Sim Ah Cheoh and Others v Public Prosecutor

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeChan Sek Keong J
Judgment Date31 May 1991
Neutral Citation[1991] SGCA 14
Docket NumberCriminal Appeal No 12 of 1988
Date31 May 1991
Published date19 September 2003
Year1991
Plaintiff CounselP Palakrishnan (Palakrishnan & Partners)
Citation[1991] SGCA 14
Defendant CounselDenis Tan (Toh Tan & Partners),Lee Ah Fong (Ng Lee & Partners),Chan Seng Onn (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
CourtCourt of Appeal (Singapore)
Subject MatterPresumptions,Misuse of Drugs Act,Confessions,Whether statement admissible,Cross-examination by recorder when statement was taken,Confession used to implicate another accused,Proof of evidence,Evidence,Inference of transportation,Confession of co-accused,Statements,Calling of defence,Criminal Law,s 189 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68),s 5(a) Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185),Trials,Test to be applied in convicting accused,Trafficking in controlled drugs,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Cautioned statement,Statutory offences,s 30 Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1990 Ed),Principles to be applied,s 122(6) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68),Accused remaining silent after defence called,Transportation of drugs

The first appellant, Sim Ah Cheoh (Sim), a woman, was charged in the High Court under s 5(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) (the Act) with trafficking in a substantial quantity of drugs, namely, ten packets containing not less than 1,370.3g of diamorphine, on 26 April 1985 by transporting them from Hotel Negara at Claymore Drive to Changi Airport. The second and third appellants, Tan Chong Ngee Ronald (Tan) and Lim Joo Yin (Lim), were jointly charged under s 5(1) read with s 12 of the Act with abetting Sim in committing that offence. All three of them were tried jointly and were each found guilty of the charges and were convicted. Against the convictions, this appeal was brought, and at the conclusion of the hearing we dismissed it. We now give our reasons.

The evidence adduced by the prosecution which is not in dispute is this.
Sometime in February 1985, Tan enquired of one of his friends, Loo Lian Seng, whether the latter knew anyone who might be willing to engage in smuggling `precious stones`. In the following month, Loo furnished Tan with the name and telephone number of Sim and informed Tan that Sim might be interested. Sim at that time was heavily in debt due to excessive gambling and had indicated that she was so interested. As a result of the information given by Loo, Tan got in touch with Sim. Thereafter, Tan and Lim made all necessary arrangements for Sim to travel from Singapore to the United States of America: Tan assisted her in obtaining a visa to travel to the United States and Lim made a booking for her for the `West Coast Panorama` tour of the United States organized by Sino-America Travel Corporation Pte Ltd (SATCO) and paid for the cost of the tour. The tour was scheduled to depart from Singapore on 26 April 1985 at 3pm on Singapore Airlines flight SQ 2.

On 25 April 1985, Tan reserved a single room at Hotel Negara in his name.
He checked into the hotel that evening and early in the following morning he left in a taxi for Pearl Bank Apartment. Sim lived in one of the flats in Pearl Bank Apartment. There was no evidence that Tan met Sim there that morning; but there was evidence that soon after his arrival at that block of apartments he took a Chinese woman in a taxi from there to Hotel Negara. There was evidence that on that morning Sim and Tan had breakfast at the Chinta Manis Coffee House in Hotel Negara. There was also evidence that soon after 10am, the same morning, a waiter, Ng Cheng Bye, served a plate of pork chop to Tan in his room. At about 12 noon, Tan checked out of the hotel. Again there was no evidence that Sim left the hotel with Tan. There was evidence, however, that Tan and a Chinese woman at the hotel took a taxi to the airport, and on arrival at the airport the Chinese woman alighted at the departure hall, while Tan remained in the taxi and returned to the city.

