Public Prosecutor v Tan Soo Keong
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judge | Shaiffudin Bin Saruwan |
| Judgment Date | 28 September 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | [2007] SGDC 273 |
| Published date | 23 January 2008 |
| Court | District Court (Singapore) |
| Plaintiff Counsel | Assistant Public Prosecutor Pushpa |
| Defendant Counsel | Singa Retnam |
| 28 September 2007 |
|
District Judge Shaiffudin Saruwan
Background
The accused Tan Soo Keong claimed trial to one charge in DAC 38475/06 of selling 10 Erimin 5 tablets for the price of $80/- to one Tan Swee Hwa on 24 Aug 06 at about 6.00 pm to 8.00 pm along Tampines Street 83 near Block 885 Tampines Street 83, which is an offence under s.5(1)(a) punishable under s.33 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, Cap 185. At the end of the trial, I convicted him on the said charge. The accused was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment and 2 strokes of the cane. He has now appealed against his conviction and sentence.
The Case For The Prosecution
2. The prosecution called a total of twelve witnesses.
3. On 24 Aug 06, at about 8.10 pm, one Tan Swee Hwa (PW1) had sold 10 tablets of nimetazepam or more popularly known as Erimin 5 to an undercover officer for S$100/-. He was subsequently arrested and was charged for trafficking. Upon questioning, he confessed that he had purchased the Erimin 5 tablets from one “Ah Keong”, who was later identified as Tan Soo Keong (Accused). A sting operation was conducted and on the evening of 25 Aug 06 the accused was arrested inside the lift of Block 885 Tampines Street 83.
4. The prosecution led evidence that Tan Swee Hua was introduced to the accused sometime in April 2006 through a mutual friend known as Kamal. Kamal is a Bangladeshi worker who used to work with Tan. In the course of conversation, Tan asked the accused if he was able to get Erimin 5 as Tan had remarked that it was difficult to get it these days. The accused told Tan that he would let Tan know. He gave Tan his handphone numbers which were 8225 9622. Subsequently, Tan had several dealings with the accused concerning the purchase of Erimin 5 tablets. The deals were usually be conducted at the bus-stop near to the multi-storey car-park near the accused’s block.
5. On 24 Aug 06, Tan’s friend, Alvin called him in the afternoon and asked for a slab of Erimin 5 and also Ketamine. A slab of Erimin 5 comprised 10 tablets. Tan told Alvin that he would look for them. Later Alvin send Tan a sms message at about 5.29 pm inquiring about the drugs. Tan replied at 5.30 pm stating that the supplier had said that he would only be ready at around 8.00 pm to 9.00 pm.
6. Tan then sent the first of a series of sms messages to the accused’s handphone bearing numbers 8225 9622. The first message to the accused was “Boss how” which was sent at 5.32 pm. The accused replied at 5.34 pm that he could get the supply but later. Tan then messaged the accused at 5.35 pm asking for the time of delivery. The accused replied and said around 6.40 pm to 7.00 pm. Tan then informed Alvin to meet him at around 9.00 pm to collect the drugs. After that, at 6.41 pm, Tan sent another message to the accused asking the accused if he should leave now.
7. When Tan reached the usual rendezvous point which was somewhere near the bus-stop at the multi-storey car-park near Block 885 Tampines Street 83, he called the accused to tell him that he is at the designated place. Subsequently, about 10 minutes later, the accused came and sold Tan a single slab of Erimin 5 tablets comprising 10 tablets for S$80/-.
8. After that, Tan went to a coffee-shop at Tampines Street 71 to have his dinner. There, he used a piece of brown paper and wrapped the slab of Erimin 5 tablets with it. He then called Alvin and arranged to meet at the Eunos MRT Station at about 7.00 pm. Alvin told him that he was busy and arranged to meet at 8.15 pm instead. Subsequently, Tan was arrested after he passed the 10 Erimin 5 tablets to an undercover CNB officer. The 10 Erimin 5 tablets were subsequently sent to HSA for analysis. The report from HSA (Exhibit P2) confirmed that the 10 tablets contained nimetazepam and nitrazepam.
9. During questioning that same night, Tan informed the CNB officers that he had obtained the tablets from one Ah Keong. The identity and particulars of the accused were obtained when SSgt Tan Kok Wee (PW11) remembered that the Ah Keong described by Tan fitted an ex-drug supervisee that he had once supervised. He then obtained the full particulars and address of the accused from the records. In the meantime, Tan was instructed to contact the accused and arrange for another drug buy. The accused replied saying that it was already late and asked Tan to call him the next day. Subsequently, the next day on 25 Aug 06, CNB officer SSgt Stanley Tan (PW5) took over Tan’s handphone . He pretended to be Tan and communicated with the accused via sms. This led to a series of sms messages between SSgt Stanley Tan and the accused. The sms messages concerned the sale of one slab of Erimin 5. The accused first told SSgt Stanley Tan to meet at the “small car park” at about 7.00 pm. Then subsequently, the accused changed the meeting place to the “big car park” at 6.54 pm. Having confirmed these details, SSgt Stanley Tan then led a briefing of a group of CNB officers with the objective of ambushing the accused.
