PP v Chum Tat Suan

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 24 October 2013
• Date: 24 October 2013
• Docket Number: Criminal Case No 1 of 2012
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Public Prosecutor

Plaintiff

and

Chum Tat Suan

Defendant

[2013] SGHC 221

Choo Han Teck J

Criminal Case No 1 of 2012

High Court

Criminal Law—Statutory offences—Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) —Importation of drugs—Accused importing diamorphine in amount sufficient for capital punishment—Discretion of court not to impose sentence of death under s 33 B—Requirement in s 33 B (2) (a) that accused be no more than a ‘courier’ in that his involvement in importing drugs be restricted to activities listed in that section of transporting, sending or delivering drugs—Whether accused met requirement in s 33 B (2) (a) of his involvement having been restricted to transporting, sending or delivering drugs—Whether new evidence should be adduced as to question of whether accused met requirement in s 33 B (2) (a) —Section 33 B (2) (a) Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed)

The accused was convicted on a capital charge of importing diamorphine: see PP v Chum Tat Suan[2013] SGHC 150. Prior to 1 January 2013, when a number of legislative amendments came into effect, a sentence of death would have been mandatory upon such a conviction. However, the new s 33 B of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (‘the Act’) enacted by those amendments defined two sets of circumstances in which the death sentence would no longer be mandatory. Common to both sets of circumstances was that the accused had to prove on a balance of probabilities that he was no more than a ‘courier’. The term ‘courier’ was not in the Act but was convenient shorthand, employed in the Parliamentary debates on the legislative amendments, for saying that his involvement in the offence was restricted to the activities listed in s 33 B (2) (a) and duplicated in s 33 B (3) (a). These activities were transporting, sending or delivering drugs and/or offering to transport, send or deliver drugs and/or doing or offering to do any act preparatory to or for the purpose of transporting, sending or delivering drugs. This was the hearing on the question of whether the accused was no more than a ‘courier’.

Held, finding that the accused was no more than a ‘courier’:

(1) Addressing the issue of whether the accused was no more than a ‘courier’ necessitated making a new finding of fact in addition to the findings of fact upon which the conviction was based. This gave rise to the question of whether parties should be allowed to introduce new evidence on that issue. Should they be allowed to do so, there was the possibility of evidence emerging that might undermine the findings of fact made in convicting the accused, and even the possibility of evidence emerging that might cast doubt on the accused's guilt. Therefore it was not desirable that parties be allowed to introduce new evidence on the issue: at [5] .

(2) On the other hand, should parties not be allowed to introduce new evidence on the issue of whether the accused was no more than a ‘courier’, the accused would be put in a bind. In order to make the claim that he was no more than a ‘courier’, the accused would first have to admit that he trafficked or imported or exported drugs. Choosing not to admit this could preclude him from subsequently arguing that he was no more than a ‘courier’ - should the accused have elected to remain silent, he would not have had the opportunity to give evidence for the purpose of proving that he was no more than a ‘courier’, and should he have...