Public Prosecutor v Low Lin Lin

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Mavis Chionh Sze Chyi
• Judgment Date: 10 June 2002
• Neutral Citation: [2002] SGDC 142
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Court: District Court (Singapore)

Judgment

GROUNDS OF DECISION

1. The accused, a 27 year-old female, was tried before me on the following charge:

You, LOW LIN LIN, are charged that you, on or about the 30^th day of September 2000, at about 2.10 am, at the Velvet Underground Jiak Kim Street, Singapore, did have in your possession a Class A Controlled Drug as listed in the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185, to wit, one packet containing 0.27 grams of Cocaine, without any authorisation under the said Act or the regulations made thereunder and thereby committed an offence under section 8(a) and punishable under s 33 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185.

2. I convicted the accused at the close of a 5-day trial and sentenced her to 18 months imprisonment. As the accused has filed a notice of appeal against her conviction, I am setting down the reasons for my decision.

Background

The undisputed facts

3. An agreed statement of facts (exhibit P2) was admitted at the start of the trial. The essential facts which emerged from P2 were as follows. On the night of 29 September 2000, the accused had gone to Double-O Pub at Mohamed Sultan Road, where she met up with one Sybil Foo Yen Pin (Sybil) and one Jerry Tan Chong Han (Jerry). Later that night, the accused went to another club, Velvet Underground, in Jiak Kim Street. Sybil and Jerry accompanied the accused there. At Velvet Underground, the accused met with another group of friends, including one Lee Soo Han (Soo Han). These friends were seated at Tables 6 and 7 in Velvet Underground, when the accused joined them. The accused left her handbag on the backrest of a sofa at these tables (paragraph 1, exhibit P2).

4. After spending sometime in Velvet Underground, the accused proceeded to the adjoining club, Zouk. This is another entertainment establishment located on the same premises as Velvet Underground. The conditions of entry to Velvet Underground permit its patrons to enter Zouk for free. The accused did not take her handbag along when she went to Zouk: it remained on the sofa backrest at her friends tables. She was with Jerry and Sybil in Zouk (although the defence later suggested that the accused might not have taken notice of whether Sybil remained at Zouk continuously).

5. At about 1.30 am on 30 September 2000, the accused returned to Velvet Underground. There, she met Soo Han and went with him to another table which was about 3 tables away from Tables 6 and 7. In the meantime, their friends who had been sitting at Tables 6 and 7 left Velvet Underground. At that point, the accused had not yet returned to Tables 6 and 7. Her handbag was thus left unattended on the sofa backrest where she had earlier placed it (paragraph 4, exhibit P2). It was spotted by a Velvet Underground staff, one Diana, who informed the floor manager. The floor manager retrieved the handbag and searched it in Dianas presence, for the purposes of itemising the contents. These included a wallet. Whilst checking the wallet for its owners identification, the floor manager noticed a plastic packet of whitish substance in the wallet.

6. Following the above discovery, the accuseds handbag was turned over to the security manager, one Simon. Simon handed it to one ASP Jason Tan of the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB), which was then coincidentally - conducting an operation at Velvet Underground.

7. At this juncture, the accused had already returned to Tables 6 and 7 with Soo Han. Whilst looking for her handbag, she was directed by Diana to the ticketing booth. The accused approached the booth with Soo Han.

8. ASP Tan, who was then at the booth, lifted the accuseds handbag and asked whose it was. He did not disclose his identity as a CNB officer at this point. The accused raised her hand to acknowledge ownership of the bag. ASP Tan then searched the bag in her presence. On seeing the plastic packet of whitish substance in the wallet, he asked the accused and Soo Han to accompany him out of Velvet Underground. He also closed the wallet and put it back in the handbag.

9. The accused was referred to other CNB officers. Another search of the handbag was conducted, again in her presence; and the plastic packet of whitish substance was recovered from the wallet in the handbag. When asked about this packet, the accused replied that she did not know what it was. She denied ownership of this packet. She was placed under arrest and brought to Jurong Police Station.

10. At the police station, the accuseds urine specimens were procured for tests to be done for the presence of opiates, cannabis, amphetamine and Ketamine. The results for these tests were negative. No tests were done for cocaine on that day. The accused was then released on bail.

