Teo Yeow Chuah v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chao Hick Tin JA
• Judgment Date: 16 April 2004
• Neutral Citation: [2004] SGCA 17
• Date: 16 April 2004
• Subject Matter: Whether presumption under s 17 can be triggered by operation of presumption under s 18,Whether trial judge failed to appreciate that appellant's long statements not made voluntarily,Whether trial judge wrongly admitted appellant's statement,Criminal Law,Charge,Sections 17, 18 Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2001 Rev Ed),When presumption under s 17 applicable,Presumption of drugs prima facie established,Voir dire,Essentials of content,Admissibility,Statements,Whether appellant informed of death penalty,Statutory offences,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Voluntariness,Whether trial judge erred in using evidence adduced in voir dire at main trial
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 16 of 2003
• Published date: 20 April 2004
• Defendant Counsel: Eddy Tham (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Wong Siew Hong (Infinitus Law Corporation) and Chen Chee Yen (Tan Rajah and Cheah)

16 April 2004

MPH Rubin J (delivering the judgment of the court):

1 The appellant, Teo Yeow Chuah (“Teo”) was charged and tried in the High Court before Woo Bih Li J for being in possession of not less than 55.29g of diamorphine for the purpose of trafficking. At the conclusion of the trial, Teo was convicted and sentenced to death on 26 November 2003. The charge against Teo was:

That you, Teo Yeow Chuah, on or about the 29^th day of January 2003, at about 7.30 p.m., at the rooftop outside unit #04-01 Fragrance Court, No. 12 Yew Siang Road, Singapore, did traffic in a controlled drug specified in Class ‘A’ of the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185, to wit, by having in your possession for the purpose of trafficking, 2 big packets and 89 small packets of substance containing not less than 55.29 grams of diamorphine at the said place, without any authorisation under the said Act or the regulations made thereunder, and you have thereby committed an offence under section 5(1)(a) read with section 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, Chapter 185, and punishable under section 33 of the Misuse of Drugs Act.

Prosecution evidence

2 Teo was arrested on 29 January 2003 by officers from the Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) at the staircase of a multi-storey car park at Block 10 Everton Road/Cantonment Close (the “multi-storey car park”). Prior to his arrest, the CNB officers had conducted surveillance on Teo following information that Teo and one Lee Siong Lim (“Ah Siong”) knew each other and that drugs were stored at Fragrance Court, a four-storey apartment block.

3 Teo was searched and several items, including a bunch of six keys, a “Marlboro” cigarette box containing a sachet of heroin, a rolled-up piece of paper and a piece of tin foil, were found on him. Upon questioning by Station Inspector Ang Oon Tho (“SI Ang”), Teo admitted that he had kept drugs at the driver’s door of vehicle number SBR4X, a gold-coloured BMW, that he had parked at the multi-storey car park. The vehicle was searched and ten sachets of heroin wrapped in paper and an “Elsema” remote control were recovered. Teo informed SI Ang that the remote control was for the opening of the main gate of Fragrance Court.

4 The CNB officers escorted Teo to unit #04-01 of Fragrance Court (“the apartment”), where Teo had rented a bedroom on the second floor (“the bedroom”). On entering the apartment, SI Ang asked Teo whether there were any drugs in the bedroom. Teo denied this. SI Ang conducted a search of the bedroom and found several items in a wardrobe, a drawer beneath the platform bed and on the floor. These items were a white plastic bag containing some empty sachets, a red plastic bag containing some rubber gloves, an empty sealer box, a plastic container, a spoon believed to be stained with heroin and a “Ghostbusters” magazine with several missing pages.

5 Thereafter, SI Ang climbed out of the bedroom through an unlocked window that led to the rooftop of Fragrance Court. He searched the rooftop and found a knotted black plastic bag behind a pillar at one end of the rooftop. The plastic bag contained a black “Oakley” sports bag (“the Oakley bag”) that had its zip secured with a padlock. SI Ang brought the plastic bag together with the Oakley bag into the bedroom and showed them to Teo. Teo admitted that the Oakley bag belonged to him. SI Ang then asked Teo for the key to the padlock securing the zip of the Oakley bag. Teo informed SI Ang that the key was among the bunch of six keys recovered from him earlier.

6 When unlocked, the Oakley bag was found to contain the following items:

Main compartment

(a) A bundle of substance wrapped in paper. The substance was believed to be heroin.

(b) A “Soda” brand plastic bag containing two bundles of substance wrapped in paper. The substance was believed to contain heroin.

(c) An “M1” brand paper bag containing:

(i) Eight packets, each containing ten sachets of substance wrapped in paper from a “Ghostbusters” magazine. The substance was believed to be heroin.

(ii) One packet containing nine sachets of substance wrapped in paper from a “Ghostbusters” magazine. The substance was believed to be heroin.

(d) A white plastic bag containing:

(i) A brown envelope containing a weighing scale.

