Teo Hock Seng v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lord Diplock
• Judgment Date: 27 February 1978
• Neutral Citation: [1978] SGPC 1
• Docket Number: Privy Council Appeal No 38 of
• Date: 27 February 1978
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1978
• Plaintiff Counsel: George Newman (Coward Chance)
• Citation: [1978] SGPC 1
• Defendant Counsel: Stuart McKinnon (Charles Russell & Co)
• Court: Privy Council
• Subject Matter: Witnesses,Request for adjournment refused,Expert called by defence,Reliability of expert witness,Expert evidence,Admissibility,ss 3(a) & 14 Misuse of Drugs Act 1973,Statements,Expert evidence to establish quantity of morphine,Evidence,Cautioned statement,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Whether judges erred in admitting confession without giving accused's counsel opportunity to make representations thereon

Cur Adv Vult

(delivering the judgment of the Board): At his trial before two judges of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore the appellant was convicted of an offence under s 3(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1973, of trafficking in 46.38g of morphine.

Trafficking for the purposes of the Act includes transporting and the penalty for the offence depends upon the nature and the quantity of the drug involved. In the case of morphine, if the quantity involved is more than 30g the mandatory penalty is death. The significance of the figure of 46.38g in the charge is that it is more than 50% greater than the minimum weight that attracts the death penalty.

The facts as found by the trial judges can be stated shortly. On 9 January 1976 the appellant was stopped at the frontier while travelling in a taxi to Singapore from Johore Bahru. He was searched and found to have concealed in his sock two packages, each containing a block of a brown substance. Together these weighed 75g. At first the appellant said that the packages contained a medicine for the stomach, that he was carrying for an acquaintance and, at the acquaintance`s request, he had concealed it in order to avoid paying import duty. Subsequently, however, after he had been arrested, charged and cautioned, he made a statement in Hokkien which was translated into English and signed by the appellant. In this statement he admitted the offence of trafficking in about 75g of morphine.

On the following day, the two packages were handed to the government chemist for analysis. He subjected them to a qualitative test, known as paper chromatography for the indication of the presence of morphine and afterwards to a quantitative test known as gas chromatography to ascertain the weight of morphine present in the two packages. The results of these analyses were that the morphine content of the two packages amounted to 46.38g. The chemist issued certificates to this effect which were produced at the preliminary bearing of the charge against the appellant in the subordinate court early in March 1976. By s 14 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1973, the certificates were prima facie evidence of the facts certified.

The appellant reserved his defence and was committed for trial in the High Court.

The hearing in the High Court was due to open on Monday 5 July 1976. On Thursday 1 July Dr Rintoul, a chemist instructed on behalf of the appellant, was given by the government chemist samples of the contents of the two packages for analysis. The government chemist also took occasion on that day to repeat his own analyses of the contents of the packages by gas chromatography. These new analyses produced the same results as before within less than 2% difference. This is within the margin of error to be expected with this method of quantitative analysis.

At the trial, the prosecution did not rely exclusively upon the certificates of analysis as evidence of the morphine content of the packages. The government chemist was called to give oral evidence of an the analyses which he had made. In the course of his evidence he mentioned that he had found a small quantity of codeine in addition to the 46.38g of morphine. Codeine is a methyl derivative of morphine.

For reasons which do not now call for mention, Dr Rintoul did not start his quantitative analysis until Tuesday 6 July although he had verified...