Public Prosecutor v Lim Boon Keong

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeJeffrey Sim Mong Heng
Judgment Date30 December 2009
Neutral Citation[2009] SGDC 511
CourtDistrict Court (Singapore)
Published date13 January 2010
Citation[2009] SGDC 511
Plaintiff CounselNatalie Morris (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
Defendant CounselS K Kumar (S K Kumar & Associates)
Year2009

30 December 2009

Judgment reserved.

District Judge Jeffrey Sim:

1 This case brings into scrutiny the practice and procedure adopted by the Health Sciences Authority of Singapore (“HSA”) in relation to the testing of urine specimens for the presence of controlled drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) (“MDA”).

2 The accused, Lim Boon Keong, claimed trial to the following charge:

DAC 13706/2008

You, …

are charged that you, on or about the 4th day of February 2008, in Singapore, did consume a Specified Drug listed in the Fourth Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185, to wit, norketamine, without authorization under the said Act or the Regulations made thereunder and you have thereby committed an offence under Section 8(b)(ii) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185.

And further,

That you, before the commission of the said offence, had been convicted on 27 May 2004 in Subordinate Court 7, Singapore, vide DAC 13924/2004, and were sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment, for an offence of consumption of a controlled drug, ketamine, under Section 8(b)(i) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185, which conviction has not been set aside, and you are therefore now liable for enhanced punishment under Section 33(4) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185.

3 At the end of the trial, I convicted the accused of the charge and sentenced him to the mandatory minimum of three years’ imprisonment. The accused has appealed against the conviction and is on bail pending appeal.

Agreed facts

4 The Amended Statement of Agreed Facts (PS1A) tendered by the parties stated as follows:

STATEMENT OF AGREED FACTS (AMENDED)

The Prosecution and the Defence hereby agree that:

1. The Accused is one Lim Boon Keong, a 25-year-old male Singapore citizen (NRIC No. S8330833H).

2. The complainant is one Senior Staff Sergeant Leong Shee Chun, currently attached to the Gambling Suppression Branch (“GSB”), Criminal Investigations Department (“CID”), Singapore Police Force.

3. On 4 February 2008, at about 11.50 a.m., the accused was arrested at No. 4 Lorong 22 Geylang pursuant to a raid by the complainant and a group of GSB, CID officers.

4. The accused was brought to the Police Cantonment Complex for further investigations.

5. At about 5.30 p.m., Staff Sergeant Mohammad Abdillah escorted the accused to procure a specimen of the accused’s urine.

6. The accused was then escorted to the Instant Urine Test machine operator, Corporal Hoe Yee Seng.

7. Corporal Hoe instructed the accused to open one of the three urine bottles, and the accused did as he was instructed.

8. Corporal Hoe siphoned some of the urine from the opened bottle and put it into a test tube. The remainder of the opened bottle of urine was discarded. Later, Corporal Hoe placed the said test tube into the Instant Urine Test machine.

9. In the presence of the accused, the remaining two bottles were sealed “CENTRAL NARCOTICS BUREAU” and marked “C-SA-08-00199-1 LIM BOON KEONG S8330833H” and “C-SA-08-00199-2 LIM BOON KEONG S8330833H”. The bottles had not less than 15 ml of urine in each of them.

10. On 5 February 2008, at about 8.30 a.m., Mohammad Ismail bin Hameed sent the remaining two bottles to the Health Sciences Authority for analysis.

11. After delivery to the Health Sciences Authority, Thilaga d/o Krishnan, who had custody of the key to the security boxes, unlocked the boxes and emptied their contents in the presence of Mohammad Ismail bin Hameed who delivered them.

12. The empty security boxes were re-locked and handed back to Mohammad Ismail bin Hameed.

The prosecution’s evidence

Procurement of urine specimen

5 The prosecution called the following witnesses to establish what it called the “unbroken chain of evidence” with regard to the procurement of the accused’s urine specimen on 4 February 2008, which was to be in compliance with the procedure prescribed in the First Schedule of the Misuse of Drugs (Urine Specimens and Urine Tests) Regulations.

PW2

6 Staff Sergeant Mohammad Abdillah bin Rahman (PW2) was the officer who escorted the accused at the Police Cantonment Complex to procure a specimen of the accused’s urine. It is not in dispute that, including the accused, there were about 20 suspects there at that time who were each asked to provide their urine specimen.