At the airport departure hall, at about 12 noon on 26 April 1985, officers from the Central Narcotics Bureau led by Chief Narcotics Officer Teo Ho Peng (`CNO Teo`) were keeping a lookout for Sim.
On the previous day, CNO Teo acting on information had been to SATCO and spoken to one Joanne Lam Yoke Chan, an employee of SATCO, who was to lead the `West Coast Panorama` tour to the United States. He enquired about Sim and was informed that Sim was one of the 12 persons joining the tour and he was given a copy of the list of passengers. He instructed Joanne Lam to identify Sim and her luggage to him at the airport on the following day. Joanne Lam, on 26 April 1985, arrived at the airport at about 12.45pm. She had with her her passengers` flight tickets and passports, including those of Sim. At the airport, Joanne Lam met CNO Teo again and also a woman assistant narcotics officer Wong See Joon (`WNO Wong`) and was reminded by CNO Teo of the arrangement. Joanne Lam was also instructed to check in Sim`s luggage but ensure that it was not placed on a conveyor belt as the luggage would be searched.

Passengers for flight SQ 2 were to check in at counter 3 in the departure hall, and accordingly Joanne Lam proceeded to counter 3 with WNO Wong.
In the vicinity of that counter, she saw Sim with her luggage and she approached Sim who identified herself as Sim. Joanne Lam then nodded to CNO Teo thus indicating that the person she spoke to was Sim. Joanne Lam then took Sim`s luggage and checked in the same as instructed.

Among the narcotics officers who were at the departure hall was Senior Narcotics Officer Lim Chei Yoo (SNO Lim); he was the investigating officer with direct responsibility in the case, reporting, however, to CNO Teo.
He took up his position close to counter 3 and saw CNO Teo and WNO Wong speaking to Joanne Lam. Subsequently, he saw CNO Teo signalling to him thus indicating Sim to him. Later, he saw Joanne Lam approaching Sim and handing her passport and boarding pass to her, following which Sim walked to the departure gate and passed through the immigration counter. SNO Lim and other narcotics officers trailed her. Sim proceeded to departure gate C32 and entered the screening room. In the screening room, SNO Lim approached her, identified himself and took possession of her passport. Other narcotics officers came and Sim was brought outside the screening room. There, another woman assistant narcotics officer, Lim Peck Yan, was present. SNO Lim instructed WNO Lim Peck Yan to act as an interpreter in Mandarin and told Sim that he was a narcotics officer. He asked Sim through WNO Lim Peck Yan whether she had any drugs in her possession, to which Sim replied, pointing to her chest, in Mandarin: `Yes, few packets inside.` Later, Sim told SNO Lim that she did not know what the packets contained.

CNO Teo arrived at the departure gate soon afterwards and gave instructions for Sim to be searched.
She was escorted to the search room and was searched by the two woman assistant narcotics officers, Wong See Joon and Lim Peck Yan, and was found to have cloth bags strapped or otherwise attached to her person. She was wearing an abdominal binder, a panty girdle and a thigh guard on each thigh. Two long cloth bags and three smaller bags were held in place under the abdominal binder. Under the panty girdle were two long cloth bags, one against each hip. A third bag was held by the girdle against Sim`s abdomen. There was a long cloth bag under each thigh guard. Each of these bags, wrapped in masking tape, held a plastic packet containing white powder. In total there were ten packets.

Later, Sim was taken to the Central Narcotics Bu.
At the Bureau, Sim told SNO Lim that when she reached the United States she was to hand the drugs she was carrying to a person who would hand her a HK$100 note, the last digit of the serial number of which would be in a sequence to that of a HK$10 note in her possession. She handed the HK$10 note to SNO Lim.

Later in the afternoon, arrangements were made for a statement to be recorded from her under s 122(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) (CPC).
The recording officer was Senior Narcotics Officer S Vijakumar and the interpreter was Wu Nan Yong. The woman assistant narcotics officer, Wong See Joon, was also present. A statement was recorded from her, to which we shall revert in a moment.

Meanwhile, instructions had been given to narcoofficers to arrest Tan and Lim.
They were arrested the same evening and brought to the Central Narcotics Bureau. When they were brought to SNO Lim`s office at about 8.45pm, Sim was there, and on seeing Tan and Lim, she identified them to SNO Lim as being the persons who had assisted her. Sim was then escorted out to another room. Tan and Lim were searched and among the items found in Lim`s person were (i) a slip of paper bearing the full name and identity card number of Sim and (ii) another slip of paper with Sim`s full name on it, some figures and the legend `S & USA` and two copies of a document containing flight details and an itinerary issued by SATCO. It was subsequently ascertained that the slip of paper described in (i) was written by Tan to Lim.