11. The whitish substance recovered from the wallet was sent for analysis. It was found to contain 0.27 grams of cocaine, a Class A controlled drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act (paragraph 13, exhibit P2).

12. On 31 October 2000, about a month after her arrest, further urine specimens were procured from the accused and tested for cocaine. The test results were negative (paragraph 11, exhibit P2).

The prosecutions case & the defence: in a nutshell

13. At the trial, Sybil Foo was the key prosecution witness. Sybil gave evidence of having consumed cocaine together with the accused earlier on the night of 29 September 2000. Sybil also gave evidence of having seen the accused place the remainder of the cocaine which was in a plastic packet - inside her wallet. The accused conceded that the wallet in which the cocaine had been discovered belonged to her. She maintained, however, that the packet of cocaine was not hers and that she had not known it was there until the search conducted by the CNB. She suggested that Sybil herself could have secretly placed the cocaine in the wallet at some point when they were at Velvet Underground and Zouk.

14. Apart from Sybil Foo, the prosecution also called Jerry Tan and Dr Lui Chi Pang, the Deputy Director of the Narcotics Laboratory at the Health Sciences Authority.

Evidence from PW1 Dr Lui Chi Pang

15. Dr Lui gave evidence as to the specifics of the tests done on urine specimens. According to Dr Lui, these tests are "each designed to test for a specific drug of abuse". For example, the "ketamine analysis is designed and optimised for detection of ketamine only". In this case, the "GC/MS" (gas chromatography / mass spectrometry) method of analysis was used. The GC/MS method basically involves the urine extract being injected into the gas chromatography. This is a long column which can separate various components in the urine extract, depending on their chemical characteristics. The rate at which a component or compound dilutes out from the column is known as its "retention time". The retention time of a compound will depend on its molecular weight as well as its chemical nature. Different compounds therefore have different retention times. Under the GC/MS conditions designed for the detection of ketamine, the retention time for a cocaine metabolite known as "e-m-e" is about 3.1 minutes; the retention time for ketamine is about 5.6 minutes; and the retention time for cocaine is about 10.9 minutes.

16. In this case, in respect of the analysis done on the accuseds urine specimen upon her arrest in September 2001, the Narcotics Laboratory was responding at the time to a request for analysis of ketamine. The data capture time for the GC/MS analysis performed was thus set at between 4.6 minutes and 9 minutes. Based on this data capture time, neither cocaine nor its metabolite "e-m-e" would have been identified by the mass spectrometer even if it had passed through the gas chromatography in the course of the entire "run-time".

17. By way of contrast, the Narcotics Laboratory later carried out a test using "spiked" urine which contained cocaine and two of its metabolites (including "e-m-e"). This test was performed some weeks before the trial; in other words, much later after the September 2001 test, following a request by the defence for further information. The test was conducted using the GC/M method used for ketamine analysis, but on this occasion, the data capture time was extended to a range between 2 minutes and 12 minutes. Based on these extended data capture times, cocaine as well as "e-m-e" were detected.

18. Dr Lui also testified that even if the accused had consumed cocaine on 29 September 2000, it would have been impossible to detect either cocaine or its metabolites in her urine after one month. Even for "chronic" users of the drug, cocaine and its metabolites can be detected in their urine for up to only 5 days after consumption.

Evidence from PW2 Jerry Tan Chong Han

19. Jerry Tan, a hairstylist, testified that Sybil Foo worked with him at the same hair salon. He also knew the accused as one of the salons clients. He was with Sybil and the accused at Double-O and later, Zouk, on the night of 29 September 2000. His account of the events of that night was largely similar to that set out in the agreed statement of facts.

The events at Double-O

20. Insofar as the events at Double-O were concerned, Jerrys recollection was that shortly after the accuseds arrival at the club, both she and Sybil had excused themselves to go to the toilet. They were away for about 10 to 15 minutes. Jerry did not recall the accused leaving her handbag behind when she went to the toilet with Sybil. He did not notice any unusual behaviour on the part of the two women after their return from the toilet. He also could not recall any incident of the accused opening her handbag to let Sybil place her belongings in the bag as they were leaving Double-O.

The events at Zouk

21. As to the events at Zouk, Jerry confirmed that both women had joined him at the Zouk Members Bar shortly after their arrival. He did not notice when the accused left. He himself left together with Sybil, at about 2 am on 30 September 2000. On the way out, he saw the accused...