Public Prosecutor v Bryan Yeo Sin Rong and Another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck JC
• Judgment Date: 04 August 1998
• Neutral Citation: [1998] SGHC 266
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Year: 1998
• Published date: 26 February 2013
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ferlin Jayatissa and Hee Mee Lin [Attorney-General's Chambers]
• Defendant Counsel: Chua Teck Leong [Chua Teck Leong & Partners] (assigned) and Goh Aik Leng [Goh Aik Leng & Partners] (assigned),K S Rajah SC [Harry Elias & Partners] (briefed) and David Gerald [Koh Ong & Partners] (briefed)
• Citation: [1998] SGHC 266

Judgment:

GROUNDS OF DECISION

THE PROSECUTION CASE

1. The 1^st accused was charged with attempting to export heroin from Singapore to Taipei at 4.54pm on 13 January 1998, an offence under s7 read with s12 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The charge against the 2^nd accused was more elaborately worded as follows:

"That you, Chai Chien Wei Kelvin, on the 13^th day of January 1998, at Changi Airport Terminal 2, Singapore, did engage with one Bryan Yeo Sin Rong, male aged 26 years, NRIC No. S7144064/H, in a conspiracy to do a certain thing, namely, to export a controlled drug specified in Class "A" of the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185, to wit, thirty six (36) blocks of compressed substance containing not less than 2,109 grams of diamorphine from Singapore to Taipei by the said Bryan Yeo Sin Rong, without any authorisation under the said Act or the regulations thereunder, and in pursuance of the said conspiracy and in order for the doing of that thing, an act took place in the shower room of Transit Hotel, Changi Airport namely, you strapped the said drugs, which you transported into Singapore, onto the body of the said Bryan Yeo Sin Rong using masking tapes and other tapes in order to enable him to transport the said drugs out of Singapore, and you have thereby abetted the commission of the offence by the said Bryan Yeo Sin Rong of attempting to export the said drugs from Singapore, and you have thereby committed an offence under section 7 read with section 12 and punishable under section 33 of the Misuse of Drugs Act."

THE 1^ST ACCUSED

2. The 1^st accused, aged 26, was arrested by officers of the Central Narcotics Bureau ("CNB") on 13 January 1998 at 4.54pm at the Boarding Room Gate E11 in Terminal 2 of the Changi International Airport. The arresting officers were W/ASP Diong Bee Chu, Sgt Eddy Razali, Sgt Xavier Dawes, and Sgt Heng Chin Kok. The 1^st accused was brought to the search room at Gate E11 where more CNB officers arrived. They were Sgt Ting Ming Ling, S/Sgt Lee Chai Hwa and Sgt Tan Teck Hoe. W/ASP Diong asked the 1^st accused if he had anything to surrender and the 1^st accused took off his sweater and shirt and revealed brown blocks strapped to his body under his T-shirt. Five blocks fell off and were retrieved by W/ASP Diong. Shortly after that the CNB officers brought the 1^st accused to the CNB office in the North Wing. Along the way another two blocks fell off the 1^st accused’s body when the party were outside Gate E5. Another block fell off when they were passing Gate E1. Nine more blocks fell off when the 1^st accused was in the CNB North Wing office. These blocks were also retrieved by W/ASP Diong. A total of 36 blocks were recovered from the body of the 1^st accused. They were sent for analysis and found to contain a net weight of 2,109gms of diamorphine. The 1^st accused was accordingly charged under the Misuse of Drugs Act for attempting to export the said diamorphine.

3. At the North Wing office W/ASP Diong questioned the 1^st accused and recorded her questions together with the answers from the 1^st accused on paper which the 1^st accused signed. This evidence which was not challenged by the defence is as follows:

"Q1: What do you have inside your shirt?

A1: I don’t know

Q2: Where did you get these things?

A2: Now I know I get arrested, I rather die one person.

Q3: Where did you get it?

A3: Inside the airport.

Q4: So you got it today?

A4: Yes.

Q5: Do you want to say who gave it to you?

A5: I don’t want to be a hero but I don’t want to be a bastard (pause). I don’t know what to say.

Q6: Do you have anything else to say regarding the things on your body?

A6: No.

4. Insp. S Krishnan, the investigating officer, arrived at the CNB North Wing office at 5.50pm and took over the case from W/ASP Diong. At 7.15pm three members from the Scene-of-Crime unit of the Criminal Investigation Department arrived at the North Wing office. Photographs showing blocks of taped matter strapped to the torso of the 1^st accused were taken. Of the 36 blocks that were recovered from the 1^st accused, 17 of them had fallen off his body en route from the boarding room to the North Wing office. The remaining 19 were still strapped to him. Photography of the 1^st accused and the exhibits ended at 8.25pm and five minutes later Insp. Krishnan took the accused back to CNB headquarters, arriving there about 9pm. Insp. Krishnan weighed the drugs and subsequently, at 9.40pm, took them to the CNB’s Major Investigation Branch at Outram Road.

