Public Prosecutor v Lim Boon Hiong and another
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Judge | Steven Chong J |
Judgment Date | 21 July 2010 |
Neutral Citation | [2010] SGHC 205 |
Citation | [2010] SGHC 205 |
Defendant Counsel | Ramesh Tiwary (M/s Ramesh Tiwary),Shashidran Nathan and Tania Chin (M/s Inca Law LLC) and Satwant Singh (Sim Mong Teck & Partners) |
Published date | 23 July 2010 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Ng Cheng Thiam, Sharmila Sripathy-Shanaz and Davyd Chong (Attorney-General's Chambers) |
Hearing Date | 21 May 2010,17 May 2010,19 May 2010,10 May 2010,13 May 2010,11 May 2010,14 May 2010,26 May 2010,20 May 2010,12 May 2010,27 May 2010,18 May 2010 |
Docket Number | Criminal Case No 3 of 2010 |
Date | 21 July 2010 |
Subject Matter | Criminal Law |
The accused persons are two Malaysian Chinese from Penang, Malaysia. The first accused is Lim Boon Hiong (“Lim”), 29 years old, and the second accused is Koay Teen Chew (“Koay”), 30 years old.
The charge The Prosecution proceeded against Lim and Koay on one joint charge of drug trafficking (“the Charge”),
Surveillance operation leading to Lim and Koay’s arrest[That you both] on the 28th day of May 2008 at or about 7.40pm in a Malaysian registered motor car JKR 7393 along Dunearn Road approaching Newton Circus in Singapore, in furtherance of the common intention of you both, did traffic in a controlled drug specified in Class A of the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185, to wit, by having in your possession inside the said car for the purpose of trafficking two hundred and nineteen (219) packets of substance containing not less than 120.96 grams of diamorphine without any authorisation under the said Act or the Regulations made thereunder, and you have thereby committed an offence under section 5(1)(a) read with section 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act and section 34 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224 and punishable under section 33 of the Misuse of Drug Act.
The Prosecution led evidence to show that on 28 May 2008, at about 4.30pm, a party of officers from the Central Narcotics Bureau (the “CNB officers”) was tasked to conduct surveillance on a Malaysian registered car JKR 7393 (“the car”) at the Woodlands Checkpoint.
At about 6.10pm on 28 May 2008, the CNB officers observed Lim and Koay entering Singapore from Johor Bahru at the Woodlands Checkpoint in the car. The car made its way into the heartlands, stopping first at Causeway Point in Woodlands where a male Chinese (subsequently ascertained to be Koay) alighted from the car and boarded a taxi. Thereafter the taxi and the car left together and proceeded to Bukit Timah Shopping Centre where Koay alighted from the taxi and reboarded the car. The car then travelled to, and stopped at, a Shell petrol kiosk along Upper Bukit Timah Road. The CNB officers took up various positions nearby in order to continue the surveillance.
At the petrol kiosk, both Lim and Koay were observed by the CNB officers to have alighted from the car to use a restroom and visit a convenience store, respectively. When they returned, Koay went to the rear passenger seat of the car while Lim returned to the driver’s seat. Subsequently, Koay moved to the front passenger seat.
At about 7pm, the CNB officers observed a male Chinese, later ascertained to be PW21, Goh Kong Seng (“Goh”), walking up to the front passenger window of the car (there is some dispute as to whether Goh walked up to the front passenger window or the driver’s window but nothing turns on this), reaching in through the window and collecting a black bundle from one of the accused persons. Koay testified in court that he was the one who handed over the black bundle to Goh who then placed the black bundle in his left trouser pocket before leaving in another car. Goh was arrested later the same day (28 May 2008) and the black bundle that Goh had collected at the petrol kiosk was seized. It was found to be labelled “B”. Analysis of the contents of the black bundle by the Health Sciences Authority (“HSA”) revealed that the bundle contained diamorphine, which is the scientific name for heroin.
Lim and Koay then left the petrol kiosk, and were travelling along Dunearn Road towards Newton Circus when they were intercepted and arrested by the CNB officers, and their identities ascertained.
Questioning of Lim and Koay at Dunearn Road Lim and Koay were then questioned at the scene by a number of CNB officers. None of the following sets of questions and answers were reduced to writing:
The car was searched by the CNB officers at the scene, and a loudspeaker was found in the boot of the car. SSI Sea was informed by SI David Ng that Lim had said that there were things inside the car boot, but SSI Sea could not find any opening in the loudspeaker, and decided, in view of the poor lighting and traffic conditions, to continue the search at the headquarters of the CNB (“CNB HQ”).
Arrival at CNB HQ and initial statements recorded from Lim and Koay Shortly after arriving at CNB HQ on the same day (28 May 2008), at about 9.15pm, SSI Sea questioned Koay in a mixture of Hokkien and Cantonese, and obtained a statement (P35) from Koay, which SSI Sea reduced to writing in his pocketbook as follows:
Shortly thereafter, at about 9.25pm, SSSgt Ng questioned Lim in Mandarin and obtained a statement (P32) from Lim, which SSSgt Ng reduced to writing in his pocketbook as follows:
At about 9.45pm, the car was searched by SSI Sea in the presence of Lim and Koay. When the boot of the car was opened, a loudspeaker was found just behind the rear seat (as shown in photographs P3 and P4). SSI Sea was unable to find any opening in the loudspeaker.
