Public Prosecutor v Goh Hock Huat

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Karthigesu JA
• Judgment Date: 06 September 1994
• Neutral Citation: [1994] SGCA 109
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 11 of 1994
• Date: 06 September 1994
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1994
• Plaintiff Counsel: Seng Kwang Boon and Muhammad Hidhir (Deputy Public Prosecutors)
• Citation: [1994] SGCA 109
• Defendant Counsel: R Palakrishnan and JD Theseira (Palakrishnan and Pnrs)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Amendment by Court of Appeal,Abetment,'Deliver',Principles applicable,Charge,'Acts preparatory to or for the purpose of trafficking',s 5(a) Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185),ss 5(c) & 12 Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185),Power to alter charge to be exercised judiciously,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Statutory offences,s 54(1) Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322),Trafficking in controlled drugs,Criminal Law,Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) s 163(1),Words and Phrases

Cur Adv Vult

This is an appeal by the public prosecutor against the respondent`s acquittal on a charge of trafficking in not less than 742.89g of diamorphine under s 5(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) (the Act). The charge as amended read as follows:

That you, Goh Hock Huat, are charged that you, on or about 30 December 1992 between 2.50am and 12.50pm at Apt Blk 131, Jln Bukit Merah #09-1599, Singapore, did have in your possession a controlled drug specified in Class A of the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185), to wit, 72 packets of substance containing not less than 742.89g of diamorphine without any authorization under the said Act or the Regulations made thereunder, and by virtue of s 17 of the Misuse of Dugs Act, did thereby traffic, to wit, by offering to sell, distribute or deliver, the said drug you have thereby committed an offence under s 5(a) punishable under s 33 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. [Emphasis added.]

The respondent was convicted, however, on the lesser charge of possession of the drugs under s 8(a) of the Act and sentenced to ten years` imprisonment.

The facts

The undisputed facts of the case were as follows. The respondent was stopped at a routine road block on 30 December 1992 at 2.55am. He was arrested and detained in the CID lock-up. Later the same day, a team of Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) officers took the respondent to his residence at Blk 131, Jln Bukit Merah #09-1599, Singapore. There, the respondent surrendered a grey `Tiptoe` bag to the CNB officers. In the bag, there were three plastic packets, which contained a granular substance which was subsequently confirmed to contain diamorphine, a digital weighing scale, two hair clips, a bundle of empty sachets, a metal spoon and two disposable lighters. In two out of the three packets, the granular substance had been packed into 30 smaller sachets each. The respondent was then asked if he had any more heroin. He replied in the negative. However, on a more detailed search by the CNB officers, 11 other packets of a similar granular substance were found in a drawer of a wardrobe in the master bedroom. Subsequently, his wife, his brother and his sister (who were all at the flat) were also arrested.

The respondent`s statements

After his arrest on 30 December 1992, while the respondent was in the custody of the CNB, a s 122(6) Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) statement was recorded from him. At the trial, a voir dire was held to determine the admissibility of the statement and the trial judge ruled that it had not been obtained as a result of inducement, threat or promise and was admissible. In it, the respondent stated:

My wife Lim Bok Hoey does not know that there was heroin at my flat. All my other family members who came to my flat do not know about the heroin seized in my flat. The heroin was given to me by a Malaysian Chinese known to me as `Ah Seng` who asked me to keep the heroin for him. Ah Seng told me that if he wanted to take the heroin he would page for me. I do not know where Ah Seng stays. It was always Ah Seng who contacted me by my pager.

Subsequent statements were also recorded from the respondent on 5, 7, 8 and 19 January 1993 at the CNB. Later a further statement was recorded from him on 14 June 1993 at Queenstown Remand Centre. The prosecution sought to admit parts of the statements recorded on 7, 8, and 19 January 1993 and the entire statement recorded on 14 June 1993. At the trial, the trial judge was not satisfied that the statements had been voluntarily given and ruled that they were inadmissible.

