Public Prosecutor v Tan Loon Lui

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 11 April 2003
• Date: 11 April 2003
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 55 of 2002
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Public Prosecutor

Plaintiff

and

Tan Loon Lui

Defendant

[2003] SGHC 87

Yong Pung How CJ

Magistrate's Appeal No 55 of 2002

High Court

Criminal Law–Controlled drugs–Consumption without authorisation–Presumption of actusreus and mens rea–Whether “spiked drink” defence valid–Consequence of such defence–s 22 Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 1998 Rev Ed)–Evidence–Proof of evidence–Admissions–Witness admitted spiking of drink–Credibility of such witness–Treatment of such witness

The respondent attended a discotheque in Johor Baru with his wife and her brother-in-law, and consumed beer there. Later that night, the Malaysian Police raided the discotheque and administered instant urine tests. The respondent's urine was found to contain methamphetamine and ketamine. He was handed over to Singapore authorities. The trial judge accepted the evidence of Lim Beng Chuan (“Lim”), the brother-in-law of the respondent's wife, who admitted that he had spiked the respondent's drink. The Public Prosecutor appealed against the acquittal.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

The trial judge's assessment of Lim's shady past indicated that he had addressed the point about the character of Lim, and in spite of this, still regarded his story as credible. That had rebutted the presumption under s 22 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 1998 Rev Ed): at [16].

[Observation: Defence witnesses who confess to spiking the accused's drink should be arrested immediately after giving evidence for abetting such consumption or else there may be “remorseful spikers” who might, for a fee, take the fall for drug consumers: at [10].]

Cheng Siah Johnson v PP [2002] 1 SLR (R) 839; [2002] 2 SLR 481 (folld)

PP v Nurashikin bte Ahmad Borhan [2003] 1 SLR (R) 52; [2003] 1 SLR 52 (distd)

PP v Tan Chui Yun Joselyn [2003] 2 SLR (R) 85; [2003] 2 SLR 85 (folld)

Simon Joseph v PP [1997] 1 SLR (R) 983; [1997] 3 SLR 196 (folld)

Soh Yang Tick v PP [1998] 1 SLR (R) 209; [1998] 2 SLR 42 (folld)

Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 1998 Rev Ed) s 22 (consd);ss 8 (b) (i), 8A (1)

Hui Choon Kuen (Deputy Public Prosecutor) for the appellant

Ch'ng Lye Beng (Tan Lye & Ngaw Partnership) for the respondent.

Yong Pung How CJ

1 This was an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against the decision of District Judge Malcolm Tan Ban Hoe to acquit the respondent Tan Loon Lui of two charges under s 8 (b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) (“MDA”) for consuming controlled drugs without authorisation under the MDA.

Facts

2 On 30 June 2001, the respondent went to Johor Baru with his wife, Lee Lai Choon. Accompanying the respondent and his wife were some relatives and friends. Lee Mong Chee, the sister of Lee Lai Choon, was part of this group. At a little after midnight, this group had supper in the Taman Sentosa vicinity. After supper, the group was invited by Lee Mong Chee's husband, Ng Wan Sing, to go to a discotheque called “Jazz and Blues” where live music was being played.

3 The group arrived at “Jazz and Blues” at about 1.00am on 1 July and ordered two jugs of beer. While they were enjoying their beer, some friends of Ng Wan Sing joined the group. This second group brought with them their own jugs of beer. Ng Wan Sing was a bookie as were all his friends. Amongst his friends was Lim Beng Chuan who later became a key witness for the Defence at trial. This second group of men were all Malaysians.

4 After the two groups merged, they continued to drink and make-merry. At about 2.45am on 1 July 2001, the Malaysian Police raided the discotheque. Instant Urine Tests (“IUTs”) were conducted on the patrons and a number of Singaporeans tested positive. These Singaporeans were then escorted to Singapore and handed over to Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) officers at the Woodlands Checkpoint. IUTs were again conducted and those with positive results had their urine samples taken and sent to the Heath Sciences Authority (“HSA”) for further testing. The respondent's urine was found to contain Methamphetamine, a Class “A” controlled drug, and Ketamine, a Class “B” controlled drug. He was the only one among the entire party of his family and friends who was tested positive by HSA for controlled drugs.

The law

5 Section 8 (b) (i) of the MDA states:

Except as authorised by this Act, it shall be an offence for a person to smoke, administer to himself or otherwise consume a controlled drug other than a specified drug.

Section 8A (1) of the MDA deals with the consumption of drugs outside Singapore. To this end, s 8A (1) states:

Section 8 (b) shall have effect in relation to a person who is a citizen or a permanent resident of Singapore outside as well as within Singapore where he is found as a result of urine tests conducted under s 31 to have smoked, administered to himself or otherwise consumed a controlled drug or a specified drug.

6 Section 22 of the MDA provides for a statutory presumption that both the mens rea and actus reus of an offence of drug consumption are satisfied once a...