Public Prosecutor v Okonkwo and Another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 21 June 1993
• Date: 21 June 1993
• Docket Number: Criminal Case No 28 of 1993
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Public Prosecutor

Plaintiff

and

Okonkwo Gabriel and another

Defendant

[1993] SGHC 137

MPH Rubin JC

Criminal Case No 28 of 1993

High Court

Criminal Law–Statutory offences–Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 1985 Rev Ed)–Trafficking in controlled drugs–Presumption of possession–Accused in possession of key to room in which briefcase containing drugs were found–First accused registered occupant of room with control and authority over it–Second accused also registered occupant and entitled to key to room–Whether presumption of possession of drugs arises–Words and Phrases–“Consent”–Section 18 (4) Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 1985 Rev Ed)–Words and Phrases–“Key”–Sections 18 (1) (a), 18 (1) (b)and 18 (1) (c) Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 1985 Rev Ed)

The two accused, Gabriel and Paul, who were Nigerian nationals, were charged with having a common intention to traffic in 538.3g of diamorphine under the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 1985 Rev Ed) (“the Act”). They moved or transported a briefcase containing the drugs from Mayfair City Hotel to a room in Dai-Ichi Hotel which they were jointly registered as its occupants on 10 December 1990 and were arrested by CNB officers at the lobby of Dai-Ichi Hotel that same day. Immediately following his arrest, the key to the room in which the briefcase containing the drug was found was seized from Gabriel. It was the Prosecution's case that the accused persons transported the drugs to deliver it to one special agent Plummer from the US Drug Enforcement Agency in pursuance of an agreement between Plummer and Gabriel.

Held, convicting both accused:

(1) Although the briefcase containing the drug was not in the physical possession of Gabriel at the time of his arrest, it was in the hotel room and the key to this room was in his physical possession. By the operation of s 18 (1) (c) of the Act, he could clearly be presumed to be in possession of the drugs that was in the briefcase as it was found in the room. Invoking the presumption that possession of more than 2g of diamorphine connoted trafficking in that drug, as provided for in s 17 (c) of the Act, he could be presumed to be trafficking in the drugs found in his possession. Additionally, in this case, there was clear evidence that he moved the drugs to Dai-Ichi Hotel to deliver to Plummer: at [106] to [109].

(2) Paul, by virtue of his being the registered occupant of the hotel room in which the briefcase containing the drugs was found, was in law entitled to the keys to that room. Although the key to the room was in the physical possession of Gabriel, Paul could demand and obtain that key either from Gabriel or from the hotel. Invoking the presumption in s 18 (1) (c) of the Act as above, he was presumed to have that drug in his possession, and he failed to rebut such presumption. Possession of more than 2g or diamorphine being proved, Paul could be presumed to be trafficking in that controlled drug: at [116].

(3) The ordinary meaning of the word “key” in the context of s 18 (1) (b)of the Act would not cover situations where there was no physical manifestation of a key or any other physical object, the possession of which provides access. It was clearly not Parliament's intention to include knowledge of combination lock numbers of a briefcase to fall within the meaning of the word “key”. However, knowledge of combination lock numbers of a briefcase could amount to one having “under his control anything containing a controlled drug” for the purposes of s 18 (1) (a): at [39] and [40].

AEG Carapiet v AY Derderian AIR 1961 Cal 359 (refd)

Allied Pastoral Holdings Pty Ltd v Commisioner of Taxation [1983] 1 NSWLR 1 (refd)

Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 (distd)

Habee Bur Rahman v PP [1971] 2 MLJ 194 (refd)

Junior Reid v R [1990] 1 AC 363 (distd)

PP v Kok Heng [1948] MLJ 171 (refd)

PP v Lim Ah Poh [1991] 2 SLR (R) 307; [1992] 1 SLR 87 (folld)

Tan Ah Tee v PP [1979-1980] SLR (R) 311; [1978-1979] SLR 211 (folld)

Warner v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969] 2 AC 256 (refd)

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 159 (1)

Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1990 Rev Ed) s 116 illus (g)

Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 1985 Rev Ed) ss 18 (1) (a), 18 (1) (b), 18 (1) (c), 18 (4) (consd);ss 17 (c), 18 (2)

Chua Eng Hui and Madeleine Loo Yen Lay (Deputy Public Prosecutors) for the Prosecution

Joe Chellam (Palakrishman & Pnrs) and BJ Lean (BJ Lean) (both assigned) for the first accused

Edmund Nathan (Edmund Nathan & Co) and Ahmad Khalis bin Abdul Ghani (Wong Khalis & Junaini) (both assigned) for the second accused.

