Lee Lum Sheun v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Karthigesu JA
• Judgment Date: 06 May 1994
• Neutral Citation: [1994] SGCA 65
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 1 of 1994
• Date: 06 May 1994
• Year: 1994
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: G Raman (G Raman & Pnrs) and Chuan Wee Meng (Tan Rajah & Cheah)
• Citation: [1994] SGCA 65
• Defendant Counsel: Ismail Hamid and Wong Choon Ning (Deputy Public Prosecutors)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Whether appellant in possession of the drugs,Effect of presumption,Criminal Law,s 17 Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185),Drugs found in the appellant's rented premises,Trafficking in controlled drugs,Statutory offences,Misuse of Drugs Act,Whether drugs for his own consumption,Presumption of trafficking,Whether presumption rebutted

The appellant, Lee Lum Sheun, was convicted and sentenced to death on 17 January 1994 for trafficking in controlled drugs. The charge against him read as follows:

You, Lee Lum Sheun are charged that you on or about 18 May 1993 between 3.20pm and 3.50pm at 5, Recreation Lane, Singapore, did traffic in, by offering to sell or distribute a controlled drug specified in Class A of the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185), to wit, a packet of substance containing not less than 57.32g of diamorphine, which were in your possession at 5 Recreation Lane, Singapore, without any authorization under the said Act or regulations made thereunder and you have thereby, by virtue of s 17 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, committed an offence under s 5(a) punishable under s 33 of the Misuse of Drugs Act Cap 185.

On 19 April 1994, the appellant`s appeal against conviction was heard. At the end of the hearing we dismissed the appeal. We now give our reasons.

The prosecution case

The prosecution case in the court below was as follows. On 18 May 1993, Inspector Alan Moh and seven other officers of the Central Narcotics Bureau (`CNB`) kept watch on No 5 Recreation Lane, an apartment in a private apartment block. That morning, they observed the appellant leave those premises and followed him to Hougang bus interchange where he met two unidentified Chinese men. When these three men parted, the CNB officers followed the two unidentified Chinese but eventually lost them. The CNB officers then returned to Recreation Lane at about 12.30pm to continue their watch. One of the CNB officers, Staff Sergeant Yeoh Seng Hock (S/SGT Yeoh), said that at about 3.15pm he saw the appellant coming out of the block of apartments and head towards the junction of Recreation Lane and Upper Serangoon Road. He surmised that the appellant must have returned to the apartment when the CNB officers were following the two unidentified Chinese. At Upper Serangoon Road, the appellant boarded a taxi. The CNB officers followed in a car. At the junction of Upper Serangoon Road and Braddell Road, the taxi stopped at the traffic lights and the CNB officers arrested the appellant. They brought him to a petrol kiosk and searched him, finding nine sachets of a granular substance which was eventually found to contain not less than 8.35g of diamorphine.

The CNB officers then brought the appellant back to No. 5 Recreation Lane and attempted to effect entry with the keys found on the appellant. Though they unlocked the front door with one of these keys, they found that the door was latched from the inside and forced an entry by breaking the latch. They found no one inside, save a dog, and the appellant explained that the latch could be fastened and unfastened from outside by manipulating the locking mechanism to reveal another keyhole. Another key also found on the appellant at arrest could then be used through this keyhole to unlock the mechanism.

Once inside, the CNB officers searched the three-bedroom apartment. All three bedrooms were not locked. Nothing incriminating was found in the first two bedrooms (`room A` and `room B` respectively) but when the dining room was searched, the bottom drawer of a hi-fi cabinet was found to hold a large plastic bag containing a granular substance which was subsequently found to contain not less than 57.32g of diamorphine. It was this bag of heroin that was the subject matter of the charge against the appellant. A smaller plastic bag containing a small quantity of the same substance was also found in the drawer along with a plastic spoon, a digital weighing scale and a stack of empty plastic bags of the same size and shape as the nine sachets of heroin found on the appellant at arrest. Next to the hi-fi cabinet was found an electrical heat sealer. In the last bedroom (`room C`), the CNB officers found more drugs and drug related paraphernalia. This included a sachet containing the same granular substance containing diamorphine, improvised paper, smoking pipes and a small aluminium foil.

