Lim Lye Huat Benny v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Goh Joon Seng J
• Judgment Date: 01 November 1995
• Neutral Citation: [1995] SGCA 80
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 39 of 1995
• Date: 01 November 1995
• Year: 1995
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: S Radakrishnan (Bernard, Rada & Barker) and Steven Seah (Drew & Napier)
• Citation: [1995] SGCA 80
• Defendant Counsel: Foo Cheow Ming (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Whether s 17 applied where there was direct evidence of trafficking,Trafficking in controlled drugs,Criminal Law,No direct evidence to prove possession of drugs,ss 5(2) & 17 Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185),ss 17, 18(1) & (2) Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185),Possession of controlled drugs,Statutory presumptions,Whether s 17 or s 18 applied,Statutory offences

Cur Adv Vult

(delivering the judgment of the court): The charge

The appellant was convicted in the High Court on the charge that:

on or about 17 February 1995 at about 8.30pm at the void deck of Blk 614 Bedok Reservoir Road, Singapore, [he] did traffic in a controlled drug specified in Class A of the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) by having in [his] possession for the purpose of trafficking 60 packets of substance containing not less than 38.52g of diamorphine at the said void deck of Blk 614 Bedok Reservoir Road without any authorization under the said Act or the regulations made thereunder and by virtue of s 17 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, [he has] thereby committed an offence under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) and punishable under s 33 of the said Act.

Agreed facts

A statement of agreed facts was tendered at the trial and was admitted. The statement, in so far as material, stated as follows:

1 On 17 February 1995 at about 8.11pm, at the void deck of Blk 614 Bedok Reservoir Road, CNB officers Sgt Leong Wai Wah, Cpl Lim Seng Yong, Cpl Mohd Rusdi B Suhudi, Sgt Ang Oon Tho and Narcotics Officer Mohd Azli B Nasib attended a briefing conducted by SSSgt Chan Hon Kit. SSSgt Chan Hon Kit informed them that they were to look out for a male Chinese known as `Benny` who would appear on that day at the ground floor of Blk 614 Bedok Reservoir Road. SSSgt Chan then deployed the officers into two parties, the first of which comprised Cpl Mohd Rusdi, Cpl Lim, NO Mohd Azli and Sgt Ang, the second comprised the rest of the aforementioned officers.

(2) At about 8.15pm, Cpl Mohd Rusdi, Cpl Lim, NO Azli and Sgt Ang positioned themselves at the vicinity of Blk 617 Bedok Reservoir Road. At about 8.30pm, a male Chinese was seen coming from the car park of Blk 614, Bedok Reservoir Road. He was carrying a white plastic bag and walking towards the void deck of Blk 614 Bedok Reservoir Road. The male Chinese then put down the plastic bag on the floor behind him. At this juncture, the male Chinese was arrested by Cpl Mohd Rusdi and Sgt Ang. The male Chinese was ascertained to be one Benny Lim Lye Huat, m/36 IC: 1333136-G of Blk 253 Jurong East St 24 #02-267, Singapore (who shall hereinafter be called the accused). Subsequently, SSSgt Chan questioned the accused in Hokkien dialect:

`Q: What is inside the plastic bag?

A: Don`t know.

Q: Where did you parked your car?

A: There.`

3 The aforesaid white plastic bag which contained two styrofoam boxes was then seized by Cpl Mohd Rusdi. The accused then led the officers to the car park where his car SBN 1422 L was parked near to Blk 614 Bedok Reservoir Road. SSSgt Chan instructed Sgt Ang to drive the accused`s vehicle SBN 1422 L together with Sgt Leong, Cpl Rusdi, the accused and the white plastic bag seized for Geylang Police Division Hq. The white plastic bag remained in Cpl Mohd Rusdi`s custody. The rest of the ambush party also returned thereto.

(4) At about 8.50pm, they arrived at Geylang Police Division HQ. SSSgt Chan informed Insp C Sivakumaran of the arrest. The accused Benny was told to sit at room #01-33, escorted by Cpl Mohd Rusdi and NO Azli. At room #01-33, in the presence of the accused, Sgt Ang opened one of the two styrofoam boxes found in the white plastic bag, and discovered that there were six packages wrapped in newsprint therein. He then unwrapped one of the said packages and found that it contained five plastic sachets of granular substance believed to be drugs. Sgt Ang then rewrapped the sachets and put them back into the styrofoam box. Cpl Rusdi then stood guard over the drugs exhibits seized. At about 11.55pm, ASP Adrian Tan instructed Sgt Ang to send Sgt Leong, the accused (escorted by Cpl Mohd Rusdi) and the white plastic bag (held by Cpl Mohd Rusdi) back to CNB HQ in the accused`s vehicle SBN 1422.

