Vinit Sopon and Others v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Karthigesu JA
• Judgment Date: 08 April 1994
• Neutral Citation: [1994] SGCA 57
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 56 of 1993
• Date: 08 April 1994
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1994
• Plaintiff Counsel: Singa Retnam (Singa Retnam & Fang) and Dominic Nagulendran (Palakrishnan & Pnrs)
• Citation: [1994] SGCA 57
• Defendant Counsel: Gurdip Singh (George Sandosham, Gurdip & Pnrs) and MP Rai (Robert WH Wang & Woo),Lee Sing Lit and Low Cheong Yeow (Deputy Public Prosecutors),MN Swami (MN Swami) and Arumugam Thamilselvam (VCS Vardan & Co)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Proof of evidence,Whether doubt raised as to identity of exhibits,Break in chain of evidence,s 12 Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185),Whether 'offer to sell' to be restricted to the first meeting,Exhibit,Whether adverse inference to be drawn,s 23 Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185),Informer,Adverse inference,Common intention,Whether irresistible inference of guilt arose,Accused present during delivery,Complicity,s 116(g) Evidence Act (Cap 97),Attendance,Evidence,Whether there was misdirection,Circumstantial evidence,Witnesses,Criminal Law,Abetment by conspiracy,Accused absent when drugs first offered for sale,Failure to call witness,Discrepancies in evidence,Abetment,Failure to call informer as witness,Trafficking,ss 34 & 107(b) Penal Code (Cap 224),Whether trial judge drew adverse inference from failure

The first and second appellants were charged in the High Court with trafficking in, by offering to sell, not less than 1,396.7g of diamorphine, an offence under s 5(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) (`MDA`) read with s 34 of the Penal Code (Cap 224), punishable under s 33 of the MDA. The third appellant was charged with abetting by conspiracy the trafficking in of the said amount of diamorphine, an offence under s 5(a) read with s 12 of the MDA and punishable under s 33 of the MDA. At the conclusion of the trial, all three appellants were convicted and sentenced to death. Against these convictions this appeal was brought. We dismissed the appeals of the first and second appellants and allowed the appeal of the third appellant. We now give our reasons.

The prosecution case

On 22 November 1991, Senior Narcotics Officer Lee Kiong Lock (`SNO Lee`) of the Central Narcotics Bureau (`CNB`) received information from one Simon that a male Thai friend had with him 2kg of heroin for sale at $35,000 per half kilogram. SNO Lee (who was the principal prosecution witness) was also shown a sample of the drug contained in a capsule. At 1.40pm that day, posing as a buyer, SNO Lee met the first appellant at the Luna Coffee House, Apollo Hotel. The first appellant informed him that he had 2.1kg of heroin for sale at $35,000 per half kilogram. A deal was struck at a price of $140,000 for the 2kg, 0.1 kg of the heroin being gratis. The first appellant told SNO Lee that he would contact him later to confirm the venue for the transaction.

Later that day, the first appellant used his own particulars to register a room in the Plaza Hotel on behalf of the third appellant, who had just arrived in Singapore that afternoon. At 6.15pm, the two appellants went to the Apollo Hotel, where they met the second appellant. The second appellant was observed by CNB officers to be carrying a black sling bag. The second appellant registered himself with the first appellant`s help into room 1621 of the Apollo Hotel. The first and third appellants were then seen going over to the River View Hotel across the road.

At 6.50pm, the first appellant contacted SNO Lee and fixed a meeting for 7.30pm at the coffeehouse of the River View Hotel. When SNO Lee arrived, he was introduced by the first appellant to the third appellant. He was told that he could feel free to discuss matters in the third appellant`s presence and that the latter could speak some Chinese dialects. SNO Lee then spoke to the third appellant in English and asked him whether he could speak Teochew. The third appellant answered `yes`. SNO Lee then asked the first appellant whether he had the `things` ready. The first appellant answered in the affirmative but wanted to know if SNO Lee had the money. SNO Lee insisted on inspection first. The first appellant was equally adamant that the money be shown first. At this juncture, the third appellant interjected and commented to SNO Lee in Teochew that `the first transaction between two strangers is always difficult` and that `after we get acquainted with each other, our transactions would be much easier and simpler`. He also said that after they had got acquainted, they could even offer SNO Lee credit terms. The two appellants subsequently conferred in Thai and agreed to SNO Lee`s request to inspect the drugs first.

SNO Lee and the first appellant then proceeded to the Apollo Hotel across the road. The third appellant stayed behind at the River View. SNO Lee was led to room 1621 of the Apollo and the door was opened by the second appellant. While in the room, the first appellant spoke to the second appellant in Thai, whereupon the latter produced a black sling bag from a cupboard and handed it to the first appellant. The first appellant placed the bag on the floor, unzipped it and showed SNO Lee its contents. SNO Lee inspected the drugs, which were in capsule form. He expressed satisfaction and left the room with the first appellant. At the hotel lobby, SNO Lee gave a prearranged signal and a party of CNB officers moved in to apprehend the first appellant. SNO Lee informed the officers that the drugs were in room 1621 and that there was another Thai in the room. SNO Lee then departed.