(ii) A black plastic bag containing a second weighing scale.

(iii) A blue-coloured bag containing a third weighing scale.

(e) A sealer.

Side pocket

(f) A metal spoon.

(g) A pincer.

(h) A cutter.

(i) Some empty sachets.

(j) Some empty plastic bags.

(k) A roll of scotch tape.

(l) A plastic container.

(m) A pair of pliers.

(n) A blade.

(o) A white envelope containing three yellow and one blue tablet believed to be “Ecstasy”.

7 SI Ang questioned Teo as to the ownership of the drugs and items found in the Oakley bag. Teo admitted that all the drugs and items belonged to him. At about 8.00pm, SI Ang asked Teo further questions in the Mandarin language. The questions and answers were recorded in SI Ang’s pocket book in Chinese script with an English translation. The significant questions and answers were found at questions 4 to 6. They are reproduced below:

Q4: All the “Peh Hoon” [“white powder”] found inside the bedroom belong to whom

A4: Mine

Q5: How much “Peh Hoon” are there

A5: About 4 bundle

Q6: All the “Peh Hoon” is for what purpose

A6: For selling

8 There was an objection from the Defence as to the admissibility of Teo’s purported answers to questions 4 and 6. It was contended by the Defence that Teo’s said answers were not voluntary and they were given as a result of threats and intimidation from SI Ang. Consequently, a trial within a trial was held by the trial judge to determine the admissibility of the said answers. In the end, after reviewing all the evidence tendered at the trial within a trial including a few unsatisfactory aspects in the evidence of SI Ang, the said answers were admitted in evidence by the trial judge as being voluntarily made without any threat, inducement or promise. It should be presently mentioned that Teo was represented at all times at the trial by a briefed counsel. Apart from the objection raised in relation to the statement recorded by SI Ang mentioned here, neither Teo nor his counsel raised any objection to the admissibility of the other statements recorded from the accused which the Prosecution sought to admit.

9 The items in the Oakley bag were sent for analysis, and in the event, it was established that (a) the two bundles of substance in the “Soda” brand plastic bag contained diamorphine and (b) the nine packets in the “M1” brand paper bag in turn contained a total of 89 sachets of diamorphine. In all, the diamorphine content and weight of the substance found in these two bundles (or big packets, as referred to in the charge) and 89 sachets was 55.29g.

10 On 30 January 2003, the Investigating Officer, Inspector Abdul Halim bin Abdul Rahman, (“IO Halim”), together with the help of interpreter Tan Chee Leong (“the interpreter”), read to Teo a charge of trafficking in diamorphine under the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2001 Rev Ed) (“MDA”) and the notice of warning under s 122(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) (“CPC”) (collectively “the s 122(6) charge”). Teo acknowledged that he understood the s 122(6) charge and appended his signature accordingly. Teo’s statement in reference to the s 122(6) charge was “I have nothing to say in relation to the charge”.

11 Teo then provided three long statements, which were recorded in narrative form by IO Halim. Two long statements were given on 5 February 2003 and the third, on 8 February 2003. In the first two long statements, Teo confirmed that he was the one who put the drugs inside the Oakley bag, used a small padlock to lock it and placed the Oakley bag at the rooftop. The statements also elaborated on how Teo came to rent the bedroom in order to have more privacy, since he was involved in illegal drug activities. The third long statement established that Teo only went to the bedroom to pack or store heroin (the street name for diamorphine) and that he never brought any friend there apart from Ah Siong, who had come to visit Teo on the eve of his arrest.

The defence

12 In the event, the trial judge, having been satisfied that the Prosecution had established a prima facie case, called for the defence of Teo. He elected to give evidence in his defence from the witness box. In his testimony, he admitted that the drugs found on his person and in SBR4X were for his own consumption and for sale to his friends when they required them. However, he claimed that although the Oakley bag belonged to him, he had not placed the drugs in it. He said that one Eric, a Malaysian friend of his, had schemed and used the bedroom and the Oakley bag to pack his own drugs. Teo added that Eric had asked him to keep three keys for him, one of which managed to open the padlock of the Oakley bag. Teo also claimed that after his arrest, he had requested his elder brother to contact Eric, though he did not inform his brother of the reason behind this request.

13 Additionally, Teo repeated his earlier claim that his answers to questions 4 and 6 of SI Ang’s list of questions were the result of threat or inducement. Teo further claimed that this threat or inducement had been on his mind when he gave the three self-implicating long statements. He added that most of the first and the second long statements and part of the third were untrue and fabricated. This was despite the fact that all three long statements were read back to Teo, whereupon he declined to make any corrections, deletions or amendments to them. Teo claimed that he was not paying attention when the first long statement was read back to him because he had been suffering from withdrawal symptoms and was feeling cold. He also claimed that he was not told that he would be facing the death penalty when the charge was read to him.

14 He added that since he thought that he was...