Tan Chin Hock v Public Prosecutor
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
Judge | Chan Sek Keong CJ |
Judgment Date | 16 December 2010 |
Neutral Citation | [2010] SGCA 49 |
Citation | [2010] SGCA 49 |
Defendant Counsel | Lee Sing Lit, Pao Pei Yu Peggy and Chan Huseh Mei Agnes (Attorney-General's Chambers) |
Published date | 22 December 2010 |
Plaintiff Counsel | James Bahadur Masih (James Masih & Co) and Ong Cheong Wei (Ong Cheong Wei & Co) |
Hearing Date | 17 August 2010 |
Docket Number | Criminal Appeal No 18 of 2009 |
Date | 16 December 2010 |
Subject Matter | Presumptions,Criminal Law,Statutory Offences,Evidence,Misuse of Drugs Act,Proof of Evidence |
The appellant, Tan Chin Hock, was convicted by a High Court judge (“the trial judge”) of having in his possession 64.34g of diamorphine for the purposes of trafficking, an offence under s 5(1)(
The appellant appealed against the trial judge’s decision. At the conclusion of the hearing of the appeal, we dismissed the appeal as there was, in our view, no reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of the offence which he was convicted of. We also said that we would give our reasons for dismissing the appeal; we now set out those reasons.
Background facts The findings of fact of the trial judge are set out succinctly at [2]–[4] of the GD, which are reproduced below:
On appeal, the appellant did not dispute the trial judge’s findings of fact and also did not dispute that he had elected to remain silent when his defence was called. Although the trial judge did not, in the GD, refer specifically to the evidence led by the Prosecution on the scientific analysis carried out on the “36 packets of white substance” (see [2] of the GD) found in the possession of the appellant at the time of his arrest (“the White Substance”), the record of proceedings showed that the Prosecution produced 22 certificates of analysis issued under s 16 of the MDA as proof of the type and the quantity of controlled drug contained in the White Substance. For convenience, we shall hereafter refer to these 22 certificates collectively as “P67–P88”, and to a certificate issued under s 16 of the MDA as a “s 16 MDA certificate”. A prosecution witness, Ms Lim Jong Lee Wendy (“PW5”), an analyst employed by the Health Sciences Authority (“HSA”), testified that P67–P88 were signed by her.
At the trial, the appellant did not challenge the validity of P67–P88. On appeal to this court, however, the appellant mounted such a challenge on the ground that PW5 had not explained precisely the steps taken to test the White Substance. It was argued that as a result of PW5’s failure in this regard, the Prosecution had failed to comply with the requirements of the law (as understood by the appellant (see further
[T]here is no evidence whatever as to who conducted the laboratory tests on the [White Substance] or what method was used or in any event how the tests were done. We [have] not [been] made aware whether [it was] the Analyst herself, PW5, who did the tests or whether it was someone else. We do not even have any evidence on record whether PW5 supervised the testing of the [White Substance].
The appellant’s argument as outlined above was based on certain observations made by the judge who heard the magistrate’s appeal in
To better understand the appellant’s case before this court, which (as just mentioned) hinged upon certain
The accused in
On appeal to the High Court, the Prosecution withdrew its reliance on Ms Kuan’s s 16 MDA certificate and the s 22 MDA presumption, with the result that the Prosecution had no evidence against Lim on the offence charged, except for the confession given in his cautioned statement recorded on 20 March 2008 under s 122(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) (“the CPC”). That confession (“the s 122(6) confession”) was as follows:
I admit to my guilt and hope for a lighter sentence. I am married with 3 kids and I hope that I can be given a chance. I also have aged parents whom I visit often because my mother has difficulty walking.
The Prosecution argued that the s 122(6) confession by Lim and his decision to remain silent when his defence was called were, taken together, sufficient evidence to convict Lim of the offence charged. The MA judge disagreed and held that those two factors were not sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Lim
The MA judge held that there was no evidence that Lim was capable of identifying norketamine as his previous convictions for the offence of unauthorised drug consumption under s 8 of the MDA (“the offence of drug consumption”) related to other drugs, such as ketamine or nimetazepam, but not norketamine, and no evidence was led by the Prosecution to show that ketamine and nimetazepam were similar to norketamine. The MA judge also noted that Lim had made the s 122(6) confession to the investigating officer only when he was informed by the latter that norketamine had been found in his urine sample after tests done by HSA. The MA judge found it “curious that [Lim had] confessed his guilt in the course of being cautioned, the whole purpose of which [was] for him to state any defence he might have” (see
We do not propose to comment on the merits of the actual decision in
To continue reading
Request your trial-
PP v Mohammad Ashik bin Aris
...Heng [2007] 4 SLR (R) 183; [2007] 4 SLR 183 (refd) PP v Tan Loon Lui [2003] 2 SLR (R) 216; [2003] 2 SLR 216 (refd) Tan Chin Hock v PP [2011] 1 SLR 1079 (folld) Vadugaiah Mahendran v PP [1995] 3 SLR (R) 719; [1996] 1 SLR 289 (refd) Dangerous Drugs Act (Cap 151, 1970 Rev Ed) Drugs (Prevention......
-
Public Prosecutor v Mohammad Ashik bin Aris
...in s 16. The nature of the s 16 presumption was also recently discussed by the Court of Appeal in Tan Chin Hock v Public Prosecutor [2010] SGCA 49. Chan Sek Keong CJ, delivering the decision of the court, said (at [26]): The effect of s 16 is that where a s 16 MDA certificate is admitted in......
-
Mohammad Ashik bin Aris v PP
...Huat [1990] 2 SLR (R) 246; [1990] SLR 915 (refd) PP v Tan Loon Lui [2003] 2 SLR (R) 216; [2003] 2 SLR 216 (refd) Tan Chin Hock v PP [2011] 1 SLR 1079 (refd) Vadugaiah Mahendran v PP [1995] 3 SLR (R) 719; [1996] 1 SLR 289 (refd) Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) s 9 A Misuse of Drugs A......
-
Public Prosecutor v Mohamed Fauzy Bin Razali
...presumptive proof of the matters they set out unless the accused is able to prove the contrary to those matters (see Tan Chin Hock v PP [2011] 1 SLR 1079). Ultimately, the accused did not adduce any evidence to explain or dispute the presence of MAM in his urine specimens. I am therefore sa......