The defence

The respondent admitted that the drugs seized from his flat were kept there by him, and that he knew that they were diamorphine. He also admitted that, originally, the Tiptoe bag contained two packets of the substance but, a few hours before his arrest, he had locked himself in the master bedroom and, using the weighing scale, hair clips and lighters, he had spent about 11/2 hours repacking the contents of one packet into 60 sachets, each sachet containing 7.5g of the drug. The 60 sachets were then separated by him into two bundles of 30 sachets each and placed in two different packets.

The respondent stated that he worked as an illegal moneylender at a gambling den and was a compulsive gambler and a heavy punter at the Bukit Turf Club. It was at the Bukit Turf Club that he was introduced in June 1992 to one `Ah Seng`, who then became his regular bookie. Initially, the respondent made a considerable amount of money through his gambling activities, but his luck soon changed and he started to lose heavily from September 1992. When the respondent could not settle his accounts with Ah Seng, he stopped returning Ah Seng`s pager calls and stayed away from the Bukit Turf Club as he knew that Ah Seng had a formidable reputation and had secret society connections. The respondent also stopped using his own pager and started using his wife`s pager instead.

In early December 1992, while the respondent was alone in a coffee house at River View Hotel, Ah Seng came up to him. He demanded to know why the respondent had not responded to his pager calls, and asked for the money which the respondent owed. The respondent pleaded for more time to make payment. Ah Seng then took down the respondent`s address from his identity card. He also noted down the respondent`s new pager number and told the respondent that he would go to the respondent`s flat in a week`s time to receive full payment. On 14 or 15 December 1992, at about 3pm, the respondent received a call from Ah Seng who asked if the money was ready. The respondent asked for more time but Ah Seng offered instead to give him a way out if he would keep certain `things` for him. When the respondent asked what the things were, Ah Seng replied that it would not be convenient to discuss this over the phone and that he would go over to the respondent`s house to do so. The respondent asked Ah Seng to come between 6pm and 7pm as his wife would not be in the flat at that time.

Shortly after 6pm, Ah Seng came to the respondent`s flat. He brought with him a Tiptoe bag and told the respondent that he wanted the respondent to keep some `peh hoon` for him. The respondent became frightened when he heard this and pleaded with Ah Seng that he had a wife and children and could not keep the drugs. Instead, he asked Ah Seng for more time to repay the money and kept resisting Ah Seng`s suggestion that he keep the drugs. Suddenly, Ah Seng`s expression changed. He took out a gun from his left pocket and pointed it at the respondent`s right temple. The respondent was terrified and asked Ah Seng to calm down and talk things over. He asked Ah Seng how long he had to keep the drugs and Ah Seng replied that he would collect the drugs on New Year`s Eve. The respondent said that he had no choice but to agree to Ah Seng`s demands. Ah Seng then showed him the contents of the bag and asked him to repack the two packets of `peh hoon` into the plastic sachets, demonstrating to him how to do so. Ah Seng warned the respondent not to reveal this to the police or he and his family would die. Ah Seng then brought up from his car to the flat a larger packet containing 11 packets of drugs and instructed the respondent not to repack these 11 packets but to keep them properly. He further told the respondent that he would collect all the packets on New Year`s Eve and that he would page the respondent before he came to collect them. The respondent kept the Tiptoe bag and its contents in the cupboard behind the bed while the 11 packets were kept in a drawer of a wardrobe in the master bedroom. Later that night, the respondent was arrested.

When the respondent was asked why he had failed to mention the incident of the gun threat in his s 122(6) statement, he said that he had been afraid to do so. He claimed that his main worry, at that time, was that his wife had been charged, even though she was innocent. When it was pointed out to him that he had already revealed that he was holding the drugs for Ah Seng, the respondent merely replied that `Ah Seng` was actually a nickname which was used by many people. He said that later that night, while he was in the CID lock-up, he decided to tell the CNB about the gun incident. However, this changed when he met Ah Seng in the CID lock-up early the next morning. Both of them were surprised to see each other. On discovering the details of the respondent`s arrest, Ah Seng told him to admit to the offence and threatened the respondent that...