Public Prosecutor v Lim Chee Huat

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Mathew Joseph
• Judgment Date: 18 October 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] SGDC 272
• Docket Number: DAC-946856-2016
• Published date: 12 July 2019
• Year: 2018
• Citation: [2018] SGDC 272
• Plaintiff Counsel: DPP Chin Jincheng
• Defendant Counsel: Defence Counsel Zero Geraldo Mario Nalpon
• Court: District Court (Singapore)

District Judge Mathew Joseph:

The accused, Lim Chee Huat, claimed trial to a single charge under section 8(b)(ii) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”) punishable under section 33(1) of the MDA, for consuming a specified drug Methamphetamine on or before 15 November 2016.

At the conclusion of the trial, he was found guilty and convicted on the charge. He was sentenced to 11 months’ imprisonment. On 12 September 2018, the accused filed a notice of appeal against conviction and sentence.

The Prosecution and Defence had come up with a statement of agreed facts as set out below:

“STATEMENT OF AGREED FACTS (“ASOF”)

Introduction

1. The accused is Lim Chee Huat ("Lim"), a 56-year-old male Singaporean (Date of Birth: 7 January 1961), holder of NRIC No.: Sxxx. At the material time, Lim was residing at Blk 443, Hougang Avenue 8, unit #03-1583 ("the Unit") 2. On 14 November 20 J 6, a team of officers from the Central Narcotics Bureau (''CNB") conducted a house visit at the Unit. Lim was present at the Unit during the house visit, and the CNB officers instructed him to report to the Ang Mo Kio Police Division Headquarters on 15 November 2016. 3. On 15 November 2016, at about 11.00 a.m., Lim reported to the Ang Mo Kio Police Division Headquarters. CNB officer Senior Staff Sergeant Andrew John Joachim ("SSSGT Andrew") escorted Lim for urine procurement. Lim's urine sample was procured in accordance with the procedures set out in the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs (Urine Specimens and Urine Tests) Regulations (Rg 6, 1999 Rev Ed). Lim initially provided less than 80ml of urine. CNB officer Woman Staff Sergeant Siti Khalijah Binte Roslan siphoned a portion of Lim's urine sample and conducted a screening test using the Instant Urine Test machine. Lim's urine was found to be positive for methamphetamines. SSSGT Andrew proceeded to place Lim under arrest. 4. Lim subsequently provided more urine under the escort of SSSGT Andrew. The additional urine was procured in accordance with the procedures set out in the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs (Urine Specimens and Urine Tests) Regulations (Reg 6, 1999 Rev Ed). Thereafter, SSSGT Andrew sealed two containers containing Lim's urine samples in accordance with the procedures set out in the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs (Urine Specimens and Urine Tests) Regulations (Rg 6, 1999 Rev Ed). The two containers were sealed "CENTRAL NARCOTICS BUREAU" and marked "C-SF-16-00933-1 LIM CHEE HUAT Sxxx" and "C-SF-16-00933-2 LIM CHEE HUAT Sxxx" respectively in Lim's presence. Lim deposited the two containers containing his urine samples into two security boxes. 5. On 15 November 2016 at about 11.21 a.m., CNB officer Staff Sergeant Ramadhan Bin Salim lodged an arrest report bearing Report No. F/2016/111/2052, pertaining to Lim's arrest. 6. On 16 November 2016, at about 11.18 a.m., CNB officer Sergeant Adrian Seet Zu Ming submitted the two containers containing Lim's urine samples to the Analytical Toxicology Laboratory ("ATL'') of the Health Sciences Authority ("HSA"), Singapore. 7. The urine sample marked "C-SF-16-00933-1 LIM CHEE HUAT Sxxx" was analysed by HSA analyst Bellene Chung. On 17 November 2016, HSA analyst Bellene Chung issued the HSA certificate under Section 16 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) ("MDA") bearing Lab. No. AT-1633-10405-001-03, stating that upon analysis, the urine sample marked "C-SF-16-00933-1 LIM CHEE HUAT Sxxx" was found to contain methamphetamine. 8. The urine sample marked "C-SF-16-00933-2 LIM CHEE HUAT Sxxx" was analysed by HSA analyst Kwok Yi Ling Miiko. On 17 November 2016, HSA analyst Kwok Yi Ling Miiko issued the HSA certificate under Section 16 of the MDA bearing Lab. No. AT-1633-10405-002-03, stating that upon analysis, the urine sample marked 'C-SF-16-00933-2 LIM CHEE HUAT Sxxx" was found to contain methamphetamine. 9. Methamphetamine is a specified drug listed in the Fourth Schedule to the MDA. Lim is not authorised under the MDA or the regulations made thereunder to consume methamphetamine.

Admission of Exhibits

10. The Prosecution and the Defence agree for the following exhibits to be marked and admitted into evidence without the need to call any witnesses to the stand to testify as to the same: a. Arrest Report bearing Report No. F/20161l15/2052 lodged on 15 November 2016 at 11.21 a.m. b. HSA Certificate dated 17 November 2017 bearing Lab. No. AT-1633-10405-001-03; and c. HSA Certificate dated 17 November 2017 bearing Lab. No. AT-1633-10405-002-03.