During the search, SI David Ng asked Koay how to open the loudspeaker, and Koay replied that there was an opening behind the loudspeaker. With this information, SSI Sea located a concealed opening at the back of the loudspeaker (as shown in photograph P5) which, when opened, revealed a compartment, within which SSI Sea found 8 bundles each secured with black masking tape. The 8 bundles were already labelled “A”, “C”, “D”, “E1”, “E2”, “E3”, “E4” and “E5” when they were found, and contained small packets of granular/powdered substance. As stated in
At about 10.08pm on the same day (28 May 2008), SSSgt Ng questioned Lim in Mandarin, and obtained a further statement from Lim in Mandarin (P33) which SSSgt Ng reduced to writing in his pocketbook as follows:
At about 10.13pm on 28 May 2008, SSI Sea questioned Koay in Hokkien and Cantonese, and obtained a further statement (P36) from Koay which SSI Sea reduced to writing in his pocketbook as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Public Prosecutor v Apinyowichian Yongyut and others
...approach”. 23 Panya Martmontree v PP [1995] 2 SLR(R) 806 at [32]. 24 Muhammad Bin Kadar v PP [2001] 3 SLR 1205. 25 PP v Lim Boon Hiong [2010] 4 SLR 696. 26 One example of this in our present case is that PW5, when questioned in B9’s voir dire whether PW17 had threatened to charge B9 with te......
-
South East Enterprises (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Hean Nerng Holdings Pte Ltd
...Odex Pte Ltd v Pacific Internet Ltd [2008] 3 SLR (R) 18; [2008] 3 SLR 18 (folld) Owen v Daly [1955] VLR 442 (refd) PP v Lim Boon Hiong [2010] 4 SLR 696 (refd) S Louis Pillay v A S Nadasan (1914) 1 FMSLR 157 (refd) Steel Linings Ltd & Mark Harvey v Bibby & Co [1993] RA 27 (folld) Three River......
-
Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v PP
...a reasonable doubt: at [30].] Khor Soon Lee v PP [2011] 3 SLR 201 (refd) Pereira v DPP (1988) 63 ALJR 1 (refd) PP v Lim Boon Hiong [2010] 4 SLR 696 (refd) PP v Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam [2011] 2 SLR 830 (refd) Tan Kiam Peng v PP [2008] 1 SLR (R) 1; [2008] 1 SLR 1 (refd) Warner v Metrop......
-
Zainal bin Hamad v Public Prosecutor and another appeal
...both the Court of Appeal (see Tang Hai Liang v PP [2011] SGCA 38 at [18]–[19]) and the High Court (see PP v Lim Boon Hiong and another [2010] 4 SLR 696 at [58]; PP v Tan Lye Heng [2017] 5 SLR 564 at [71]; PP v Mohd Aziz bin Hussain [2018] SGHC 19 at [66]–[67]). As with Mohd Halmi, none of t......
-
Case Note - THE DOCTRINE OF WILFUL BLINDNESS IN DRUG OFFENCES
...MLJ 89 at 101. 93 Masoud Rahimi bin Mehrzad v Public Prosecutor [2017] 1 SLR 257 at [56] and [59]. 94 Public Prosecutor v Lim Boon Hiong [2010] 4 SLR 696 at [74]; Tan Kiam Peng v Public Prosecutor [2008] 1 SLR(R) 1 at [129]; Adili Chibuike Ejike v Public Prosecutor [2019] 2 SLR 254 at [61].......
-
REFLECTIONS ON S 2(2) OF SINGAPORE EVIDENCE ACT AND ROLE OF COMMON LAW RULES OF EVIDENCE
...from a person in authority’. See, for a similar view, Whitley Stokes, The Anglo-Indian Codes vol II (Clarendon Press, 1888) at p 827. 177[2010] 4 SLR 696. 178Public Prosecutor v Lim Boon Hiong[2010] 4 SLR 696 at [41]–[47]. 179 But in the interim, what the courts can do is to admit a stateme......
-
CULPABILITY IN THE MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT
...order to rebut the presumption in s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed): see, eg, Public Prosecutor v Lim Boon Hiong[2010] 4 SLR 696 at [66], [74]; Public Prosecutor v Azman bin Mohamed Sanwan[2010] SGHC 196 at [146]-[147]. 69 Immigration Act (Cap 133, 2008 Rev Ed). 70 S......
-
Criminal Law
...concepts Wilful blindness 12.1 The case of Public Prosecutor v Lim Boon Hiong [2010] 4 SLR 696 (‘Lim Boon Hiong’) involved two accused persons, Lim and Koay, who were jointly charged with drug trafficking under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed). It......