7 PW2 testified that he instructed the accused to collect three empty urine bottles from a container containing not less than 20 new urine bottles. After the accused had collected the three urine bottles, PW2 escorted the accused to the toilet, where he invited the accused to wash the three urine bottles. PW2 could not remember if the accused did or did not wash the bottles. PW2 witnessed the accused provide his urine by urinating into the three urine bottles. PW2 instructed the accused to cap all the three bottles and then escorted him to Corporal Hoe Yee Seng (PW4) who was about 10 metres away from the toilet.

8 PW2 testified that from the time the accused collected the three urine bottles to the time the accused was escorted to PW4, the urine bottles were with the accused all the time, and there was no one else with them.

PW4

9 PW4 testified that when the accused was escorted to him, he checked that his name and identity card number were the same as the ones he had printed out earlier on urine bar code labels. Once this was confirmed, PW4 stuck one of the labels onto a test tube, and instructed the accused to open one of his three urine bottles. PW4 then siphoned some of the urine from the opened bottle into the test tube. This test tube was to be placed into the Instant Urine Test (“IUT”) machine later.

10 PW4 testified that after the remainder of the opened bottle of urine was discarded, in front of the accused, he sealed the remaining two bottles of the accused’s urine specimen with masking tape and put them inside a small plastic bag. He then showed the accused again the urine bar code label with his name and identity card number on it to “double confirm” that they were correct. Once this was confirmed, he put the bar code label into the plastic bag together with the two urine bottles, sealed the plastic bag with a “heat-sealer”, then passed it back to the accused and instructed him to carry it with him all the way.

11 Later, PW4 printed out a pair of HSA urine labels for each suspect. Each HSA label stated the suspect’s name, identity card number, the date the urine specimen was taken and the drugs to be tested for. PW4 then brought from the Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) ‘A’ Division office which was within the Police Cantonment Complex, all the suspects’ IUT result slips, a metal box and the HSA urine labels to the GSB office which was also within the Police Cantonment Complex. The metal box was for the CNB officer who was in charge of sealing the bottles of urine specimens. After all the bottles of urine specimens were deposited into the metal box, PW4 brought it back to the CNB ‘A’ Division office.

PW5

12 Staff Sergeant Syed Mohd Fadzlin bin Abdul Rafah (PW5) testified that he assisted with the sealing of the accused’s bottles of urine specimen. The accused was referred to him with two bottles of his urine specimen inside a sealed plastic bag with a bar code label containing his name and identity card number. PW5 testified that he tore the sealed plastic bag open and took the two bottles out of the plastic bag. After checking that there was no leakage in the two bottles, he asked the accused to tell him the accused’s name and identity card number. PW5 then gave the accused his two HSA urine labels bearing his name and identity card number, which particulars corresponded with those on the bar code label that was in the sealed plastic bag.

13 After confirming the particulars, PW5 asked the accused to sign on both HSA labels. Thereafter, PW5 used the same HSA labels to seal the accused’s two bottles containing his urine specimen, in the presence of the accused who was standing in front of him. PW5 then asked the accused to put the two bottles inside the metal box. PW5 testified that the metal box was secured by a padlock which could only be opened by the HSA with a key.

The subsequent chain of evidence

14 As set out in PS1A at paragraphs 10 to 12, it is not in dispute that the next day on 5 February 2008, at about 8.30am, Mohammad Ismail bin Hameed sent the accused’s two bottles to the HSA for analysis. After delivery to the HSA, Thilaga d/o Krishnan, who had custody of the key to the security boxes, unlocked the boxes and emptied their contents in the presence of Mohammad Ismail bin Hameed who delivered them. The empty security boxes were re-locked and handed back to Mohammad Ismail bin Hameed.

PW6

15 Kamisah binte Amat (PW6), a clerical support officer with the HSA whose duties included receiving the urine specimens sent to the HSA by the CNB officers, testified that the urine bottles received on 5 February 2008 were in locked containers. She checked the samples submitted against the particulars on record, and put identification numbers on the bottles and a form. The samples were then passed to the duty officer. At no time were the seals and labels on the bottles tampered with.

PW1

16 Tan Joo Chin (PW1), an HSA analyst, testified that she was the duty officer at the HSA on 5 February 2008. She checked the urine bottles received from the CNB officer and verified every detail on the urine bottles and the submission forms that came with the bottles. She checked that the seals on the bottles were intact, and that whatever particulars that were written on the labels on the bottles matched those in the submission forms. This checking and verification did not reveal any inaccuracies. PW1 testified that thereafter, she handed the urine specimens to the laboratory officers at the HSA to carry out tests on the specimens.

17 PW1 testified that the testing of urine specimens was carried out by a group of laboratory officers pre-assigned according to a duty roster, and following...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT