Public Prosecutor v Ng Peng Hock
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judge | Danielle Yeow Ping Lin |
| Judgment Date | 20 March 2008 |
| Neutral Citation | [2008] SGDC 60 |
| Court | District Court (Singapore) |
| Published date | 17 April 2008 |
| Year | 2008 |
| Plaintiff Counsel | Adeline Ee (Deputy Public Prosecutor) |
| Defendant Counsel | Paul (Sim & Wong LLC) |
| Citation | [2008] SGDC 60 |
|
20 March 2008 |
|
District Judge Danielle Yeow Ping Lin
The Charge and Sentence
1. This is an appeal against conviction only.
2. The accused, aged 48 years of age, was convicted after a trial on a re-amended charge of attempted possession of a Class A controlled drug, namely one small packet of diamorphine, without any authorization, an offence under s 8(a) read with s 12 and punishable under s 33 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, Cap 185 (“MDA”), under the enhanced punishment section.
3. The particulars of the charge are that on 12 June 2007, at about 11.05pm, at Blk 277 Yishun Street 22, #04-306 (“the unit”), the accused had requested to buy one small packet of diamorphine from Lim Foo Seng (“Lim”). Further, prior to the above offence, the accused had been previously convicted in the Subordinate Court for an offence under s 8(a) MDA and sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment, which conviction has not been set aside, and the accused is thereby liable for enhanced punishment under section 33 of the MDA.
4. He was sentenced to 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment on the charge, back-dated to 14 June 2007, the date he was first charged and remanded.
Background
5. By way of background, the accused originally faced a capital trafficking charge under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) MDA. This was subsequently amended to a non-capital trafficking charge. At the last Pre-Trial Conference, the prosecution indicated that the charge would be amended to possession of a controlled drug but did not tender the amended charge at that point. On the first day of the trial, the prosecution tendered an amended charge of attempted possession of a controlled drug namely a packet containing a granular substance containing 0.07 grams of diamorphine (“C1A”). Counsel was given time to take further instructions before commencing the hearing proper. On the second day of the trial, the prosecution applied to further re-amend the charge to one of attempted possession of a Class A controlled drug, to wit, “by requesting to buy one small packet of diamorphine” and removing the reference to the specific packet described in CIA (“C1B”).
6. The principle upon which the court should apply in exercising its discretion to amend a charge at any stage of the proceedings is well settled. The overriding consideration is whether the amendments would cause injustice or prejudice to the accused. Suffice to say that “an amendment of the charge may be made at any stage and, in general, the earlier the better”: Chin Siong Kian v PP
7. I was satisfied that the accused suffered no injustice or prejudice arising from the amendment, which amendment did not render the evidence adduced thus far irrelevant: see Oh Teh Hwa v PP
8. Even if there was any potential prejudice to the defence, this was off-set by the opportunity of an adjournment or the recall of any witnesses. When the prosecution applied to make the further amendment mid-way through the prosecution’s case, counsel was asked whether he needed an adjournment which he declined. Opportunity was also given to the defence to recall any prosecution witness for further cross-examination which was not taken up.
Prosecution’s Case
9. The prosecution’s case rested on the Accused’s admissions (both oral and in writing), and the testimonies of Lim Foo Seng (“Lim”) and arresting officers from the Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”).
10. In summary, the prosecution alleged that on 12 June 2007, at about 9pm, following an earlier phone call with one Lim Foo Seng (“Lim”), the accused went to Lim’s unit (a 2-storey maisonette), pursuant to his intention to purchase a small packet of heroin from Lim. Lim was a tenant in one of the bedrooms in the said unit. Lim informed him that he did not have any heroin at the moment, and told him to wait for his supplies to arrive. Accordingly, the Accused waited in Lim’s bedroom. Sometime around 11pm, Lim received a phone call and left the room. A short while later, he returned with the heroin supply and proceeded to repack the heroin into smaller packets. Lim and the accused had earlier agreed on the price of the small packet. However, before the transaction could take place, Lim first left the flat to see someone off, at which point CNB officers raided the unit. The accused, upon hearing the commotion, tried to escape by jumping out of the bedroom window located on the second level of the unit. He ran up to the 10th floor of the said block of flats where he was subsequently arrested.
