Tan Lay Keat v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Karthigesu JA
• Judgment Date: 17 March 1997
• Neutral Citation: [1997] SGCA 13
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 35 of 1996
• Date: 17 March 1997
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1997
• Plaintiff Counsel: Lim Choon Mong (Lim & Lim) and Leo Cheng Suan (Chu Chan Gan & Ooi)
• Citation: [1997] SGCA 13
• Defendant Counsel: Lau Wing Yum (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Trafficking in controlled drugs,Statements,Criminal Law,Intention to return heroin to source on realising that goods were drugs,(follow title of statute: eg misuse of drugs act),Admission of appellant's long statement at end of trial,Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1990 Ed) s 147(3) & s 157,Defence of 'innocent and unsuspecting carrier of heroin',Whether statement is rightly admitted as evidence under s 147(3) of the Evidence Act,Admissibility,Whether appellant is guilty of trafficking by transporting,Statutory offences,Trafficking

(delivering the grounds of judgment of the court):

The appellant was convicted on a charge under s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) of trafficking by transporting six packets of heroin containing not less than 294.5g of diamorphine in taxi SH 2894G from Bishan Street 22 to Ophir Road between 11.45am and 12noon on 19 July 1996. He was sentenced to death. We heard his appeal on 17 March 1997 which we dismissed without calling on the deputy public prosecutor. We now give our reasons.

The facts are not in dispute. In fact the appellant admitted at the trial that when he was arrested by the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) officers at Ophir Road, he was in possession of a black carrier bag which contained a white nylon sack, inside which were six packets of heroin, which were later found to contain 294.5g of diamorphine, the subject matter of the charge. However, he maintained, as will be seen later, that until he had examined the contents of the six packets in the taxi on his way back to People`s Park Complex, he believed he was carrying spare parts for his friend, one Ah Poh. On making this discovery he had panicked and had immediately re-directed the taxi driver to Golden Mile Complex at Beach Road where he hoped to find Ah Poh and confront him. It was then that the CNB officers, who were trailing him, had stopped the taxi at Ophir Road and arrested him. Accordingly, his defence was that he was an innocent and unsuspecting carrier of the heroin.

The appellant had arrived at Bishan Street 22 in taxi SH 2894G from People`s Park Complex where he lived at about 11.40am. At Bishan Street 22 the appellant had directed the taxi driver to proceed to the car park at Block 253 and wait for him whilst the appellant alighted saying he would return shortly. He did return shortly and directed the taxi driver to take him to a coffeeshop at another car park in the vicinity. He had already arranged with the taxi driver to hire his taxi for the next two to three hours. At the second car park the taxi driver went to the coffeeshop for coffee and saw the appellant also taking coffee there. After taking his coffee the taxi driver returned to his taxi to wait for the appellant. After a while the appellant joined him carrying a black carrier bag. He directed the taxi driver to return to the car park at Block 253, where he left the taxi saying he would return in a while. He left the black carrier bag in the taxi. A short while later the appellant returned to the taxi carrying a white nylon sack. He got in and told the taxi driver to take him back to People`s Park Complex.

The foregoing is a digest of the taxi driver`s evidence at the trial.

The appellant`s arrival at the car park at Block 253, Bishan Street 22 was witnessed by a team of four CNB officers. They had arrived there shortly before 11am. They were acting on information received. Their target was Block 253. Immediately on arrival they had surveyed Block 253 and had seen a cardboard box on the staircase landing between levels three and four. The box was approximately one foot square. It was sealed with yellow masking tape. The four CNB officers positioned themselves strategically so that one or two amongst them could observe the car park beside Block 253 and the void deck at the ground level while the others could observe the movements of anyone going to the cardboard box. They were in `walkie-talkie` contact with each other.

At about 11.40am one of the CNB officers spotted the appellant at the void deck of Block 253 talking to someone on his mobile phone. The other CNB officers were immediately alerted. The sum total of the CNB officers` evidence was that the appellant was seen going up the staircase to the landing where the cardboard box was and returning to the taxi carrying what was later identified as the white nylon sack. One of the CNB officers also testified that she had trailed the appellant and whilst she was at the staircase landing between the second and third levels of Block 253, she had heard the sound of paper being torn coming from the level above. It will be remembered that the cardboard box was on the staircase landing between the third and fourth levels of Block 253. After the appellant had left in the taxi the cardboard box was found opened and empty.

The route taken by the taxi driver to return to People`s Park Complex from Bishan Street 22 was Bishan Road, Braddell Road and onto the Central Expressway to the City. However, when they were on the Central Expressway the appellant directed the taxi driver to go to Golden Mile Complex in Beach Road instead. The taxi driver in his evidence said that he then turned off the Central Expressway into Bukit Timah Road and was proceeding along Ophir Road when he had to slow down in the traffic between Queen Street and Johore Road. It was then that the CNB officers who had been trailing the taxi since it left Bishan Street 22 boarded the taxi and arrested the appellant.

The appellant was seated in the rear seat of the taxi. He had with him the black carrier bag referred to earlier. This was seized by Inspector Chow Toong Chee (Insp Chow), who was following the CNB car trailing the taxi. Insp Chow asked the appellant what he had in the black carrier bag. The appellant answered that he had six bundles of white powder. The questions and answers were in the Hokkien dialect and duly recorded by Insp Chow and initialled by the appellant. After that Insp Chow unzipped the black carrier bag and took out the white nylon sack which was inside it. The white nylon sack contained the six packets of heroin which the scientific evidence showed contained 294.5g of diamorphine.

To further questioning by Insp Chow the appellant said that he had taken the six packets of heroin which were in the white nylon sack from a cardboard box at `Bishan Blk 253`. These questions and answers were also in the Hokkien dialect and duly recorded by Insp Chow and initialled by the appellant. Both these statements were admitted in evidence as part of the prosecution`s evidence without objection from the appellant. It was also in evidence that later the appellant was taken to Block 253 at Bishan Street 22 where he identified the cardboard box from which he had taken the white nylon sack containing the six...