District Judge Soh Tze Bian:
Charge
The accused person (AP), female/32 years old, a national of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), claimed trial to the charge in DAC 27718/2011 that she, on or about the 16th day of May 2011, in Singapore, did consume a Specified drug listed in the Fourth Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (‘MDA’), to wit, Methamphetamine, without any authorisation under the said Act or the Regulations made thereunder and has thereby committed an offence under Section 8(b)(ii), punishable under Section 33 read with the Second Schedule to the said Act.
Having considered the written submissions and replies of the parties (which they had been directed by the Court on 9 July 2012 to file by 31 August 2012 and 14 September 2012 respectively) together with the evidence that had been adduced during the trial, which was duly recorded by the digital audio recording and transcription (“DART”) system, I was satisfied that the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt against the AP at the close of the trial and I convicted the AP of the charge preferred against her on 2 November 2012.
The prosecution called 7 witnesses to the stand and they were as follows:
| |
|
|
|
| Name | Address | Role | Court Marking |
| W/SSgt Tan Lye Cheng, Michelle | c/o CNB | Officer who recorded long statement on 18/5/2011 @ 7:40 pm | PW1 |
| Leong Huey Sze | c/o HSA | HSA analyst | PW2 |
| SSgt Zaihazi Rapan | c/o CNB | IO and recorded cautioned statement on 21/7/2011 @1.15pm | PW3 |
| SSgt Johnson Leong | c/o CNB | Officer who interpreted cautioned statement to the AP in Mandarin | PW4 |
| S/Sgt Sarinah Bte Saneh | c/o SPF | IO in charge of Oi Bee Kee’s case | PW5 |
| SI Francis Low Chin Tian | c/o SPF | IO who lodged seizure report E/20101210/2135 | PW6 |
| DSP Tan Pit Seng | c/o SPF | Arresting officer | PW7 |
In the course of the trial, the defence had challenged the admissibility of 2 statements made by the AP and two trials within a trial were conducted to determine their respective admissibility as follows.
1st Trial within a trial (1st voir dire)--statement in exhibit ‘P4’
PW1’s evidence
When the prosecution tendered the AP’s statement recorded by PW1 on 18/5/2011 @7.40 pm in exhibit ‘P4’, the defence counsel challenged the admissibility of exhibit ‘P4’ on the ground that the statement was not taken voluntarily. A trial within a trial was held to determine whether the statement in exhibit’ P4’ was given by the AP voluntarily.
During her examination in chief (EIC), PW1 told the Court that the AP was forthcoming with the information she had asked from her. PW1 did not threaten her, or made any inducement or promise to her if she admitted to the drug consumption. The recording of the statement started at 7.40 pm and ended at 11 pm- a period of 3 hours and 20 minutes. During the interview, the AP did tell PW1 that she missed her son and had asked PW1 questions such as whether she can engage a lawyer; whether she can call someone; what would happen to her next after her statement was recorded. PW1 told the AP that she was not in a position to advise her whether she can engage a lawyer and she should ask her main police investigation officer (IO) whether she can make a call as PW1 had no say. The police IO would brief the AP on what would happened after her statement in exhibit ‘P4’ was recorded and after her rest in the lock-up. When the AP told PW1 that she missed her son, PW1 told her to focus on the statement taking.