At the CNB headquarters the white plastic bag was handed to the investigating officer Senior Staff Sgt Cheong Wah Chow (S/S Sgt Cheong). The plastic bag contained two styrofoam boxes, and each of the boxes contained six packages wrapped in newsprint. Each of these six packages in turn contained five plastic packets of granular substance. The contents of all the packets were sent to the Department of Scientific Services for analysis and were found to contain a total of 38.52g of diamorphine. There was no dispute on the results of the scientific analysis of the granular substance.

The statements

A statement was recorded from the appellant pursuant to s 122(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) (CPC) and was admitted in evidence. This was recorded between 4.25am and 4.55am on 18 February 1995. The appellant stated that he had nothing to say when the charge and notice of warning were read to him. On 21 February 1995, a lengthy statement was recorded from him under s 121 of the CPC. The defence did not object to the admission of these two statements.

In the s 121 statement, the appellant said that he was working as a freelance car dealer and salesman at the time of his arrest. He mentioned that he had financial problems after his marriage in 1990. In December 1994, he met a friend known as Ah Seng whilst he was having some drinks at a karaoke lounge. He was introduced by Ah Seng to one `Richard`. They exchanged contact numbers. Richard gave the appellant his handphone number 02010-7722174, which was a Malaysian-registered handphone number, while the appellant gave his pager number to Richard in turn. They then parted company. Over the next few weeks, Richard paged the appellant, who managed to reach him on his handphone. They talked about business opportunities in Singapore. The appellant told Richard about his financial problems, and that he needed money for the coming Chinese New Year. Richard then suggested that the appellant could help him operate gambling and prostitution dens. The appellant told Richard that he was not familiar in those lines and he turned down the offer. On 2 February 1995, the appellant was paged by Richard, but he did not return the call. Thereafter, Richard paged him a few more times over the next two weeks, but the appellant again did not return his call. He did not want to have any connection with Richard. On 16 February 1995, the appellant was again paged by Richard. He responded, intending to inform Richard that he did not want to get involved in his business. Richard managed to persuade him to change his mind. The appellant then owed the Housing and Development Board outstanding rent for 6 months. Richard asked him whether he would deliver a package for him, for which he would be paid $3,000. The appellant was in need of money and he accepted the offer. He told Richard that that would be the last time he would deliver things for him.

On 17 February 1995, Richard and the appellant arranged to meet that evening at the McDonald`s restaurant along Rochor Road, between 7.30pm and 7.45pm. The appellant drove to meet Richard there. When they met, Richard handed the appellant a white plastic bag and instructed him to deliver it to a slightly fat male Chinese with short hair who would be waiting at the void deck at Blk 614 Bedok Reservoir Road. The plastic bag was left on the front passenger seat floorboard of the appellant`s car. He saw that there were two white styrofoam boxes inside. He did not open the boxes to check what they contained. After arriving at Blk 614 Bedok Reservoir Road, he carried the plastic bag and walked towards a male Chinese who fitted the description given by Richard. At that point he was arrested. When the styrofoam boxes were opened in his presence and the newspaper packages removed, he saw that there were packets of yellowish substances. He did not know what they were. He later learnt that the yellowish substances were heroin.

The defence

The appellant gave evidence in his defence, and his evidence was this. At the time of arrest, he was working as a freelance car salesman. He clarified that he had a stammer since birth and also blinked often. He was married to one Diana Ng and they had a young son. He stated that he was not a drug addict and had never seen drugs before. He testified that in mid-December 1994, he went to the K-Mart department store at Lucky Plaza to buy a Christmas present for his son. After getting the present, he went to a karaoke lounge in the same building where he met `Ah Seng` who introduced him to a Malaysian named Richard. The appellant found out that Richard was involved in gambling dens and prostitution rackets. He said that Richard also mentioned running a counterfeit money operation. Richard gave him a sample counterfeit Malaysian $50 note as a souvenir. It was already torn into two pieces. There was no mention of drugs or heroin.

The appellant testified that Richard later paged him in mid-December. They engaged in casual conversation at first. Richard eventually asked him to do a favour for him by delivering some counterfeit money. Richard said that the appellant would be paid $2,000 for helping him. This was probably sometime before the Chinese New Year in 1995. The appellant agreed as he was then facing financial problems and he needed money. The arrangement was for the appellant to send a plastic bag containing a giftwrapped box to the baggage deposit counter at Yaohan Parkway Parade. He was to obtain the baggage identification tag and thereafter to hand it to Richard. He said that he was paid $2,000 for the delivery. This transaction was the first of only two occasions in which he had agreed to deliver counterfeit moneys for Richard. The second transaction led to his arrest and is the subject matter of these proceedings. The appellant said that he trusted Richard since he had been paid $2,000 for the first delivery. His trust was fortified by the fact that he had been given the counterfeit RM50 note, which suggested that Richard was genuinely running a counterfeit money operation.

The events leading up to the appellant`s...