On the following day, arrangements were made for statements to be recorded from Tan and Lim under s 122(6) of the CPC.
The recording officer was also SNO Vijakumar and the interpreter was Wu Nan Yong. Statements were recorded from both of them respectively to which we shall refer in a moment.

The contents of the ten packets found on Sim`s person were analysed and were found to contain not less than 1,370.3g of diamorphine.


At the trial, the admissibility of the statements made by the appellants respectively was objected to by their respective counsel on the ground that they were in each case not made voluntarily.
A trial within a trial was held, and the trial judges at the conclusion found that each of the statements was made voluntarily. They were therefore admitted in evidence. The material part of the statement of Sim was as follows:

I was made use by a male Chinese whose name I don`t know. About a month ago he told me to smuggle diamonds and I agreed. About two weeks ago he told me to smuggle `peh hoon` and the amount will only be one packet. I agreed as I thought the quantity is small. He also told me that even if I were to be arrested in US I would be jailed for a few years only. This morning at about 5am he fetched me from my home to a hotel in Orchard Road. Inside the hotel room another male Chinese took out and showed me ten packets of `peh hoon` which were already packed. The first male Chinese asked me to strap them to my body. I told him I could not carry the ten packets of `peh hoon` because it would be difficult to strap all to my body. He then told me that he has already promised someone in US to deliver ten packets of `peh hoon`. Then I strapped the ten packets to my body. After strapping he gave me a piece of Hong Kong dollar note stating that the person who`s to take delivery of the ten packets of `peh hoon` will produce another Hong Kong dollar note, the last digit of the serial number
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 cases
  • Abdul Rashid and Another v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 1 December 1993
    ... ... v PP which reaffirmed the traditional Indian approach in construing s 30 of the Evidence Act as earlier adopted by this court in Sim Ah Cheoh & Ors v PP and Tan Siew Chay & Ors v PP ... The essence of the Indian approach as applied to this appeal would be that s 30 of the Evidence Act ... ...
  • Syed Yasser Arafat bin Shaik Mohamed v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 24 August 2000
    ... ... But there is a line to be drawn. The case of Sim Ah Cheoh & Ors v PP [1991] SLR 150 made it clear that if the questioning was too vigorous or prolonged, it would become oppressive, and the statements ... ...
  • Yusof bin A Samad v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 4 September 2000
    ...[1998] 2 SLR (R) 119; [1998] 2 SLR 878 (distd) Seow Choon Meng v PP [1994] 2 SLR (R) 338; [1994] 2 SLR 853 (folld) Sim Ah Cheoh v PP [1991] 1 SLR (R) 961; [1991] SLR 150 (folld) Sim Cheng Yong v PP [1994] 1 SLR (R) 689; [1994] 1 SLR 722 (refd) Tan Choon Huat v PP [1991] 1 SLR (R) 863; [1991......
  • Tan Siew Chay and Others v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 20 February 1993
    ... ... It is settled beyond doubt that narcotics officers are not police officers and that statements made to a narcotics officer are not subject to s 122(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code or ss 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act: see Sim Ah Cheoh & Ors v PP [1991] 2 MLJ 353 at p 360 and Tan Boon Tat v PP 5 at p 9. In Loong Phong Hoy v PP [1981] 2 MLJ 55 it was argued before this court that the oral statements made by the accused to the narcotics officer were not admissible in evidence by reason of s 121(1) (now s 122(1)) ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • THE CONCEPT OF VOLUNTARINESS IN THE LAW OF CONFESSIONS
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2005, December 2005
    • 1 December 2005
    ...effect of his failure to mention any fact he intended to rely on in his defence (the present s 122(6)). See also Sim Ah Cheoh v PP[1991] SLR 150 for the legislative history. 22 Wigmore, Treatise on Evidence (Little Brown and Company, 3rd Ed, 1940) at paras 2183—2184; J A Andrews, “Involunta......
  • Criminal Procedure, Evidence and Sentencing
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2002, December 2002
    • 1 December 2002
    ...as long as it is voluntarily given. It has been established in cases such as Chai Chien Wei Kelvin v PP[1999] 1 SLR 25, Sim Ah Cheoh v PP[1991] SLR 150 and Tan Siew Chay v PP[1993] 2 SLR 14 that officers of the Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) are not police officers and therefore the admis......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT