Public Prosecutor v Ng Beng Siang and Others

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Kan Ting Chiu J
• Judgment Date: 24 January 2003
• Neutral Citation: [2003] SGHC 10
• Date: 18 November 2002
• Docket Number: Criminal Case No 47 of 2002
• Year: 2003
• Published date: 07 October 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ng Cheng Thiam, Jared Pereira and Laura Liu (Deputy Public Prosecutors)
• Citation: [2003] SGHC 10
• Defendant Counsel: Lawrence Wong (Lawrence Wong & Partners) and Chia Jin Chong Daniel (W P Da Silva & Company),Syed Ahmad Alsree (Billy & Alsree) and Boon Khoon Lim (Dora Boon & Co),S S Dhillon (Dhillon Dendroff & Partners) and Ramli Salehkon (Ramli & Co)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Whether should be admitted in evidence when supplied,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Accused's own statements made under s 121 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) and s 32 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2001 Rev Ed,Whether accused should be supplied with such statements,Statements

1 The three accused persons faced two charges. Ng Beng Siang was charged that he

on or about the 27^th day of March 2002, at Sembawang, Singapore, did engage with one Rosdi Bin Pungot (NRIC No.: S1675308D) and one Roseley Bin Sidin (NRIC No.: S1360725G) in a conspiracy to do a certain thing, to wit, to traffic in a controlled drug specified in Class ‘A’ of the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185, namely, 20 bundles of substance containing not less than 48.21 grams of diamorphine, and in pursuance of the said conspiracy and in order to the doing of that thing, an act took place on the 27^th day of March 2002, to wit, (he) drove (his) motor car JFY 5311 from Malaysia into Singapore for the purpose of transporting and delivering the said controlled drugs to the said Rosdi Bin Pungot and the said Roseley Bin Sidin, and on the same day, between 1.00 pm and 1.25 pm, at Blk 406A, Sembawang Drive, Singapore, the said Rosdi Bin Pungot, on behalf of himself and the said Roseley Bin Sidin, took possession of the said controlled drugs for the purpose of trafficking from (his) motor car JFY 5311, and (he) has thereby abetted the commission of the offence of trafficking in the said controlled drugs by the said Rosdi Bin Pungot and the said Roseley Bin Sidin, and (he) has thereby committed an offence under section 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185, read with section 12 of the said Act, and punishable under section 33 of the said Act.

and Rosdi Bin Pungot and Roseley Bin Sidin were charged that they

on the 27^th day of March 2002, between 1.00 pm and 1.25 pm, in the vicinity of Blocks 406A, 410 and 417, Sembawang Drive, Singapore, and in furtherance of the common intention of (them) both, did traffic in a controlled drug specified in Class ‘A’ to the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185, to wit, by having in (their) possession for the purpose of trafficking 20 bundles of substances containing not less than 48.21 grams of diamorphine, without any authorisation under the said Act or the Regulations made thereunder, and (they) have thereby committed an offence under section 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185, read with section 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185, and section 34 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224, and punishable under section 33 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185.

The three of them are referred to as the first, second and third accused respectively.

The arrests

2 All of them were arrested on 27 March 2002 by officers of the Central Narcotics Bureau ("CNB"). CNB officers were first deployed by ASP Ang Choe Seng to search for the second accused in the car parks around Block 313 Sembawang Drive, who was believed to be driving a motor car SCG 5421M. Subsequently ASP Ang also instructed the officers to search for another car SBP 6331Y. ASP Ang believed that the third accused was driving this car, although he did not disclose this in his instructions.

3 The officers eventually spotted SBP 6331Y at about 12.55 pm as it went along Sembawang Drive from the direction of Admiralty Drive, in the direction of Admiralty Link. It turned right from Sembawang Drive into the driveway in front of the multi-storey car park at Block 406A, then made its way to the side road between Blocks 412 and 415 where it came to a loading bay. The third accused parked the car there, and walked to the void deck of Block 411. He was joined by the second accused, and they went on to the void deck of Block 410 where they sat on a bench at about 1.05 pm.

4 At about 1.15 pm another car JFY 5311 driven by the first accused entered the multi-storey car park at Block 406A and parked at one of the parking lots. The first accused came out of the car and walked away from the car park.

5 Soon after he left, the second accused entered the car park. He went to the car and took a haversack from the front passenger seat. He then left the car park and walked towards the direction of Block 410.

6 The second and third accused were seen leaving the void deck of Block 410 together and were walking towards Block 418 Canberra Road when instructions were given to arrest them. As the officers approached them, they ran, and the second accused dropped or threw the haversack in the process. The officers caught up with them and placed them under arrest. The haversack was recovered and was found to contain 20 wrapped bundles. The contents of these bundles form the subject matter of the two charges.

