Leong Wing Kong v Public Prosecutor

• Judgment Date: 09 March 1994
• Date: 09 March 1994
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 75 of 1993
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)

Leong Wing Kong

Plaintiff

and

Public Prosecutor

Defendant

[1994] SGCA 37

Yong Pung How CJ

,

M Karthigesu JA

and

L P Thean JA

Criminal Appeal No 75 of 1993

Court of Appeal

Criminal Law–Statutory offences–Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 1985 Rev Ed)–Trafficking in controlled drugs–Whether presumption rebutted–Sections 5 (a) and 17 Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 1985 Rev Ed)–Evidence–Admissibility of evidence–Opinion and belief–Proof of evidence–Expert witness's testimony on practice of drug users and suppliers–Whether “science or art” or “usages and tenets of any body of men or family”–Whether witness had “special means of knowledge”–Sections 47 and 51 (a) Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1990 Rev Ed)

The appellant was arrested and charged under s 5 (a) read with s 17 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 1985 Rev Ed) (“the Act”) for having in his possession 24 packets of substance containing not less than 50.28g of diamorphine without any authorisation under the Act, for the purpose of trafficking. At the trial, a Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) officer with more than 20 years' experience testified for the Prosecution on the practice of drug users and suppliers in Singapore. The appellant succeeded in proving that 3 out of the 24 packets of drugs were for his consumption and was convicted on an amended charge of trafficking in 21 packets of substance containing not less than 49.32g of the said drug and sentenced to death.

The appellant appealed against his conviction and raised two arguments: (a) the prosecution witness was not an expert within the meaning of ss 47 and 48 of the Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1990 Rev Ed) and the trial judge had erred in relying strongly on his hearsay and inadmissible evidence; and (b) on the totality of the evidence, he had proved on a balance of probabilities that the drugs were for his own consumption.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) The competency of an expert was a question for the court. Considerable laxity prevailed with regard to the issue of who an expert was. The prosecution witness had more than 20 years' experience working with the enforcement division of the CNB. He had access to information about the drug scene in Singapore in the course of his work. The evidence given by him was on the value of drugs and the straws of heroin usually sold in the market. He had sufficient working experience to be considered an expert in the matters on which he gave evidence: at [16] and [17].

(2) It was difficult to categorise the practice of drug users and suppliers as either “science or art”. Although the scope of the term had been widely construed, to admit the prosecution evidence by virtue of s 47 of the Evidence Act would require straining the meaning of the term: at [18].

(3) The practice of drug users and suppliers, including how much they sold or bought the drugs for and in what quantities, came within the ambit of s 51 (a) of the Evidence Act. By virtue of his long working experience in the enforcement division of the CNB, the prosecution witness had ample opportunities to acquire knowledge of such matters and thus he had the “special means of knowledge” to express his opinion on such matters: at [20]and [21].

(4) The lack of paraphernalia usually associated with drug trafficking in the appellant's residence and on the appellant at the time of arrest was not sufficient to rebut the presumption under s 17 of the Act. Based on the evidence given at trial, the appellant had failed to rebut the presumption by virtue of s 17 of the Act that he was trafficking in the drugs: at [22].

Harilal Gordhan v EmperorAIR 1937 Bombay 385 (folld)

PP v Lee Ee Teong [1953] MLJ 244 (folld)

PP v Muhamed bin Sulaiman [1982] 2 MLJ 320 (refd)

R v Lim Chin Shang [1957] MLJ 125 (refd)

R v Soh Eng Chiang [1937] MLJ 247 (refd)

Sim Ah Song v R [1951] MLJ 150 (refd)

Evidence Act (Cap 97,1990 Rev Ed)ss 47, 51 (a) (consd);s 48

Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185,1985 Rev Ed)ss 5 (a),17 (consd);s 33

James Masih (James and Bala) and Naranjan Singh (Naranjan & Co) for the appellant

Lau Wing Yum and Lionel Tan (Deputy Public Prosecutors) for the respondent.

Yong Pung How CJ

(delivering the judgment of the court):

1 The appellant, Leong Wing Kong, was tried on a charge that, on 9 July 1992, at about 5.25pm along Park Crescent, Singapore, he did have in his possession 24 packets of substance containing not less than 50.28g of diamorphine without any authorisation under the Misuse of Drugs Act (“the Act”) or the Regulations made thereunder and that, by virtue of s 17 of the Act, he did thereby traffic in the said drug and commit an offence under s 5 (a) punishable under s 33 of the Act. At the end of the trial, the appellant was convicted of an amended charge of trafficking in 21 packets of substance containing...