Public Prosecutor v Nguyen Thi Thanh Hai

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Tay Yong Kwang J
• Judgment Date: 15 April 2016
• Neutral Citation: [2016] SGHC 66
• Date: 15 April 2016
• Docket Number: Criminal Case No 17 of 2016
• Published date: 20 April 2016
• Plaintiff Counsel: Bhajanvir Singh and Ma Hanfeng (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Hearing Date: 22 March 2016
• Defendant Counsel: Shashi Nathan, Tania Chin and Jeremy Pereira (KhattarWong LLP)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Misuse of Drugs Act,Principles,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Criminal Law,Sentencing,Statutory offences

Tay Yong Kwang J:

The accused is a female Vietnamese national who is now 50 years old. She pleaded guilty to the following charge:

That you, NGUYEN THI THANH HAI, are charged that you, on 10 August 2013, at about 8.45 a.m., at Changi Airport Terminal 2, Singapore (“the said place”), did import into the said place a controlled drug specified in Class A of the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185 (“the said Act”), to wit, two (2) bundles of crystalline substances weighing 3,666 grams, which were analyzed and found to contain not less than 249.99 grams of Methamphetamine, without authorization under the said Act or the Regulations made thereunder, and you have thereby committed an offence under section 7 and punishable under section 33 of the said Act.

The punishment prescribed by s 33(1) read with the Second Schedule of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”) is a minimum punishment of 20 years’ imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane and a maximum punishment of 30 years’ imprisonment or life imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane.

Taking into consideration the fact that the accused is female and therefore not liable to caning as provided in s 325(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) (“CPC”), I sentenced her to 23 years’ imprisonment with effect from the date of her arrest (10 August 2013). This includes the maximum of 12 months’ imprisonment that I imposed in lieu of caning pursuant to s 325(2) of the CPC.

The Statement of Facts

The accused admitted all the facts set out in the following statement of facts: I. THE ACCUSED 1 The accused is Nguyen Thi Thanh Hai, FIN: GXXXXXXXX, a 50-year-old female Vietnamese national (Date of Birth: 22 December 1965) and holder of a Vietnamese Passport bearing number BXXXXXXX. II. ACCUSED’S ARREST AND SEIZURE OF DRUG EXHIBITS 2 On 10 August 2013, at about 8.45 a.m., the accused landed at Changi Airport Terminal 2, Singapore (“the said place”). She had arrived in Singapore via Air India flight AI 342. The said flight departed from New Delhi to Singapore via Chennai. Upon arrival in Singapore, the accused had a “Star Express” brown-coloured luggage bag (the ‘luggage bag’) with her. She came to Singapore on transit and was on her way to board a Silk Air flight MI 350 bound for Penang. At the arrival hall of the said place, the accused was stopped by officers from the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority of Singapore (‘ICA’) for a check. 3 When the ICA officers conducted an X-ray screening of the luggage bag, they noticed anomalies along the sides of the said luggage bag. Suspecting the presence of drugs concealed in the luggage bag, officers from the Central Narcotics Bureau (‘CNB’) were alerted. Thereafter, and in the accused’s presence, CNB officers cut open the interior of the said luggage bag at the ICA Baggage Office. After opening up the bottom cloth layer of the luggage, the CNB officers noticed screws and glue stains on both inner sides of the luggage bag. Using a screwdriver, the officers took out the screws and pried open the inner side walls of the luggage bag. Thereafter, the officers recovered two slabs wrapped in aluminium foil from the hidden compartments found on both inner sides of the luggage bag (one slab from each side of the luggage bag) – these two slabs were later marked as ‘AlA1’ and ‘A2A1’ respectively. Samples from the two slabs were drawn out for testing and the results were positive for methamphetamine. The accused was then placed under arrest. III. ANALYSIS OF DRUG EXHIBITS 4 The two packages marked ‘AlA1’ and ‘A2A1’ were sent by the CNB to the Health Sciences Authority (‘HSA’) for analysis on 12 August 2013. 5 HSA analyst Lim Jong Lee Wendy analysed the exhibits marked ‘AlA1’ and ‘A2A1’, and on 17 February 2014 issued the following two certificates under Section 16 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185,2008 Rev Ed) (‘MDA’): a) One certificate bearing Lab No.: ID-1332-01633-001 (annexed at TAB A) stating that the exhibit marked ‘AlAl’ was found to be one packet containing 1797 grams of crystalline substance which was pulverised and homogenised into a powdery substance. The powdery substance was analysed and found to contain not less than 989.0 grams of methamphetamine, at a confidence level of 99.9999%. b) One certificate bearing Lab No.: ID-1332-01633-002 (annexed at TAB B) stating that the exhibit marked ‘A2A1’ was found to be one packet containing 1869 grams of crystalline substance which was pulverised and homogenised into a powdery substance. The powdery substance was analysed and found to contain not less than 1,052 grams of methamphetamine, at a confidence level of 99.9999%. 6 The two exhibits marked ‘AlA1’ and ‘A2A1’ were found to contain a total of not less than 249.99 grams of methamphetamine. Methamphetamine is a Class ‘A’ Controlled Drug listed in the First Schedule to the MDA. IV. FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS 7 According to the accused, sometime in 2012, while at a park in Ho Chi Minh City, the accused befriended a Vietnamese lady known as “Phuong”. Phuong asked the accused to go to India where she could look for a husband and told her that the expenses for the trip would be paid for by Phuong's friend in India. The accused agreed to go to India. 8 A few days later, Phuong gave the accused the visa for entry into India, a plane ticket, a bunch of SIM cards, a hotel voucher and US$500 for her expenses. Phuong gave the accused the contact details of her friend in India and instructed the accused to call him once she reached her hotel in India. 9 When the accused reached her hotel in India, she messaged Phuong's friend in India. On the next day, a dark-skinned man introduced himself as “Ben Siji” to the accused and brought food for her. 10 On the next day, the same dark-skinned man brought her to a one-bedroom flat unit and showed her the said “Star Express” brown-coloured luggage bag. The said dark-skinned man then instructed the accused to bring the said luggage bag to Malaysia. 11 Once the accused reached Malaysia, she was supposed to call the said dark-skinned man. He would, in turn, call another person and that person will come and collect the luggage bag from the accused. 12 The said dark-skinned man then passed the accused US$1,000 and the plane tickets to Malaysia. After that, the said dark-skinned man brought the accused to the airport where she boarded the plane for Singapore on the evening of 9 August 2013. The accused was subsequently arrested at Changi Airport on the morning of 10 August 2013 after the packages marked ‘AlA1’ and ‘A2A1’ respectively were recovered from the accused's “Star Express” brown-coloured luggage bag. 13 Prior to her arrest sometime in early 2013, the accused had previously made a similar delivery for Phuong and an unknown “black man”. Similarly, she was instructed to deliver a luggage bag to a person in another country. On this trip, she was also given US$1,000. 14 The accused was wilfully blind to the presence of methamphetamine in her luggage bag due to the following: a) the accused was aware that she was carrying out an illegal act. When the accused was asked to bring the clothes to Malaysia, she called Phuong to ask if she would get into trouble for bringing the clothes. In response, Phuong told the accused that the worst case scenario is a jail term of 1-2 months; b) despite her knowledge that she was carrying out an illegal act, she did not make any further enquiries about the contents of the luggage bag as she had wilfully turned a blind eye to the possibility of drugs being concealed within the luggage bag; c) her suspicions were aroused when her air tickets were fully paid for and she was further paid US$1,000 just for the delivery of “clothes”; d) her suspicions were also aroused when the said dark-skinned man needed her assistance to deliver the luggage bag to Malaysia when it would have made more sense for the said dark-skinned man to make the trip himself; e) despite her suspicions, she did not make any further enquiries and instead wilfully turned a blind eye to the possibility of drugs being concealed inside the luggage bag. V. CONCLUSION 15 The accused was wilfully blind to the presence of methamphetamine in the luggage bag. By knowingly importing not less than 249.99 grams of Methamphetamine, which is a Class ‘A’ Controlled Drug into Singapore, when she was not authorised under the MDA or the Regulations made thereunder to do so, she has committed an offence under Section 7 of the MDA.

[Tabs A and B are not reproduced here.]

The accused’s antecedents

The accused did not have any known antecedents.

The Prosecution’s submissions on sentence

Although the Prosecution had argued for a sentence of about 24 years’ imprisonment in its written submissions, in court, it submitted that a sentence of 22 years’ imprisonment would be sufficient in the present case.

The Prosecution submitted that a custodial sentence of higher than the minimum of 20 years’ imprisonment would be justified in the present case as the quantity of drugs imported was “high”. In support of its position, the Prosecution cited the cases of PP v Yap Siew Luan [2002] SGHC 93 (“Yap Siew Luan”), PP v Pienaar Hermanus Nicolaas, Criminal Case No. 40 of 2014 (28 October 2014, unreported) (“Pienaar”), PP v Muhammad Farid bin Mohd Yusop [2014] SGHC 125, PP v Hoang Thi Tuong Van, Criminal Case No. 42 of 2014 (28 May 2015, unreported) (“Hoang Thi Tuong Van”), PP v Nalanggay Norma Verano, Criminal Case No. 46 of 2015 (15 September 2015, unreported) (“Nalanggay”) and PP v Eliya, Criminal Case No. 54 of 2015 (3 November 2015, unreported) (“Eliya”). For instance, in Pienaar, where the actual amount imported was 1,891g of methamphetamine, the accused was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane. In Hoang Thi Tuong Van, the accused...