Lau Boon Huat v Public Prosecutor

• Judge: Karthigesu JA
• Judgment Date: 23 July 1997
• Neutral Citation: [1997] SGCA 29
• Citation: [1997] SGCA 29
• Defendant Counsel: Muhammad Hidhir bin Abdul Majid (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: N Ganesan (N Ganesan & Associates) and See Tho Vingmei (Azman Soh Murugaiyan & Lee) (both assigned)
• Date: 23 July 1997
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 2 of 1997
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Misuse of Drugs Act,Presumption of possession of controlled drugs,Statutory offences,Presumption of knowledge of the nature of the controlled drugs,Possession of controlled drugs,ss 18(1) & 18(2) Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185)

On 7 July 1997 we dismissed the appellant`s appeal against his conviction on a charge of trafficking in not less than 454.90g of diamorphine contained in ten packets of substance by transporting the same for the purpose of delivery to an unknown person at about 12.55pm on 3 August 1996 at Block 753 Yishun Street 72, Singapore, an offence under s 5(1)(a) and punishable with death under s 33 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185. We now give our reasons.

On 3 August 1996 a team of narcotics officers from the Central Narcotics Bureau mounted a surveillance operation for drug trafficking activities in the vicinity of Yishun Street 72 and in particular of a cluster of apartment blocks, namely, Blocks 748, 751, 752, 753, 754 and 756. They took up their positions in the early hours of that day but were not rewarded with any activities until about 12.55pm. The narration which follows is a summary of the totality of the evidence given at the trial by the several narcotics officers engaged in the operation. Save for some minor and irrelevant differences of detail between the appellant`s version of the facts and the facts as stated by the prosecution, there is no dispute on primary facts relevant to the charge.

The appellant was first seen by one of the narcotics officers, who was directing his attention on Block 753. He was seen walking between Blocks 751 and 752 and from Block 748 towards Block 753. The narcotics officer followed him. He was carrying two cardboard boxes, one smaller than the other with the smaller one placed on top of the other. He carried the boxes over his left shoulder. On arriving at Block 753 he ascended the staircase to the fourth floor. At the fourth floor the narcotics officer momentarily lost sight of the appellant when he began using his radio equipment to communicate with the other narcotics officers engaged in the operation. He immediately rushed to the ground floor of Block 753 in search of the appellant when he saw him walking away from Block 753 in the direction of Block 748, near which there was a car park. He was no longer carrying the boxes. At the car park he entered a parked lorry and drove away. There was a person in the passenger seat who was later ascertained to be the appellant`s seventeen year old son. The appellant drove his lorry to Yishun Industrial Park A where he parked his lorry by the roadside. He and his son alighted and walked to Yishun Avenue 7 and hailed a taxi but before the taxi stopped the narcotics officers, who had been trailing the appellant, moved in and arrested him and his son.

Following his arrest, the appellant was taken by the narcotics officers to his parked lorry at Yishun Industrial Park A. He was questioned as to what he had been doing before he parked his lorry there. He replied that he had been at Pioneer Road in Jurong where he had met his friend, Ah Heng. Ah Heng had asked him to deliver a cardboard box to a male Chinese at the car park near Block 756, Yishun Street 72. He had driven in his lorry from Jurong to the car park near Block 756 and then to where he had parked at the Yishun Industrial Park A.

The appellant was then taken to the car park near Block 756 and further questioned. This resulted in the appellant leading the narcotics officers to the fourth floor staircase landing of Block 753 and to the larger of the two cardboard boxes the appellant was seen carrying earlier that day by a narcotics officer to Block 753 with a smaller...