Sukor v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chao Hick Tin J
• Judgment Date: 28 October 1994
• Neutral Citation: [1994] SGCA 122
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 27 of 1994
• Date: 28 October 1994
• Year: 1994
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Aqbal Singh (Aqbal Singh & Pnrs) and Sim Eu Jin (Peter Yap & Co)
• Citation: [1994] SGCA 122
• Defendant Counsel: Lau Wing Yum (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Accused pleading guilty to trafficking in part of the drugs found,Criminal Law,Whether prosecution had to prove exclusive access to flat to prove possession,ss 17 & 18 Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185),Accused retaining keys to flat in which drugs were found,Trafficking in controlled drugs,Possession,(follow title of statute: eg misuse of drugs act),Statutory offences

The appellant was tried in the High Court on two capital charges of drug trafficking. The first alleged that he had trafficked in not less than 15.01g of diamorphine on 13 October 1993; while the second alleged that on the same day, he had trafficked in 38 packets of substance containing not less than 53.81g of diamorphine. Subsequently the first charge against the appellant was amended to specify a quantity of diamorphine of not less than 10g and not more than 15g. The appellant pleaded guilty to this amended charge and was sentenced to 20 years` imprisonment as well as 15 strokes of the cane. As to the second charge, the trial judge found at the close of the trial that it had been proven beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. Accordingly he convicted the appellant on the second charge and sentenced him to the mandatory death penalty.

The appellant appealed against his conviction on the second charge. Having heard the submissions of counsel, we dismissed the appeal and now give our reasons in writing.

The facts

The facts of the case were essentially as follows. On 13 October 1993 at about 2.25pm the appellant was arrested by Corporal Kamsani bin Said (Kamsani) of Jurong Police and a party of other officers, on the tenth-floor staircase landing of Blk 4 Dover Road. Prior to the appellant`s arrest, Kamsani had, acting on information received, put a call through to pager number 2161690, giving his own pager number in return. A while later he received a call on his own pager indicating the telephone number 7744758. He made a telephone call to this number and when his call was answered, he asked for `Ah Pai`. He told the male person answering the telephone that he wished to buy 11 packets of heroin and that he would telephone again as soon as he reached the void deck of Blk 4 Dover Road.

At about 2.25pm, Kamsani arrived at Blk 4 with a group of other officers including two officers from the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB). Kamsani made another call to telephone number 7744758 and was answered by the same male person who had taken his first call. After telling this male person to meet him on the tenth-floor staircase landing, Kamsani went up to the tenth floor in the company of Constable Musa bin Abdullah (Musa). Just as they came to the tenth-floor staircase landing, a male Malay (subsequently discovered to be the appellant) walked down the stairs. The said male Malay responded when Kamsani uttered the name `Ah Pai`, whereupon Kamsani told him that he was the caller who had asked to buy 11 packets of heroin. The appellant then gave Kamsani a plastic bag which he was carrying. At this point Kamsani identified himself as a police officer. At once the appellant tried to flee but was prevented from doing so by Kamsani and Musa, who held him down and handcuffed him. The other officers soon arrived on the scene. The plastic bag given to Kamsani by the appellant was examined and found to contain 11 packets of a substance suspected to be heroin.

Asked where he had come from, the appellant replied that he had come from flat number 398 on the thirteenth floor. He also added that he did not in fact reside there but at Holland Drive instead. The officers proceeded to flat #13-398 with the appellant. The metal gate and the wooden door to the flat were opened with two out of the bunch of three keys which the appellant had on his person. Inside the only bedroom of the flat, the officers came upon an assortment of paraphernalia associated with the consumption and packing of heroin. They also found $950 in cash and a plastic container in which were stored 38 packets of a substance suspected to be heroin. On the carpet in the bedroom was a blue bag containing a zone phone as well as the appellant`s identity card. The appellant later admitted that the blue bag belonged to him.

The number of the telephone in flat #13-398 was ascertained to be 7744758. Next to the telephone the officers found a pager for which the number was ascertained to be 2161690.

Upon subsequent analysis the substance in the 11 packets handed to Kamsani by the appellant was confirmed to be heroin, the net weight of which amounted to 15.01g at a confidence level of 99.9999%. The 38 packets placed in the plastic container inside the flat also contained heroin, the net weight of which amounted to 53.81g at a confidence level of 99.9999%. The 11 packets of heroin became the subject of the first charge against the appellant, whilst the other 38 packets formed the subject of the second charge. In the course of the trial, however, the prosecution amended the first charge by substituting a quantity of `not less than 10g and not more than 15g of diamorphine` for the original `not less than 15.01g` alleged. The appellant pleaded guilty to the amended charge and, as stated above, was sentenced to 20 years` imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane. The amended first charge and his guilty plea thereto formed no part of the present appeal. In consequence we shall deal, in these written grounds, with the evidence adduced at trial in so far as such evidence was material to the second charge against the appellant.

The rest of the evidence led at the trial below related largely to the flat #13-398 as well as the telephone and pager found in the flat. It transpired that the owner of the flat was one Shamsudin bin Subali. He and his wife...