When cross-examined (XE) by the defence counsel: PW1 stated that she took 3.5 hours to record the AP’s statement in exhibit ‘P4’. It took this long because the AP had asked irrelevant questions during the interview and PW1 also took sometime to read and explain it to her. PW1 said her estimation was that she would take about 2 hours to record the statement of 3 pages in exhibit ‘P4’ if there were no questions from the AP. PW1 took about 15 to 20 minutes to read the statement in exhibit ‘P4’, sentence by sentence, to the AP before she agreed and signed it and this was included in the estimated 2 hours she would take to record the statement. Although CNB has certified Mandarin interpreters, PW1 did not ask for one. PW1 did not agree with the defence counsel that the AP spoke China Mandarin and not Singapore Mandarin. While PW1 had difficulty at times in understanding the AP in Mandarin, this was because the AP was speaking too fast and her words were all munched together, and PW1 would then ask the AP to speak slowly and a bit louder which she did. PW1 was able to understand all that the AP told her in Mandarin during the interview. During the interview, PW1 did not record some information given by the AP as it was irrelevant to why her urine was tested positive. When referred to para 7 in exhibit ‘P4’, PW1 said she cannot confirm whether the AP’s husband was arrested at the scene. PW1 did not put up the Urine Test Result Slip dated 16 May 2011 at 11.35 pm in exhibit ‘P3’. While she did not know the time when the AP was arrested, PW1 knew that the AP was escorted from Central Police Station to the Tanglin Police Station. PW1 knew that in addition to the statement in exhibit ‘P4’ which PW1 took at 7.40 pm at the Tanglin Police Station lock-up, a statement was taken from the AP at Central Police Station but PW1 did not who took the statement from the AP. PW1 was not specially assigned to take the AP’s statement in exhibit ‘P4’, but had done so as she was the duty IO on that day. PW1 could not give a definite answer on how long it would take to record the 10 paragraphs in exhibit ‘P4’ as while recording the statement , she did not keep track of the time taken to record each statement. PW1 disagreed with the defence counsel that she had taken a long time to question the AP and record her statement so that she would admit to the charge. She also disagreed with the defence counsel that as the AP did not admit to the charge until after 3.5 hours of questioning, the admission was not voluntary. The AP made her admission of drug consumption when the AP started her recording of para 7 in exhibit ‘P4’. After recording para 7 in exhibit ‘P4’, PW1 continued to record para 8 to 10 in exhibit ‘P4’ as this was her way of taking a statement from an accused starting from the last time when she abused a controlled drug; the first time followed by how many times; whether she consumed any other controlled drug; and whether she is on medication. PW1 just needed to establish from the AP that she did abuse a controlled drug. PW1 disagreed with the defence counsel that one of the ways to extract a confession from the AP was to ask irrelevant questions and para 8 and 9 in exhibit ‘P4’ were, in PW1’s view not irrelevant questions. As her job was to record a statement from the AP and not to prefer or read any charge to her, PW1 did not explain to the AP the charge she was facing. As the AP’s urine test was positive, PW1 as the duty IO had to take over the investigations from the police IO and take a statement from the AP in accordance with the usual procedure and normal practIce. The AP could not be charged straight away based on her urine test result without her statement been recorded. Even if her urine test was positive, CNB would still have to wait for the HSA results before charging the AP.PW disagreed with the defence counsel that the AP’s statement in exhibit ‘P4’ was not voluntarily made.
During her re-examination (RE) by the prosecution, PW1 told the court that she took 20 minutes to go through each sentence in the AP’s statement in exhibit ‘P4’; interpret to the AP in Mandarin; asked her whether it was correct till the end of the statement. Some information given by the AP (such as whether to engage a lawyer like Mr Subhas; or to engage 2 lawyers instead; and asking for permission to make a phone call) was irrelevant to the issue of why her urine was tested positive. On making a phone call, PW1 told the AP that she had no say as her police IO is the main person. The AP told PW1 that she was escorted from Central Police Station to the Tanglin Police Station and a statement was recorded at the Central Police Station and all these were recorded in para 4 of the statement in exhibit P4’. PW1 could not recall at which point during the 3.5 hour interview the AP had made the admission in para 7 in the statement in exhibit ‘P4’. By 11 pm, the whole statement in exhibit ‘P4’ was read to and signed by the AP. The AP’s admission in para 7 in the statement in exhibit ‘P4’ was not made at 11 pm but much earlier, but PW1 could not estimate the time. PW1 had asked the AP questions which gave rise to the answers in para 8 to 10 of the statement in exhibit ‘P4’ after the AP had made the admission in para 7 in the statement in exhibit ‘P4’. As a standard procedure, PW1 needed to establish from the AP that she did abuse controlled drugs by asking questions to ascertain whether the AP is a hard core addict; a first timer or new addict; methods of drug abuse; from whom the AP obtained the drugs; These are the basis ingredients CNB offIcers must have in a statement.
On application by the defence counsel with no objection by the prosecution, I allowed PW1 to be recalled to allow the defence counsel to question her on whether the AP understood what was said by PW1 to her. On her recall and during questioning by the defence counsel, PW1 stated that the AP had no difficulties in understanding her Mandarin when she interpreted the AP’s statement in exhibit ‘P4 ‘ to her in Mandarin on the day when the statement was recorded.
AP’s evidence
In her EIC, the AP confirmed that she gave a statement to PW1 in exhibit ‘P4’. When asked by her defence counsel whether the statement in exhibit ‘P4’ was given to PW1 by her voluntarily without any threat, inducement promise or oppression by anybody, the AP stated...