MPH Rubin JC

The charge

1 The two accused, Gabriel Okonkwo (“Gabriel”) and Paul Okechukwu Ngwudo (“Paul”), both Nigerian nationals, were charged that they, in furtherance of their common intention, did traffic in not less than 538.3g of diamorphine on 10 December 1990 at about 8.45pm in Room 2813 of the Harbour View Dai-Ichi Hotel (“Dai-Ichi Hotel”), 81 Anson Road, Singapore, without any authorisation under the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 1985 Rev Ed) (“the MDA”) or the regulations made thereunder.

Synopsis

2 The Prosecution's evidence was built around the evidence of Plummer Wilbert Lee (“Plummer”) (“PW6”), a special agent from the Drug Enforcement Administration, USA and the evidence of the Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) surveillance team. The substance of their evidence was that following an agreement between Gabriel and Plummer, of which Paul had knowledge, Gabriel and Paul transported or moved a briefcase that contained the drugs on 10 December 1990 from Mayfair City Hotel (“Mayfair Hotel”) to Dai-Ichi Hotel where the briefcase was to be delivered to Plummer. At the Dai-Ichi Hotel, the CNB team arrested both Gabriel and Paul and seized the briefcase. The briefcase had a concealed compartment in which drugs were found. The analysis of the drugs seized revealed that they contained not less than 538.3g of diamorphine. The room in which the briefcase was seized was registered in the names of both Gabriel and Paul.

3 The defence of Gabriel was that he had not known Plummer before and that he had no such agreement with Plummer. He claimed that though he and Paul had brought the briefcase to Dai-Ichi Hotel, he did not know of its contents; the bag belonged to one Uche, a mutual friend of himself and Paul; and that he had gone to Dai-Ichi Hotel to book a room for the said Uche and to hand over the briefcase to Uche. Paul also protested his innocence. He too claimed that he had never met Plummer; he had never engaged in any conversation with him; the bag belonged to Uche; and that he had accompanied Gabriel for the reasons stated by Gabriel.

4 After reviewing all the evidence, I disbelieved the defence story. On the whole of the evidence I was satisfied of the guilt of the accused persons and consequently convicted them both. My grounds now follow.

The prosecution case

Events prior to 9 December 1990

5 Plummer arrived in Singapore on 8 December 1990 to pick up a quantity of heroin from one “Igbu” who was then staying at the Strand Hotel, Singapore. Plummer had earlier spoken to Igbu by telephone from Silver Springs, Maryland on 5 December 1990 (Singapore time 6 December 1990). Plummer testified that he came to contact Igbu through one Jerome Onwuazor (“Jerome”). Jerome gave Plummer US$2,000 to give to Igbu for his expenses. Documentary records from the telephone company which were produced, when challenged by the defence, confirmed that telephone calls were indeed made from the United States to Strand Hotel, Singapore on 5 December 1990 (US time). Plummer further told the court that he had made photocopies of the US$2,000 he received from Jerome.

Events on 9 December 1990

6 At about 10.00am, Plummer telephoned Room 902 of Strand Hotel and asked for Igbu. The person who answered replied that he was “Igbu”. Plummer then told him that he was sent from the US to meet him but Igbu said that he did not want to discuss the matter over the telephone. “Igbu” asked Plummer to proceed to Strand Hotel and told Plummer that he would be waiting for him in front of the hotel.

7 When Plummer arrived at Strand Hotel, he saw two blacks having a conversation in front of the hotel. One of them walked away and the other person, whom Plummer eventually identified as Gabriel, told Plummer that he was Igbu. Gabriel and Plummer then sat down at a table in front of Strand Hotel. Plummer told Gabriel that he was sent by Jerome to pick up the packages from him. Gabriel replied that he had some of the drugs in his hotel room but was waiting for more couriers to arrive from Thailand. Plummer told Gabriel that he had US$2,000 that Jerome had given him to hand to Gabriel for his expenses but Gabriel replied that he did not want to collect it then. Gabriel explained that the Singapore police had recently made a spate of arrests at Strand Hotel and he suspected that the hotel was still being watched. Gabriel further told Plummer that he would go out and purchase the bags in which he would pack the drugs. He instructed Plummer to call him that evening at 5.00pm.

8 Besides the evidence of Plummer, the Prosecution also adduced other evidence of this meeting. SNO Yeo Kiah Hee (PW17) and NO Yip Yat Choi (PW18), who were stationed in the vicinity of Strand Hotel, gave evidence that such a meeting took place. The Prosecution also produced two photographs which had been taken by another CNB officer, NO Yeoh Seng Hock (PW16), on the instruction of SNO Yeo. The photographs showed Gabriel and Plummer seated at a table in front of Strand Hotel. The guest registration book of Strand Hotel and the evidence of the hotel receptionist confirmed that Gabriel had been registered as a guest in Room 902 of the hotel since 28 November 1990.

9 At about 12.30pm, Gabriel was seen leaving Strand Hotel with two other male blacks, one of whom was later ascertained to be Joseph Emeka Emeli (“Joseph”). The other male...