11. Save for the details of what happened in the room after Lim returned with the heroin, the facts are largely undisputed.
12. It was also undisputed that the accused had previously been convicted of an offence of possession of a controlled drug in 2001 (DAC 23694/07) and was sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment. He was therefore liable to enhanced punishment in the event of a conviction.
Evidence of arresting officer SSSgt Tony Ng and oral admission PS1
13. CNB conducted a raid at the unit in question on 13 June 08 at about 2305 hr. The target subject was Lim. In the course of the operation, SSSgt Tony Ng (“SSSgt T Ng”) and SSgt Michelle Tan received information that someone had jumped from the window and escaped from the unit. They therefore searched and subsequently found and arrested the accused on the 10th floor of the block. SSSgt T Ng described the accused as being uncooperative and aggressive and had to be subdued. This was similar to the testimony of SSgt Michelle Tan (“SSgt Tan”) who assisted in the arrest.
14. The accused was escorted back to the unit. SSSgt T Ng testified that the accused was brought to a bedroom on the second level of the unit from which he had jumped from. Beneath the window area, SSSgt T Ng saw a packet wrapped in paper - P2. According to SSSgt T Ng, he did not see any other similar packet beneath the window. When asked whether it was his, the accused admitted that it was and identified it as heroin.
15 As per his usual procedure, SSSgt T Ng asked the accused what his preferred language was as he could also write in Mandarin. The accused indicated that he understood English. Accordingly, an oral confession was recorded from the accused in English in his pocketbook. When the statement was read back, the accused affirmed it to be true and correct and declined to make any changes to the statement. He then appended his NRIC number and signature at the bottom of each page thereafter. Throughout the recording, the accused appeared normal and did not have any visible injuries. He did not request for an interpreter nor make any other request. The accused also did not indicate any discomfort or difficulty in comprehending him.
16 The defence did not object to the admission of the oral statement (“PS1”) though there was dispute over the contents and the location where it was recorded, as well as an allegation that the statement was purportedly recorded later.[note: 1] The relevant extracts read:-
0010 At the said unit, I recorded the statement given by Ng Peng Hock, I/C S1389879J in English.
Q1 Just now from the unit #04-306 Yishun B/277 2nd floor window that you jump down, beside the window of 2nd level floor one packet with paper roll inside found to contain one packet is what?
Ans “Heroin”
Q2 You buy from whom?
Ans I called him “Ah Lau” whom was the person you arrested inside this unit.
Q3 How much this packet of “Heroin” that you buy from “Ah Lau”?
Ans $150/-
Q4 What time you entered this unit and buy from him?
Ans About 8 plus just now
A5 Why you inside this unit so long?
Ans I was waiting for him as he told me that the heroin supply haven’t come.
17. In cross-examination, SSSgt T Ng denied, inter alia:-
a. that the accused was handcuffed and kept beside the staircase leading to the second floor at all times and was never brought to the second floor of the unit;
b. and the accused was not shown any packet at the second floor bedroom window;
c. that the accused communicated to him in Hokkien and not English;
d. that the accused only admitted to an intention to buy heroin;
e. that the accused only said that he bought heroin from Lim on other occasions for $150;
f. that he showed the accused a plastic bag containing many satchets inside and imputed possession by asking him to select a packet as the one he would buy that day to avoid being charged for all the drugs found in the unit;
g. that Q3 and Q4 in PS1 were fabricated and were never asked[note: 2];
Evidence of other CNB raiding officers
18. During the raid, SSSgt David Ng searched the unit and discovered drugs (over 30 satchets) all over Lim’s bedroom, including numerous satchets believed to contain heroin. He displayed the drug exhibits where they were found and informed SI Ngo Hing Wong of their discovery and location for him to note and record. Beyond this, he did not do anything else with the exhibits. He subsequently saw SSSgt T Ng bringing the accused to the unit but had no contact with him.
19. SSSgt Henry Chong (“SSSgt Chong”) was responsible for recording the drug exhibits seized in the field diary (P5). He saw exhibits believed to be drugs all over the bedroom located in the upper level of the unit. The location and description of all these items were duly recorded in the field diary. In particular, he noted...
To continue reading
Request your trial