Sim Cheng Yong v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 10 March 1994
• Date: 10 March 1994
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 55 of 1993
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)

Sim Cheng Yong

Plaintiff

and

Public Prosecutor

Defendant

[1994] SGCA 39

Yong Pung How CJ

,

M Karthigesu JA

and

LP Thean JA

Criminal Appeal No 55 of 1993

Court of Appeal

Criminal Law–Statutory offences–Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 1985 Rev Ed)–Trafficking in controlled drugs–Possession–Drugs kept in two separate containers within bigger outer bag–Whether admission by accused of ownership of bigger outer bag necessarily implied ownership of drugs in inner containers–Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Statements–Voluntariness–Inducement–Accused making cautioned statement after promised assistance by recording officer–Nature of assistance not explicated–Whether general promise of assistance sufficient to constitute inducement

The appellant was charged with the offence of drug trafficking under s 5 (a)of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 1985 Rev Ed). The Prosecution's case rested on the appellant's possession of 68.74g of diamorphine at the time of his arrest. Upon his arrest, a green bag was found in his possession. In the green bag there were two other containers, a red bag containing 7.86g of diamorphine and a newspaper bundle containing 60.01g of the same. The appellant admitted ownership over the green bag. There was a dispute over a further admission made by the appellant; he claimed that he stated the bag contained “peh hoon” (vernacular for diamorphine) whereas the narcotics officer claimed he stated the drugs were “all mine”. The appellant made a cautioned statement, after all the diamorphine in the green bag (including those in the newspaper bundle) had been weighed in his presence, in which he had claimed ownership over “the heroin” and stated that he wished to be dealt with leniently. The appellant was told by the recording officer that if he cooperated the recording officer would assist him, without further details as to the nature of assistance. The appellant's defence was that he did not know about the 60.01g of diamorphine in the newspaper bundle and thus was only guilty of trafficking in 7.86g of diamorphine. The judicial commissioner rejected his defence and convicted him. The appellant appealed, submitting that the officers' account of the exchange between him and the officer who questioned him at the scene of arrest was inaccurate; his cautioned statement was wrongly admitted as it was made as a result of inducement; and the trial judge erred in finding that he, rather than his accomplice, had purchased the drugs in the newspaper bundle.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) Even if the appellant did indeed say “all mine”, this statement was not really detrimental to his case owing to the fact that the appellant's explanation was that he was unaware that the newspaper bundle was in the green bag at that point in time. Hence, even if he had stated “all mine” this would not have included the newspaper bundle if he was unaware of its existence. This supposed admission was not a ground for the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant knew that the bundle was in his possession: at [17].

(2) As the nature of the assistance promised to the accused for making a statement was not explicated, the promise in itself was insufficient to constitute an inducement within s 122 (5) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed): at [18].

(3) As the newspaper bundle in the outer bag would have been obvious to the accused who was in continuous custody of the outer bag, and all the diamorphine had been weighed in his presence prior to his making the cautioned statement in which he claimed ownership over the same, the trial judge did not err in finding that the accused was the one who purchased the drug: at [21].

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) ss 122 (5), 122 (6)

Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 1985 Rev Ed) ss 5 (a), 17

Yang Ing Loong and Lim Cheong Peng (Lee & Lee) for the appellant

Ong Hian Sin (Deputy Public Prosecutor) for the respondent.

M Karthigesu JA

(delivering the judgment of the court):

1 This is an appeal against the decision of T S Sinnathuray J convicting the appellant of trafficking in not less than 68.74g of diamorphine, an offence under s 5 (a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) (“the Act”). After hearing counsel, we dismissed the appeal and indicated we would give our reasons later, which we now do.

2 The Prosecution's case rested on the appellant's possession of 68.74g of diamorphine at the time of his arrest on 14 July 1992. Prior to this date, Inspector P...