The above facts are not disputed and are agreed upon between the Prosecution and Defence pursuant to Section 267(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap. 68, 2012 Rev. Ed.).”

Sgd	Sgd
CHIN JINCHENG DEPUTY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SINGAPORE	ZERO GERALDO MARIO NALPON COUNSEL FOR LIM CHEE HUAT
Dated this 7th Day of March 2018

Case for the Prosecution

As stated in the Agreed Statement of Facts, on 15 November 2016, the accused’s urine was procured in accordance with the procedures set out in the Misuse of Drugs (Urine Specimens and Urine Tests) Regulations (Rg 6, 1999 Rev Ed).¹ A screening test conducted using the Instant Urine Test machine found the accused’s urine sample to be positive for amphetamines.

The accused’s urine samples were submitted to the HSA for analysis, where they were found to contain methamphetamine.² As such, the accused was presumed to have consumed methamphetamine in contravention of section 8(b) of the MDA. At the material time, the accused was not authorised to consume methamphetamine.³

Case for the Defence

What was the accused’s defence to the charge? To be clear, the accused did not deny the actus reus of consuming methamphetamine. But his key claim is that he did not possess the necessary mens rea or knowledge. As such, the accused had made the following allegations: On either the 25th day of the 7th lunar month in 2016 or on a Saturday in September 2016, the accused purchased some medication from an unknown sinseh located at the wet market located at Block 322, Hougang Avenue 5. The sinseh did not have a stall, and sold the medicines at an open area behind the lift, from his brief case. The accused purchased 100 pills and 24 capsules from the sinseh, without knowing that the capsules contained methamphetamine. The accused had consumed one of the capsules 2 days before his arrest.

Prosecution witnesses

PW 1 Ramadhan bin Salim testified that he had arrested the accused at Ang Mo Kio Police Dvision HQ and he had lodged an arrest report on 15 November 2016. He affirmed that the accused had been asked to come down to the station on 15 November 2016 to assist in investigations. He also confirmed that before the accused came down, he was not told that he would be subjected to a urine test.

PW2 SSSGT Andrew John Joachim of CNB, recorded two statements from the accused.⁴ SSSGT Joachim confirmed that the accused had brought up the issue of medication by informing him that he had consumed medication from the Hougang and Punggol clinics.⁵ When queried by SSSGT Joachim about whether he had taken any other sources of medication, the accused replied in the negative.⁶ SSSGT Joachim confirmed that the accused did not inform him about any unlicensed medication purchased from a sinseh.⁷

In the course of cross-examination, the Defence alleged that SSSGT Joachim could not have remembered what happened during the statement recording process.⁸ In response, SSSGT Joachim explained that he was able to remember this case because the accused was a medium who had a makeshift temple in his home.⁹ SSSGT Joachim further explained that the CNB would be interested in identifying unlicensed sellers of medication, and would conduct further operations to identify the seller.¹⁰

HSA Analyst PW3 Lim Kheng Aik testified that he had examined the drug exhibits in P5 and P6 taken from the accused and had found them to contain methamphetamine, ketamine and cocaine. ¹¹ As for the 7 pills tested in P6, no controlled drug was found in them. He also testified that the exhibits did not contain any form of medication.¹²

HSA Analyst PW4 Dr Alaric Koh testified that he had prepared a Report¹³ in relation to the exhibits that he had examined. He had prepared a Report marked as exhibit P7for the purpose of determining if the exhibits had been tampered with.¹⁴ It should be noted that before the trial commenced, Counsel had informed the Court that 8 capsules had been submitted by the accused for HSA analysis. The capsules were later tested and found to contain methamphetamine, ketamine and cocaine. Dr Alaric Koh had stated in his Report tendered under s. 263 of the CPC that it cannot be ruled out that these capsules had been tampered with, namely by uncapping and recapping the capsules – see para 13 and 14 of Exhibit P7.

HSA Analyst PW5 Bellene Chung had analysed the urine sample of the accused and found it to contain methamphetamine. Her HSA certificate was marked as Exhibit P2. Her testing did not disclose the presence of ketamine in the urine sample of the accused. She testified that ketamine can stay in a person’s urine for up to 3 days after the last consumption. No cocaine test was performed as this was not requested.¹⁵

HSA Analyst PW6 Miiko Kwok had analysed the urine sample of the accused and found it to contain methamphetamine. Her HSA certificate was marked as Exhibit P3. She too testified that ketamine can stay in a person’s urine for up to 3 days after the last consumption.¹⁶ Her testing did not disclose the presence of ketamine in the urine sample of the accused.¹⁷

Close of Prosecution’s Case

At the close of the Prosecution’s case, I was satisfied that the Prosecution had proven that there was some evidence that was not...