a narcotics officer (`NO Chew`). AMK was arrested by officers from the Central Narcotics Bureau (`the CNB`) whilst he was at the customs checkpoint.

Ko and AMK were taken to a customs search room. When NO Chew asked Ko to take off his clothes, Ko told him that he had something on his body. NO Chew asked what it was and Ko replied that it was something a friend had asked him to carry to Singapore. NO Chew told Ko to take off his shirt. Underneath was a white T-shirt which covered a vest strapped to Ko`s body. NO Chew felt something bulky in the vest.

When NO Chew turned to AMK, AMK told him that there was no need to search him. In answer to a question by NO Chew as to what he was carrying on his body, AMK said that it was `pak fun` (which is the Cantonese expression for diamorphine). AMK was dressed in clothes similar to Ko. Under his singlet was a vest in which the drug was concealed.

Ko and AMK were charged under s 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) (`the Act`) for importing 1,133.46g and 1,127.93g respectively of diamorphine into Singapore. Ko`s defence at the trial and in his s 122(6) statement was that he did not know that what he was carrying was diamorphine. An additional defence was that he had no intention of importing diamorphine into Singapore as he had come to Singapore from Bangkok only in order to collect the tickets for his onward flight to Amsterdam the next day. AMK admitted that he was carrying diamorphine. His only defence was that it was not his intention to bring the drugs into Singapore - he was taking the drugs to Amsterdam - the stop-over in Singapore was only for convenience.

The trial judges accepted that both the appellants had come into Singapore only with a view to boarding a flight to Amsterdam the next day. They, however, rejected the submission made on behalf of the appellants that bringing drugs into Singapore with a view solely of exporting them would not be an offence under s 7 of the Act. They also rejected Ko`s defence that he did not know that what he was carrying was diamorphine. Accordingly, they convicted the appellants. Against the convictions, this appeal was brought. At the conclusion we dismissed it, and we now give our reasons.

Counsel for Ko raised three grounds of appeal:

(a) that the trial judges erred in law and in fact in finding that Ko had not, on a balance of probabilities, proved that he did not know the nature of the drugs that he was carrying;

(b) there were gaps in the chain of evidence relating to the substance found on Ko;

(c) the trial judges erred in law and in fact in finding that Ko had `imported into` Singapore the drugs in question.

Ground (a) can be disposed of very briefly. By s 18(2) of the Act a rebuttable presumption arose that Ko knew the nature of the drug that he was carrying. Once the presumption arose, the onus of discharging it was on Ko. Having heard Ko`s defence, the trial judges were satisfied that he had not discharged the presumption. We have reviewed the record and it is clear that the trial judges were entitled on the evidence before them to arrive at this finding. We saw no reason to interfere.

On the alleged gaps in the prosecution case, counsel submitted that:

(a) the prosecution failed to lead evidence that the 16 packets Ko was alleged to have carried in his vest were the same packets that were examined by Dr Chow Shui Tse; and

(b) the prosecution failed to lead evidence that the exhibits produced in court were the exhibits seized from Ko.

It is clearly very important that the prosecution establishes that the packets seized from Ko (or for that matter from AMK) were the same packets that were handed to the Department of Scientific Services for analysis, and that the report of the Department of Scientific Services was in respect of those same packets. If it is true that the prosecution had not led evidence to show that the 16 packets carried by Ko were the same 16 packets examined by Dr Chow, then there would be a serious flaw in the prosecution`s case.

After Ko and AMK were arrested they were taken to CNB headquarters and referred to NO Lee Kiong Lock (`NO Lee`). From the written statement of NO Lee, which was admitted in evidence without challenge, it is clear that it was NO Lee who removed or caused to be removed the vest worn by Ko and AMK, and under his direction, police photographer Tan Chin Hock took the following photographs:

(1) Ko with yellow jacket (fully clothed).

(2) Ko without yellow jacket (but with white T-shirt).

(3) Ko without white shirt (showing the vest as strapped).

...