Public Prosecutor v Lim Ah Poh and Another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Kan Ting Chiu JC
• Judgment Date: 31 July 1991
• Neutral Citation: [1991] SGHC 108
• Docket Number: Criminal Case No 39 of 1989
• Date: 31 July 1991
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1991
• Plaintiff Counsel: Jasvender Kaur (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Citation: [1991] SGHC 108
• Defendant Counsel: Thomas Tham (Thomas Tham & Co),Leo Fernando and R Pillai (Leo Fernando)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: What constitutes common intention,Statutory presumption of trafficking Rebutting presumption,Trafficking in controlled drugs,s 34 Penal Code (Cap 224),Misuse of Drugs Act,Complicity,s 18(4)Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185),ss 17, 18(2) & 21 Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185),Trafficking in a controlled drug,Common intention,Criminal Law,What constitutes consent,Statutory offences,General exceptions,Statutory presumption of possession of a controlled drug,Difference between similar and common intention,Consent

Cur Adv Vult

The two accused were jointly charged that:

You,

(1) Lim Ah Poh

(2) Lee Cheng Hock

on or about 14 March 1988 between 3.10pm and 3.30pm, in Singapore, in furtherance of the common intention of both of you, did traffic in a controlled drug specified in Class A of the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) to wit, by transporting three plastic packets containing not less than 220.62g of diamorphine from Stagmont Ring to the slip road joining the Pan Island Expressway to the traffic junction at Upper Serangoon Road in motor car AR 4599, without any authorization under the said Act or the regulations made thereunder and you have thereby committed an offence under s 5(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act read with s 34 of the Penal Code (Cap 224) and punishable under s 33 of the Misuse of Drugs Act.

A party of CNB officers kept surveillance over motor car AR 4599 from 4.30am on 14 March 1988 when it was parked in the car park of the Lion City Hotel. At 1.10pm, the first accused, his wife, his son, his two step-sisters, a step-nephew and Chua Kee Wee drove off in the car to Defu Lane 10. At Defu Lane 10, Chua Kee Wee left the car and borrowed a motor pick-up.

The first accused then left Defu Lane 10, following the pick-up driven by Chua Kee Wee. The first accused`s car, trailed by CNB officers, went along Hougang Avenue 3, Hougang Avenue 2, Ang Mo Kio Avenue 3, the Central Expressway, the Pan Island Expressway, the Bukit Timah Expressway, Woodlands Centre Road, Marsiling Estate, Woodlands Centre Road, back to the Bukit Timah Expressway, the Pan Island Expressway, Eng Neo Avenue, Bukit Timah Road, Upper Bukit Timah Road, Woodlands Road and finally into Stagmont Ring, by which time it had parted company with the pick-up. The CNB officers did not follow the first accused`s car beyond Stagmont Ring.

About 40 minutes later the first accused`s car was seen leaving Stagmont Ring, and the CNB officers resumed their surveillance. The car travelled along Woodlands Road, Bukit Panjang Road, the Bukit Timah Expressway and the Pan Island Expressway in the direction of Changi Airport. When the car approached the flyover near the Upper Serangoon Road, it made a sharp left turn down the road leading off the expressway. After entering this road, the car came to a stop behind several other vehicles which had stopped at a red traffic light. The CNB officers rushed to the car and arrested both accused and the other three adult passengers. The boot of the car was opened. Inside the boot there was a board which divided the boot into two compartments; one exposed to view and the other concealed behind the board. When the board was removed, a red plastic bag containing four tissue boxes was recovered. Inside three of the four boxes were three plastic packets of heroin, two of which were wrapped in Chinese newspapers. The heroin recovered is the subject matter of the charge. The net weight of the heroin was 220.62g and its street value was estimated at $258,980. The foregoing facts were not disputed by either accused.

After their arrest both accused made statements to the CNB officers. The first accused made two statements on 14 and 17 March 1988 and the second accused made three statements on 14, 17 and 18 March 1988.

The first accused did not dispute the admissibility of his statement of 14 March. In this statement, he alleged that the second accused gave him a plastic bag which he placed in the boot of his car. He also stated that the second accused had asked for a lift and was directing the way in the car when they were arrested.

The admissibility of his statement of 17 March was challenged by the first accused. In the trial-within-a-trial, he alleged that he was not offered an interpreter when this statement was recorded by Narcotics Officer Chew Khai Chow, that when he informed the recording officer that he knew nothing, he was told that his wife would not be released. Consequently, he made his statement `randomly` and told the recording officer that he could `write anything he liked`. The first accused also gave conflicting evidence as to whether he wanted to speak in Cantonese or in Khek.