7 At about the same time the first accused returned to the car park to his car JFY 5311. He entered the car, drove out of the car park. He was trailed by other CNB officers. When he came to the junction of Sembawang Drive and Sembawang Crescent, he stopped at the traffic lights, and he was arrested.

8 After that the car was searched, and a plastic bag was found in the boot. Inside the plastic bag were five bundles of similar appearance to the 20 bundles in the haversack.

9 In the course of investigations, statements were recorded from the three accused persons. There was no challenge over the admissibility of the statements made by the second accused and the third accused. When the prosecution sought to admit in evidence the statements of the first accused, this was resisted (except for his cautioned statement), on the ground that the statements were not voluntary statements. Consequently a voir dire was conducted in respect of the disputed statements, the first recorded by Station Inspector Ronnie See Su Khoon on the day of arrest, and three statements recorded by the investigation officer Inspector Abdul Halim bin Abdul Rahim on 1 and 5 April.

The voir dire

10 The first accused claimed that he did not make the statements voluntarily. His complaints start from the moment of his arrest. When his car stopped behind another vehicle at the junction of Sembawang Drive and Sembawang Crescent Staff Sergeant M Subramaniam came to the car. SSgt Subramaniam was unable to open the car door. When he saw the first accused reaching for the gear shift, SSgt Subramaniam drew his revolver and pointed it at the first accused’s head. The first accused then unlocked the door. He was taken out of the car, handcuffed, and was taken to the back seat of the car. No statements were taken from him throughout this time.

11 Subsequently, when Station Inspector See Su Khoon arrived at the scene, the first accused was taken from the back seat and brought to the boot of the car. The boot was opened and a plastic bag was discovered and was opened. According to the first accused, SI See asked him twice what the bag contained, and he said he did not know on each occasion. Then SSgt Subramaniam intervened. He took out his revolver again, pointed it at the back of his head, told him not to feign ignorance and asked him whether it was heroin. He was frightened and said "If you say it is heroin, then it is heroin". After that, he was brought back to the back seat of the car. No statement was recorded from him on this exchange.

12 SI See started to question him after he was brought back into the car. At that stage he did not admit that the bag contained heroin although he was still frightened by SSgt Subramaniam’s actions.

13 SSgt Subramaniam admitted that he had drawn his revolver and pointed it at the first accused when he was inside the car. His explanation was that he was concerned that the first accused may attempt to drive away and endanger the safety of other persons, although the car was in a stationary position at that time.

14 A CNB officer pointed a firearm at a suspect when there was no resistance or aggression. Counsel submitted that SSgt Subramaniam had abused or exceeded his powers. I will not pass judgment on this, and trust that the CNB look into it. The incident appeared to have a limited effect on the events that followed. Firstly, SSgt Subramaniam did not say anything to him about any offence or anything that he was carrying. Secondly, when SI See asked him about the contents of the plastic bag in the boot, he was not cowed into submission, but denied knowledge of it.

15 According to the first accused he yielded after the second incident of gun-toting when he agreed with SSgt Subramaniam that there was heroin in the plastic bag.

16 This incident was disputed by the officers. SI See and SSgt Subramaniam denied that the latter was with the first accused when he was taken to the car boot, and both of them denied that SSgt Subramaniam spoke to the first accused or pointed his revolver at him at the boot.

17 The other three statements were statements recorded by Insp Halim with the assistance of Hokkien interpreter Bennet Tan Chee Leong. Two statements were recorded on 1 April, separated by a lunch break, and the third statement was recorded on 5 April.

18 The first accused alleged that when he was first brought to Insp Halim’s room on the morning of 1 April, the inspector introduced the interpreter to him. He told them that SSgt Subramaniam had pointed a gun at him, but there was no reaction from them. He then asked for a drink of water and the interpreter left the room with a mug to get it.

19 While the interpreter was away, the inspector told him that he had wanted to arrest the other two accused persons for a long time (the first accused knew that the second and third accused were also arrested), but had no evidence against them. The inspector told him in a mixture of Hokkien and Malay that he was facing a capital charge and told him that he would give him a chance to avoid the death penalty if he testified that the heroin belonged to those two persons. (This part of his evidence was at variance with the case put to the inspector that he was told to say that the two persons took the heroin.)

20 He thought over the offer and decided to accept it. He did not seem to know if he conveyed his decision to the inspector. His evidence was (i) that he did not, (ii) that he said "OK, I would go ahead with the exchange",...