5. At midnight, DSP Vijakumar directed Insp Krishnan to record a statement from the 1^st accused. S/Sgt Tai who had been escorting the 1^st accused then handed over custody of the 1^st accused to Insp Krishnan at 12.30am. The statement was recorded by 2.10am. A further statement was recorded from the 1^st accused at 5pm on 15 January 1998. Both statements were admitted and marked as P36 collectively. After recording the first part of P36, the 1^st accused was sent for a pre-statement medical examination for the purpose of recording his cautioned statement under s 122(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The 1^st accused was sent back to Insp Krishnan at 3.50am on 14 January 1998 and he began the procedure for recording the cautioned statement. The statement itself was recorded from 4.12am to 4.25am. I shall, for convenience, refer to this statement as P34 although this exhibit includes the charge and the caution. Counsel for the 1^st accused challenged the admissibility of these three statements on the ground that they were not made voluntarily. The statement given to W/ASP Diong was not challenged.

VOIR DIRE OF THE 1^ST ACCUSED

6. The prosecution sought to admit the two written statements of the 1^st accused. The first was the statement under s121 CPC (P36), recorded in two parts, and the second, his cautioned statement under s122(6) CPC (P34). The 1^st accused alleged that he made these statements under duress and inducement. His complaint was that in the course of the initial interrogation, that was by DSP Vijakumar, he was told that "the rope was round his neck", and he was to tell the truth because DSP Vijakumar could tell if he was lying merely by looking at his eyes. He was also told that if he did not tell the truth DSP Vijaykumar would damage his face. When the 1^st accused gave an answer which DSP Vijakumar was not satisfied with he knocked the 1^st accused on the head. The 1^st accused said that this occurred only once. He testified that at the end of the interview he thought that the officers would help take the rope off his neck, and by this he meant that he thought that he would face a lesser charge. His counsel submitted that the threat, inducement and promise remained impressed in the mind of the 1^st accused when he gave his statements to Insp Krishnan. There were no complaints against Insp Krishnan himself in so far as any threat, inducement or promise was concerned. The allegations against DSP Vijakumar were denied by him and SS/Sgt Wong who was present during the interview by DSP Vijakumar.

7. I was not sufficiently convinced (bearing in mind that the onus of proof on the defence is that of raising a reasonable doubt) that DSP Vijakumar and SS/Sgt Wong had told the 1^st accused that they would take the rope off his neck or had knocked him on the head, albeit once only. In any event I do not think that a knock on the head in the manner described by the 1^st accused was sufficient duress. Neither do I think that a call to co-operate can be regarded as a threat or inducement, even if accompanied, as in this case, by a remark that the accused would be allowed to call his wife after he had co-operated. Similarly, a statement by an investigator to the accused not to lie because he can tell whether he was lying or not merely by looking at his eyes cannot be considered a threat, inducement or promise. After considering the evidence I was satisfied that the statements of the 1^st accused were made without any threat, inducement or promise from the CNB officers, and accordingly admitted the statements in evidence.

STATEMENTS OF THE 1^ST ACCUSED - P36 AND P34

8. The material story that emerged from the 1^st accused’s statements recorded on 14 and 15 January 1998 and admitted as P36 is as follows. On 13 January about 9am he received a paging call from the 2^nd accused who called from Thailand. He called the 2^nd accused from a public telephone. The latter asked if his visa to Taiwan was ready. The 1^st accused said yes, but he did not have enough money to travel. The 2^nd accused then instructed him to go to his (2^nd accused’s) grandmother (Lim Say Ma) and take $300 from her to purchase his air fare. He also told the 1^st accused to meet him at the Transit Lounge of Terminal Two at the Changi International Airport around 3pm. The 1^st accused then collected the money from Lim Say Ma at her flat at Yung Ann Road at 10am and used it to help pay the $900 airfare later that morning. Lim Say Ma gave evidence that between 10am and 10.30am on 13 January 1998 she gave $300 to a friend of her grandson (the 2^nd accused). She testified that earlier that morning she received a telephone call from the 2^nd accused asking her to hand $300 to his friend. There was no other evidence as to why Lim Say Ma handed $300 to the 1^st accused other than the reason set out in his statement.

9. The 1^st accused arrived at the airport about 3.20pm and after checking through customs he made his way to the Transit Lounge where he saw the 2^nd accused. The 2^nd accused asked the 1^st accused to follow him to the Transit Hotel situated inside the Transit Lounge. The 1^st accused paid the cashier at the shower room of the Transit Hotel $10.30 for the use of the shower room by two persons. The cashier who gave evidence confirmed that the price for the use of the shower room was $5.15 per person and that when a receipt for $10.30 was given it meant that it was for two persons. In his statement given on...