These allegations were denied by the recording officer who affirmed that the first accused was offered but declined the services of an interpreter and elected to make his statement in Cantonese, and that he did not offer any inducement, threat or promise to the first accused nor did he say that he would refuse to release the wife unless the first accused gave a statement.

After considering the evidence of the first accused and the recording officer and the submissions of counsel, we found that the statement was made voluntarily and recorded properly, and we admitted it in evidence. In this statement the first accused said, inter alia, that:

(i) He arrived in Singapore from Penang in car AR 4599 on 12 March 1988 at about 2pm with his wife, son, step-sisters and a step-nephew and checked into the Lion City Hotel.

(ii) At about 6-7pm that day, he left alone in the car to look for the second accused and his father at their house (established to be 35-C Lorong Kebasi, which was a small house adjoining a small temple).

(iii) On arrival at the house, he met the second accused but not his father. He borrowed a pager from the second accused who had two pagers with him. The second accused informed him that he had some drugs to dispose of and to await his telephone call.

(iv) On 13 March at about 10.30pm a male Chinese who introduced himself as Ah Ho visited him at the hotel. Ah Ho told him that the second accused had told him to come to see him. Ah Ho asked him whether he could introduce him to an opium supplier. He promised to try to do so, and gave Ah Ho his home telephone number in Penang. On this visit, Ah Ho was accompanied by Ah Vee (established to be Chua Kee Wee).

(v) On 14 March, Chua Kee Wee came to his hotel at about 1pm and asked to use his car to collect drugs from the second accused. He declined as his wife and step-sisters would also be going to the temple to pray. He told Chua Kee Wee to find a car himself and they could go to the second accused`s house together.

(vi) He and Chua Kee Wee then went to a supermarket beside the hotel, where Chua Kee Wee bought five boxes of tissue paper and he bought a bottle of Chinese wine.

(vii) They then went into the car together with his wife, son and step-sisters, and Chua Kee Wee directed them to a place (established to be Defu Lane 10). At this place, Chua Kee Wee told him to hand four of the five tissue boxes to the second accused, and left the car. Later he saw Chua Kee Wee driving a small pick-up, and he followed it in his car. At the traffic light about 7 milestone, Bukit Timah Road, the car overtook the pick-up.

(viii) At about 2.45pm he arrived at the second accused`s house. At the house, he handed the four tissue boxes which were in a pink plastic bag to the second accused. The second accused placed drugs into three of the four boxes. He told the second accused that he was returning to the hotel, and that Chua Kee Wee was on the way to the house to collect the drugs.

(ix) The second accused asked him to place the plastic bag with the four tissue boxes in the boot of his car and to conceal it behind the board. He also asked for a lift to the Lion City Hotel `so that he could take a taxi from there to go somewhere with the drugs`.

(x) When they were arrested and brought to the boot of the car, an officer questioned him on the contents of the boot, but he did not reply as he was in a daze.

(xi) A red packet containing a straw of heroin and a $1 note that was recovered from the car had been given to him by the second accused to be used as a sample to potential buyers.

In addition to the first accused`s statements, the prosecution also adduced evidence through Senior Narcotics Officer Lim Chei Yoo on what was said when the bag was recovered. SNO Lim`s evidence was that after the two accused were arrested, they were brought to the boot of the car. When he saw the plastic bag containing the four tissue boxes, he asked the first accused what that was, and the first accused replied that a friend gave it to him. He asked who the friend was, and the first accused said it was Ah Seng from Penang. His evidence was confirmed by Narcotics Officer Lee Kiong Lock, who was also at the scene, as well as the second accused.

The second accused did not dispute the admissibility of his three statements. In the statement of 14 March, the second accused stated that the first accused came to his house with his wife and two girls. He saw the first accused walking to a demolished house behind his house. A short while later, he saw the first accused carrying a plastic bag. The first accused told him that he wanted to look for a friend in Katong and asked him whether he knew the way there. They boarded the car, and he was directing the way until they were arrested. He did not know that there was heroin in the plastic bag, and did not see the first accused put the plastic bag in the car.

In his statement of 17 March, the second accused said, inter alia, that:

(i) In early November 1987, the first accused went to his house at Lorong Kebasi and handed to him a plastic bag for safekeeping. The first accused advised him to keep the bag outside the house. He asked the first accused what was in the bag but was told not to ask.

(ii) He opened the bag and saw three packets wrapped in Chinese newspaper.

(iii) He hid the bag in some bushes behind his house.

(iv) The first accused paid him $300 for keeping the bag.

(v) About one week later, the first accused came again. He collected the bag from the second accused and returned it to him about half an hour later.

(vi) On 12 March, the first accused came to his house to borrow a pager. He borrowed one from a friend and lent it to the first accused.

(vii) On 14 March at about 2 to 2.30pm, the...