The first appellant was then escorted up to room 1621. When the CNB officers knocked on the door, the second appellant opened it but, upon seeing them, the door was quickly closed. The CNB officers then forced the door open. Upon entry into the room, the officers noticed that the windows were open by about three feet. Two of the narcotics officers rushed to the window and, upon leaning out, saw someone picking up a dark-coloured object in the carpark below. They both hurried down to the carpark, where they saw a security guard near the security office. Upon enquiry, the security guard showed them a black sling bag which he had just picked up. He explained to the CNB officers that he was in the security room when he heard a loud noise. He went out and saw a bag lying in the carpark. Whilst picking the bag up, he had looked up and noticed two heads high above from a window of the hotel building.

Meanwhile, the third appellant had been arrested as he was making his way to the Apollo Hotel. He was then brought to room 1621. Moments later, the two narcotics officers returned with the black sling bag, accompanied by the security guard. At 9.05pm, the investigating officer arrived and took over investigation of the case. The offending bag was handed over to him. Inside the bag were three packets containing some drug capsules. The investigating officer weighed the three plastic packets and recorded a total weight of 2,144.13g.

On 25 November 1991, at about 3.15pm, the investigating officer handed over the drugs duly sealed to the department of scientific services (`DSS`) for analysis. The analysis showed that the drug exhibits submitted contained a total of not less than 1,396.7g of diamorphine. After the appellants` arrest, a handwritten note (exh P-73) was seized in room 630 of the Plaza Hotel (the room which the first appellant registered for the third appellant). On the note was written the word `Apollo` followed by an arrow leading to the figure `1/2kg, 35,000` and another reference to `35,000$`. On P-73 were also written the figures `1=15`, `70,000`, `1,050,000` and `2,100,000`.

The third appellant had in his possession certain handwritten notes made by him in both Thai and English which when translated meant `Geylang 20 for: Golden Mile BO Beach Road`. The third appellant had admitted to writing these words when he was at the airport. It was the prosecution`s case that those words referred to the Lai Ming Hotel at Geylang Lorong 24 where the first appellant was staying. Therefore, the prosecution argued that the third appellant knew all along where the first appellant was staying and that both appellants had lied about having met each other by chance in Singapore.

The appellants` defence/version of events

Having found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient prima facie evidence against all three appellants, the learned trial judge called on the appellants to enter upon their defence. The appellants` version of the events differed remarkably from that of the prosecution`s. In fact, the appellants presented a diametrically opposite version of events. Their defence was simply one of denial and protestation of innocence. In essence, they claimed that the conversation with SNO Lee never involved the topic of drugs - all that had been discussed was the transaction of second hand electronic goods. In fact, their contention was that the prosecution witnesses had fabricated the entire evidence.

The first appellant claimed that, on 20 November 1991, he had met by chance one Phong, a Thai businessman whom he had known for about a year prior to his arrest. Phong promised to lend him money to buy secondhand goods and to share the profits from these transactions. Phong had introduced him to the second appellant, whom he had never met previously. According to the first appellant, he had followed the second appellant to the latter`s workplace, where he was introduced to Simon (the CNB informant). The first appellant told Simon that one of his objects in visiting Singapore was to purchase secondhand articles. Simon remarked that his former boss, a policeman, owned a pawnshop. Simon volunteered to enquire from his former boss about the secondhand goods which the first appellant was interested in. The first appellant testified that at 2pm on 22 November 1991, he met Simon`s boss, ie SNO Lee, at the Apollo Hotel. The first appellant claimed that they only discussed secondhand electrical equipment and survey camera equipment. There was no discussion of any nature concerning drugs. The first appellant maintained in court that he had never mentioned the word `heroin` to either Simon or SNO Lee. He had also never mentioned drugs or heroin to anyone either at the River View Hotel or at the Apollo.

According to the first appellant, he had suggested to SNO Lee at that first meeting at the Apollo that they meet with a friend of his who was knowledgeable about electronic equipment. SNO Lee agreed and provided the first appellant with his pager number. They then parted ways. The first appellant testified that later that afternoon, he met Phong and the second appellant at the Golden Mile Complex. The first appellant reminded Phong about his earlier promise for some monetary advance. Phong suggested that the first appellant call on him at 7pm that night at the Apollo Hotel, where he would be staying. Phong then gave the second appellant $200 and instructed him to go register a room at the Apollo for him (Phong). After that meeting, the first appellant sauntered around and chanced upon the third appellant at a taxi stand in front of the Golden Mile Complex. The third appellant had only arrived from Bangkok at 4.20pm that day. The third appellant told him that he was in Singapore to...