10. The CNB officers went to their respective positions around the vicinity of Block 885 Tampines Street 83 where the accused lived. The accused was then seen leaving his flat in the company of a female companion. They were then seen entering the lift. The CNB officers rushed into the lift when the lift door opened at the ground floor of the block and placed both the accused and his female companion under arrest. When questioned, both the accused and his female companion denied knowing one another. But a check with their respective handphones showed that they had stored in their handphones each other’s contact numbers. Subsequently, the accused’s parents confirmed that the female companion was the accused’s girlfriend who was also staying in the same flat.
11. The CNB officers conducted a search of the bedrooms of both the accused and his girlfriend. The accused and his girlfriend were also searched. No drug was found.
At The Close Of The Prosecution’s Case
12. At the close of the case for the prosecution, Mr Singa Retnam for the accused did not make any submission of no case to answer. Having considered the evidence so far adduced, I was satisfied that there was some evidence, not inherently incredible, which if the court was to accept as accurate would establish each essential element of the offence. As I was satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out against the accused, I called upon him to enter his defence. I administered the standard allocution to him. Having understood the allocution, he elected to give evidence.
The Case For The Defence
13. The accused called two other witnesses to testify on his behalf.
14. The accused had known Tan Swee Hwa through a mutual friend named “Ah Boy”. Tan had spoken to Ah Boy about how he could get rid of his subutex addiction. Ah Boy had then introduced Tan to the accused over the telephone as Ah Boy knew that the accused had successfully weaned himself from subutex addiction. The accused had then given Tan advice about how to go about weaning himself off subutex. This first phone conversation began the friendship between them.
15. On 24 Aug 06, the accused had received a call from Tan who had asked for a loan of $1000/- to settle his gambling debts. The accused then arranged to meet Tan. When they met, the accused informed Tan that he could “treat him to food and cigarettes” but he would not loan him the money. Tan then became angry and he rode off on his motorcycle. Then on 25 Aug 06, he received a series of sms messages from Tan. Although he requested Tan to call him, Tan had claimed that he could not do so as his Hi-card was running low. From the series of sms messages between them, the accused thought that Tan had still wanted to borrow some money. That was why the accused arranged a meeting with Tan that evening.
16. At about 7.00 pm, the accused and his girlfriend, Michele (DW3) left the accused’s flat to go to dinner at the MacDonald’s restaurant nearby. He was surprised when CNB officers rushed into the lift where they were in and arrested them. The CNB officers persistently asked him about the whereabouts of the drugs, and he steadfastly maintained his innocence. No drug was found in his house or on him.
17. The accused also testified that he had been assaulted by several CNB officers. He sought medical treatment at the Changi General Hospital where he was examined by Dr Liew Ching Mei Norene (DW2). Dr Liew confirmed that she had found superficial erythema on the back of his head, a few brownish bruises and a few erythematous bruises on his right elbow, superficial scratches on his right forearm, a few reddish bruises on his left elbow, a red bruise on the lower thoraxic region, bilateral hand cuff marks and redness over his knee cap.
Findings Of The Court
18. The prosecution’s case hinges on two main foundations: (i) the testimony of Tan Swee Hwa, (ii) the series of sms messages between Tan and the accused on 24 Aug 06 and the series of sms messages between SSgt Stanley Tan and the accused on 25 Aug 06.
19. Tan Swee Hwa had been convicted on a charge of trafficking in the same 10 tablets of Erimin 5 by selling them to an undercover CNB officer for S$80/- at the Eunos MRT station at about 8.10 pm on 24 Aug 06. He was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment and 2 strokes of the cane.
20. Under the circumstances, Tan’s testimony fell within the category of accomplice evidence. S.135 of the Evidence Act eliminates the need for the court to expressly remind itself of the perils of relying on accomplice evidence. What the court should do in assessing an accomplice’s evidence is to take the common sense approach of measured wariness and not presumptive or inherent scepticism. The presumption referred to in illustration (b) to s.116 of the Evidence Act is not mandatory but merely permissive and its operation depended on the totality of the circumstances: Roslan Bin Abdul Rani
To continue reading
Request your trial