Lu Lai Heng v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Karthigesu JA
• Judgment Date: 04 April 1994
• Neutral Citation: [1994] SGCA 54
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 71 of 1993
• Date: 04 April 1994
• Year: 1994
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mak Kok Weng (Mak & Pnrs) and Philip Jeyaretnam (Helen Yeo & Pnrs)
• Citation: [1994] SGCA 54
• Defendant Counsel: Palaniappan Sundararaj (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Whether statement caused by inducement, threat or promise,Statements,Statutory offences,Whether self-perceived and self-generated,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Misuse of Drugs Act,s 122(5) Criminal Procedure Act (Cap 168),Criminal Law,Whether presumption rebutted,Admissibility,s 24 Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1990 Ed),Trafficking in controlled drugs,ss 5 & 17 Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185),Trafficking

The appellant, Lu Lai Heng, was convicted and sentenced to suffer death on the amended charge of having in his possession 13 packets of substance containing not less than 524.82g of diamorphine without any authorization and, by virtue of s 17 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) (`the Act`), of having thereby trafficked, by offering to sell or distribute, the said drugs. This was an offence under s 5 and punishable under s 33 of the Act.

The appellant appealed against his conviction which we dismissed at the end of the hearing without finding it necessary to hear the learned deputy public prosecutor. We now give our reasons.

The undisputed facts

Acting on information received that one Ah Heng residing at 8 Blanford Drive (`the house`) was trafficking in drugs, a team of officers from the Central Narcotics Bureau (`the CNB`), the Police Tactical Team (`the PTT`) and the Criminal Investigation Department (`the CID`) raided the house on 21 December 1992 at about 4.45am. Upon a pre-arranged signal given by Assistant Superintendent of Police Stephen Koh (`ASP Koh`) from the PTT, the officers forced their way into the house. They rounded up the four occupants of the house and brought them to the hall. The four people arrested were the appellant, the appellant`s mother Mdm Teng Liang Eng (`Mdm Teng`), Lee Keng Pang (`Lee`) and Tung Peng Wah. Both Lee and Tung Peng Wah were tenants of Mdm Teng.

Subsequently, 13 packets of granular substance were recovered from the house. Three of these were discovered under a table in the appellant`s room at the front of the house (`the front room`) and the rest were found in a cupboard in Mdm Teng`s bedroom. The contents of the 13 packets were analyzed by the department of scientific services and found to contain in total not less than 524.82g of diamorphine. In the front room, an electronic weighing machine and a machine for the sealing of plastic bags were also found.

The disputed facts

The disputed facts material to the appeal relate to some oral statements and a recorded statement made by the appellant after his arrest. The prosecution`s account of the facts was this. After the occupants of the house were brought into the hall, Assistant Superintendent Lim Chei Yoo (`ASP Lim`) of the CNB questioned Lee in Hokkien, believing him to be Ah Heng, as to the whereabouts of the drugs. The appellant was alone in the front room when the raid began. Inspector Gwee Hian Kwee (`Inspector Gwee`), a PTT officer, gained entry into the appellant`s room and arrested him. Inspector Gwee then brought the appellant out of his room into the hall. As he walked towards the hall with Inspector Gwee, the appellant answered ASP Lim`s question. He said he was Ah Heng, admitted that the drugs were with him and added that Lee was not involved in any way. ASP Lim then asked how much heroin the appellant had. He said he had half a pound of heroin. When asked to surrender the drugs, the appellant brought the officers to the front room and pointed with his chin to three plastic bags under a table in the room. The prosecution`s version of these matters was put forth by ASP Lim, ASP Koh, Inspector Gwee and Lee. The witnesses also testified that they did not see anyone assaulting the appellant in the hall. Neither did they see or hear anyone making or offering any threat, inducement or promise to the appellant.

At about 5.30am, ASP Lim approached the appellant in the front room and asked the appellant in Hokkien whether he had any more drugs to surrender to him. Two officers from the CID, Corporal Goh Cheng Huat (`Corporal Goh`) and Corporal Chua Siak Chew (`Corporal Chua`) were also in the front room. The appellant replied that he had another ten pounds of drugs kept in his mother`s room. The three officers then brought the appellant to Mdm Teng`s bedroom. The appellant used his head to indicate a cupboard in the bedroom and said that the drugs were inside the cupboard. ASP Lim opened the cupboard and found two plastic bags which contained ten packets of granular substance. The appellant told ASP Lim that there were ten pounds of drugs in total in the two plastic bags. Such was the evidence of ASP Lim, Corporal Goh and Corporal Chua. The officers also testified that no one offered any threat, inducement or promise to the appellant.

At 7.10am, ASP Lim recorded a statement from the appellant in the front room. ASP Lim said that there was no inducement, threat or promise made by him to the appellant before or during the recording of the statement. The appellant had elected to speak in English. After the statement was read back to the appellant by ASP Lim, it was affirmed to be true. The appellant declined to make any corrections or alterations to the statement and signed it. No one else was in the room when the statement was made and signed.

The admissibility of the oral statements and the recorded statement were challenged at trial. The appellant said that, after gaining entry into the front room, the officers forced him into a kneeling position. Then he was manhandled and dragged into the hall. When he told ASP Lim that he was Ah Heng, someone dragged him back into the front room and asked him where his revolver was. When he admitted that he had a revolver, he alleged that ASP Koh punched him in the face. He dodged but something grazed his cheek. The appellant alleged that, at 5.30am, ASP Lim told him that the drugs in Mdm Teng`s bedroom had been found. The appellant was then brought to Mdm Teng`s bedroom where the recovered drugs were shown to him. He denied that he told the officers about the ten packets of drugs and further denied that he showed them where the drugs were. He admitted that he said there were ten pounds of...