Public Prosecutor v Tan Chui Yun Joselyn

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 07 February 2003
• Neutral Citation: [2003] SGHC 19
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 223 of 2002
• Date: 07 February 2003
• Published date: 07 October 2003
• Year: 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Sia Aik Kor (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Citation: [2003] SGHC 19
• Defendant Counsel: Cheah Kok Lim (Ang & Partners)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Whether evidence adduced sufficient to rebut presumption under Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2001 Rev Ed) s 22,Defence witness a friend of accused,Evidence,Controlled drugs,Whether testimony suspect,Witnesses,Whether trial judge erred in accepting his evidence,Criminal Law,Credibility,Consumption without authorisation,Offences

1 This was an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against the decision of the district judge Hamidah Ibrahim to acquit the respondent Tan Chui Yun Joselyn (‘Joselyn’) of one charge under s 8(b)(i) of the Misuse of Drugs Act for unauthorised consumption of a Class B controlled drug.

The prosecution’s case

2 On 19 April 2002, SSgt Tuen Chee Lim received information from a third party that Joselyn was taking part in drug activities involving Ketamine. SSgt Tuen called Joselyn down for an interview on 25 April 2002 but was unable to take a statement from her that day as he was occupied. He then sent a letter to ask her to come down for another interview on 2 May 2002. However, Joselyn only knew about the letter when she returned from a holiday in Bangkok on 1 May 2002. Joselyn called SSgt Tuen on 2 May 2002 to fix the interview for 3 May 2002 instead, as she was not feeling well.

3 When Joselyn showed up on 3 May 2002, SSgt Tuen observed that she had bloodshot eyes and slightly slurred speech. He placed her under arrest. Two bottles of her urine were sent to the Health Science Authority (HSA) for analysis. Her urine was found to contain Norketamine, a metabolyte of the drug Ketamine. Dr Lui, an analyst with HSA, testified that when a person consumes Ketamine, Norketamine would be detected in the urine for about one to three days after consumption. The time taken for it to dissipate would vary with the metabolic and excretion rate of the individual.

4 The positive result from the urine tests triggered the presumption from s 22 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. As this Court held in Vadugaiah Mahendran v PP [1996] 1 SLR 24, there was a presumption of both the actus reus and the mens rea of the offence. As such, the prosecution’s case had been made out and the defence was called.

The defence

5 Joselyn’s defence was that she did not knowingly consume Ketamine. She claimed that she had known since 25 April 2002, that she was under investigation for drug-related activities. She testified that she had gone to the police station on 25 April 2002 with a friend – one Christopher Lim (‘Chris’) – an ex-police officer who recognised SSgt Tuen as being from the anti-drug squad. Knowing full well that she was scheduled for an interview and facing the possibility of being asked to undergo a urine test, it was extremely unlikely that she would knowingly consume Ketamine shortly before the day of the interview.

6 As for the presence of Norketamine in her system, she suspected that her drink could have been spiked when she was at a pub called Madam Wong’s on the evening of 2 May 2002. She had accepted a drink from a man in a white shirt at the pub, a man she had seen talking to a friend of hers, one Dennis Ng. She suspected that Dennis had colluded with the man in the white shirt to spike her drink as she had previously rebuffed Dennis’ attempts to date her. Chris gave evidence that corroborated her version of events. Chris testified that he saw a man in a white shirt approach Joselyn and offer her a drink. Chris also affirmed that he saw Dennis at the pub that night. Dennis gave evidence that he was not at the pub that night, nor did he spike her drink.

Decision of the court below

7 The district judge found that Joselyn had managed to discharge the burden of rebutting the s 22 presumption on a balance of probabilities. In reaching her decision, the district judge acknowledged that she had approached the defence with greater caution than usual. She had noted that this was not ‘the usual run of the mill case where an accused is arrested after a raid at a pub and the usual defence of spiking is raised’.

8 The district judge accepted Joselyn’s evidence that she had known that she was under investigation for drug-related activities and had come to the reasonable conclusion that she might be subjected to a urine test. That being the case, she acknowledged that "…it would have been inconceivable that she would knowingly consume a controlled drug.." on the day of the interview. Furthermore, she held that, if Joselyn had knowingly consumed the drug the day before, she could have easily called to postpone the interview to a later date.

9 The district judge also preferred the evidence of Chris to that of Dennis. Though Chris was an ex-boyfriend of Joselyn, the district judge found his account "clear and lucid" and saw no reason for him to fabricate anything in her favour. She therefore accepted Joselyn’s version of events – i.e. that she had accepted a drink from a man in a white shirt who had been seen talking with Dennis. The district judge found it suspicious that Dennis had lied about being at the pub that night and this showed that he had something to hide. This gave rise to the probability that Dennis had indeed colluded with the man in the white shirt to tamper with Joselyn’s drink.

The appeal

10 The Public Prosecutor...