Public Prosecutor v Lau Chi Sing

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lai Kew Chai J
• Judgment Date: 25 November 1987
• Neutral Citation: [1987] SGHC 44
• Date: 25 November 1987
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Words and Phrases,'Transport',Statutory offences,ss 2 Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185),ss 2, 5, 17 & 18 Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185),'Trafficking' in heroin,'Trafficking',Misuse of Drugs Act
• Docket Number: Criminal Case No 29 of 1985
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Defendant Counsel: Joseph Gay (Leong & Gay)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ismail Hamid (Deputy Public Prosecutor)

Cur Adv Vult

The accused, Lau Chi Sing, is charged with having trafficked in controlled drugs by transporting 242.85 gms of diamorphine from Ghim Peng Hotel, Geylang Road, to Singapore Changi Airport between 7.30 pm and 7.55 pm on 16 October 1984. The charge against him is as follows:

You, Lau Chi Sing, are charged that you, on or about the 16 October 1984, at between 7.30 pm and 7.55 pm, in Singapore, did traffic in a controlled drug specified in Class A of the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act, Cap. 185 (1985 Rev Ed) to wit, by transporting 242.85 gms of diamorphine from Ghim Peng Hotel, Geylang Road to Singapore Changi Airport in NTUC taxi no SH 8477M, without any authorization under the said Act or the regulations made thereunder, and you have thereby committed an offence under s 5(a) and punishable under s 33 of the Misuse of Drugs Act(Cap 185).

The accused is a Hong Kong national. He arrived in Singapore from Kuala Lumpur on the evening of 15 October 1984 and checked into Ghim Peng Hotel at Geylang Road at about 10.00 pm on the same evening. On the following day, at about 5.00 pm, a party of narcotics officers, led by Senior Narcotics Officer, Lim Chei Yoo, went to Ghim Peng Hotel and kept a surveillance on the accused. At about 6.15 pm, the accused left the hotel and went to Yokoso Shopping Centre to do some shopping; he was trailed by two narcotics officers. He returned to the hotel at about 7.20 pm.

At about 7.30 pm, the accused checked out of the hotel and took a taxi, SH 8477M, to Changi Airport. He was then carrying a soft bag, a radio cassette player and a camera, and had a pouch tied round his waist. On arrival at the airport he went to counter 112 in row 7 and checked in for the flight to Amsterdam. At the counter, he produced his passport, airline ticket and some cash; he did not check in any luggage. Shortly thereafter, he collected from the officer in attendance at the counter his passport and boarding pass which he placed in his pouch. As he was about to leave the counter, Senior Narcotics Officer, Lim Chei Yoo, approached him and arrested him.

The accused was brought to the office of the Central Narcotics Bureau where he was searched. No drug, however, was found on him. The soft bag was searched, and amongst other things found therein were three National dry cell batteries and two Hi-Watt dry cell batteries. While the officers were examining these batteries, the accused, for some strange reasons, but presumably to show to the officers that the radio cassette player was really in a working condition, switched it on by pressing the appropriate button . This action of the accused was unfortunate for him, because it alerted the officers and they thereupon examined that equipment. All the batteries were taken out from the battery compartment. There were ten of them: eight Hi-Watt batteries and two National Hi-Top batteries, and an of them were examined and broken up; the Hi-Watt batteries were found to contain some white powder but no white powder was found in the five National batteries. All the batteries and their contents were thereafter sent to the Department of Scientific Services for examination and it was found that the eight Hi-Watt batteries contained diamorphine and the other two Hi-Watt batteries contained strychnine. The National batteries were found to contain a black substance which was analysed for the presence of diamorphine and morphine; but no diamorphine or morphine was detected therein. The total quantity of diamorphine was 242.85 gms, having a street value of about $290,000.

At the office of the Central Narcotics Bureau, Senior Narcotics Officer, S Vijakumar, with the assistance of Wu Nam Yong, a certificated interpreter, recorded a statement from the accused under s 122(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68). That statement was not objected to by counsel for the accused and was admitted. It is as follows:

I came to know one Low Fu Chye in Hong Kong about six months back. He asked me whether I want to make any extra money. I agreed. He told me to smuggle things. I was under the impression that I was to smuggle jewelleries that were robbed in Hong Kong. He then gave me HK$3,500 and told me to fly to Bangkok and stay in a hotel, the name of which I forgot. I was to wait in the hotel for his phone call. About one week later he came to the hotel in Bangkok and gave me HK$10,000 as my reward for smuggling. I stayed in Thailand for 18 days and then took a plane to Kuala Lumpur. He told me a Thai male will hand me something on board the plane. While on board the plane a Thai male gave me ten dry cell batteries which I then placed into the cassette player I had with me which I had bought in Hong Kong on the instructions of Low Fu Chye. I thought the batteries contained stolen goods like diamond. Low Fu Chye then met me in Mandarin Hotel in Kuala Lumpur and he gave me US$700 for expenses. He told me to take a plane to Singapore and then from Singapore to board a plane to Amsterdam as soon as possible. When I checked in for my flight to Vienna on 16 October 1984, I was arrested. I am poor and out of greed I agreed to smuggle only stolen goods. I did not know that the batteries contained `Pak Fun` as they looked normal and when I used it in the cassette they worked properly. I have told all that I know.

There was really no dispute on the evidence adduced by the prosecution and at the close of the case for the prosecution, no submission was made by the counsel on behalf of the accused. Clearly, the prosecution had made out a case which, if unrebutted, would warrant a conviction of the offence charged. The accused therefore was called to enter upon his defence.

The accused elected to give evidence. He said that he did not know that the Hi-Watt batteries contained diamorphine. He had not seen diamorphine before, but he knew of the punishment for trafficking in drugs. As regards his association with Low Fu Chye (Low), he said that he met Low in Hong Kong. He wanted to seek employment in Europe and Low promised him employment there. Low asked him to bring diamonds to Europe and offered him a reward of HK$10,000. The reason for his seeking employment in Europe was that he gathered that Hong Kong would have a difficult time after 1997 and many residents intended to leave Hong Kong to take up employment abroad. He then gave evidence of the overseas trips he made. The first trip was one he made together with Low and they went to Thailand; that trip was purely for a holiday. The second trip was also to Thailand and on that trip he was shown diamonds and was asked to bring the diamonds to Europe. Low told him that those were diamonds taken in the course of robberies committed in Hong Kong. From Thailand, he went to Kuala Lumpur and then to Vienna, Amsterdam and elsewhere, and returned to Hong Kong. He confirmed that on that trip to Europe he carried diamonds in a radio cassette player, which was similar to the one seized by the narcotics officers. However, he did not know where and how the diamonds were packed and placed in the cassette player. Low never informed him.

Then came the third trip - the trip in which he was arrested. He said Low had secured employment for...