Lau Chi Sing v Public Prosecutor

• Judge: Chua F A J
• Judgment Date: 18 November 1988
• Neutral Citation: [1988] SGCA 13
• Citation: [1988] SGCA 13
• Defendant Counsel: Swaran Singh
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Joseph Gay (Leong & Gay)
• Date: 18 November 1988
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 20 of 1987
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: ss 2 & 5(a) Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185),Whether transporting drugs from hotel to airport constitutes offence of trafficking,Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185),Tafficking in controlled drugs,Whether intended recipient of drugs must be in Singapore for offence to be made out,Statutory offences,Criminal Law

This was an appeal by the appellant who was convicted by the High Court on 25 November 1987 on the following charge:

You, Lau Chi Sing, are charged that you, on or about 16 October 1984, at between 7.30pm and 7.55pm, in Singapore, did traffic in a controlled drug specified in Class A of the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) to wit, by transporting 242.85g 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 appellant, a Hong Kong national, had arrived in Singapore, from Kuala Lumpur, on 15 October 1984 and had checked into Ghim Peng Hotel at Geylang Road. At about 7.30pm on the same day, he checked out of the hotel and took a taxi to Changi Airport. There he checked in for his flight to Amsterdam after which he was arrested by a senior narcotics officer.

The appellant had with him a radio cassette player powered by ten batteries, eight bearing the brand `Hi-Watt` and two bearing the brand `National Hi-Top`. In addition, the appellant carried another three National Hi-Top and two Hi-Watt batteries in a bag. All 15 batteries were seized and sent to the Department of Scientific Services for examination. Eight Hi-Watt batteries were found to contain diamorphine totalling 242.85g, with a street value of about $290,000.

The above facts were not disputed. The appellant admitted having received the ten batteries found in the cassette player from a Thai male during his flight from Bangkok to Kuala Lumpur. It was also not disputed that the appellant had brought the batteries with him to Singapore and was going to bring them to Amsterdam to be delivered to some other person there, when he was arrested at Changi Airport. Neither was the fact that 242.85 gm of diamorphine were found in the eight Hi-Watt batteries ever challenged.

The appellant was charged and convicted of the offence of trafficking in a controlled drug under s 5(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) (the Act), in that he had transported the drugs from Ghim Peng Hotel to Changi Airport without authorization. Section 2 of the Act defines `traffic` as meaning:

(a) to sell, give, administer, transport, send, deliver or distribute; or

(b) to offer to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a),

otherwise than under the authority of this Act or the regulations made thereunder; and `trafficking` has a corresponding meaning.

Counsel for the appellant contended that under the Act, the offence of trafficking by transporting drugs was not made out unless the drugs were being transported with the intention or purpose of being delivered to some other person and such transfer of possession was intended to take place in Singapore. In other words, according to counsel for the appellant, the intended recipient of the drugs that were being transported must be in Singapore. In support of his contention, counsel referred us to the Privy Council decision in Ong Ah Chuan v PP [1981] 1 MLJ 64 .

In Ong Ah Chuan v PP [1981] 1 MLJ 64 , Lord Diplock who delivered the judgment of the Board, after a detailed analysis of the relevant provisions of the Act, summarized the position as follows:

(1) the mere act of moving (controlled drugs) does not of itself amount to trafficking within the meaning of the definition in s 2; but if the purpose for which they were being moved was to transfer possession from the mover to some other person at their intended destination the mover is guilty of the offence of trafficking under s 3 (now s 5), whether that purpose was...