Insp Moh said that women`s clothing and a lady`s handbag were found in room A and the appellant told him that these belonged to his girlfriend who had since left him. He allegedly said that room C was his room and that there were no other occupants in the flat. Insp Moh`s own impression of room C was that it was not fit to be slept in and that it was probably used for smoking heroin because of the smoking utensils found there.

Evidence was also given by Tan Weng Wah, a property manager of Niap Hoe Realty from whom the appellant rented the apartment. This evidence established the appellant`s tenancy of No 5 Recreation Lane and that this lease did not permit sub-tenancy without the landlord`s permission. No such permission had been sought by the appellant. However, Tan Weng Wah said that in June 1992 when he went to the apartment to collect overdue rent, a lady opened the door and she told him that she would tell the tenant to pay the rent.

Scientific evidence was also led by the prosecution. This established that the granular substance found on the appellant`s person and in his rented apartment contained the quantities of diamorphine already mentioned above. The heroin in the large plastic bag and that in the nine sachets found on the appellant were found to be of about 14% purity. A urine sample from the appellant was also analyzed and found to contain 904.950 micrograms of morphine per 5 ml of urine; the threshold amount for a positive test merely being 2.5 micrograms per 5 ml.

The defence

The appellant admitted that he was a drug addict and said that he supported his habit by working for a boss at the Turf Club, earning up to $2,000 a week, and by punting on horses. He also said that he consumed one sachet of heroin a day.

Turning to the events of 18 May 1993, he said that he had gone to Hougang bus interchange to buy drugs. He was told to wait there for the supplier who arrived at about 3pm. He said that it was there that he purchased the nine sachets of heroin for $100 per sachet and that these were for his own consumption. He said that he got the money for this purchase by pawning a gold diamond ring on the previous day and produced the pawn ticket. The appellant said that he had to pawn the ring because he had lost all his money punting on horses two days before his arrest. After purchasing the heroin, he said he boarded a taxi to go home. He checked the sachets in the taxi but when he noticed the driver looking at him, he stopped. He alighted at Upper Serangoon Road opposite Recreation Lane. He crossed Upper Serangoon Road. At this point, he felt ill and he decided to go to Chinatown to buy some herbs. He re-crossed Upper Serangoon Road and boarded a taxi. This taxi stopped at the junction of Upper Serangoon Road and Braddell Road and it was there that he was arrested. The appellant did not dispute that the nine sachets were found on him.

The appellant also did not deny that more drugs and drug related paraphernalia were later found in his flat. However, he denied all knowledge of the drugs, empty plastic bags, weighing scale and the plastic spoon found in the hi-fi cabinet. The appellant said that the hi-fi cabinet belonged to his sub-tenant, Yeo Lay Hoon, a female aged 23/24 who paid him $700 a month to rent room A. He denied telling Insp Moh that there were no other occupants in the flat and pointed out that the day after his arrest he had said to Insp Krishnan, the investigating officer, that there were other occupants of the flat. He insisted that room C was his room and said that he slept there every night. The small quantity of drugs and related paraphernalia in this latter room were his. The only item he admitted to owning was the heat sealer which he said he used to pack melon seeds at Chinese New Year to earn some extra cash.

Impeachment of the appellant

During cross-examination of the appellant, the prosecution applied to impeach his credit by relying on a prior statement taken from the accused. In the event, a voir dire was held to determine the `voluntariness` of the statement.

Insp Krishnan said that the appellant was discharged from Changi Prison Hospital on 21 May 1993 and the statement was taken from him at about 2.40pm on 24 May 1993. He said that he asked the appellant whether he was all right and whether he volunteered to give a...