Sze Siew Luan v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 17 April 1997
• Neutral Citation: [1997] SGHC 100
• Defendant Counsel: R Palakrishnan (Palakrishnan & Partners),Deena Abdul Aziz Bajrai (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Date: 17 April 1997
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Citation: [1997] SGHC 100
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 208 of 1996
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Year: 1997

The appellant was convicted on one count of trafficking in 1,200g of opium containing not less than 20g of morphine by having it in her possession for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) (`the Act`) read with s 5(2), one count of unauthorised possession of 24,988g of opium contrary to s 8(a) of the Act, and one count of unauthorised possession of apparatus used in the consumption of a controlled drug contrary to s 9 of the Act. I dismissed her appeal against conviction. I now give my grounds.

The undisputed facts were that different quantities of opium were found at various places in the appellant`s flat. It was common ground that the only two other persons who had the keys to the flat, namely, the appellant`s son and daughter, did not know about the opium.

The locations of the opium found were as follows:

(a) seven bundles weighing 821.7g, 925.1g, 1,486g containing not less than 89.97g of morphine, 1,576g containing not less than 69.75g of morphine, 1,403g, 1,569g and 1,339g respectively in a styrofoam box on top of the wardrobe in the appellant`s bedroom;

(b) three bundles containing in total not less than 1,870g of opium in a plastic bag on the lower shelf in the wardrobe above;

(c) a total of 558.73g in seven containers and 55.54g in two plastic bags found in a chest of drawers in the appellant`s bedroom;

(d) 576.1g in a milk tin in a box on the floor of the appellant`s bedroom;

(e) 61.86g in another two containers on the floor at another part of the appellant`s bedroom;

(f) 727.2g in a bundle on the lower shelf of a display cabinet in the hall extension;

(g) 5,080g, 4,242g, 1,497g, 2,255g and 145.3g in five containers together with another stained with opium in a kitchen cabinet.

The apportionment of 1,200g and 24,988g was arrived at as a result of the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Essentially, one capital charge of trafficking was split into two non-capital charges of trafficking in a much smaller amount and possession of the rest. It was necessarily artificial and there was no indication which of the drugs the respective charges referred to.

The apparatus used in the consumption of drugs were eight opium pipes. Five were found in two suitcases placed on top of the wardrobe and three in the chest of drawers in the appellant`s bedroom. I need not deal with this aspect of the case as counsel for the appellant did not argue against the conviction for possession of these articles.

The appellant`s defence in respect of the first two charges was that the drugs (apart from the small amount in the drawers which the appellant admitted was hers) belonged to one Tan Hock Lye (`Tan`). Her evidence was that, when Tan was taken to the flat after the search, Tan had admitted that the opium belonged to him.

The crux of the defence was that she had allowed Tan to keep opium at her flat. In return, he gave her some opium. She had merely allowed Tan into the flat whenever he came and, essentially, left him to do whatever he pleased. When he left, he just closed the door and it locked by itself. She admitted that she gave him permission to keep opium in her flat.

Counsel for the appellant made two arguments in...