Wong Soon Lee v Public Prosecutor

• Judge: Goh Joon Seng J
• Judgment Date: 31 May 1999
• Neutral Citation: [1999] SGCA 42
• Citation: [1999] SGCA 42
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ho Meng Hee & David Tan Tee Boon (Ho Meng Hee & Co)
• Defendant Counsel: David Khoo DPP
• Published date: 08 April 2013

Judgment:

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

delivered by Yong Pung How CJ

1. The appellant was convicted of the charge that on 1 September 1998 at about 9.45 am, he trafficked in a controlled drug by transporting five packets of diamorphine weighing no less than 70.69 grams in a car bearing registration number JDD 4045, from BP Petrol station located along Changi Road to Chapel Close, an offence under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (‘the Act’) and punishable under s 33 of the Act and sentenced to death

2. The appellant, being dissatisfied with the decision of the lower court, appealed against the conviction and sentence. We dismissed his appeal and now give our reasons.

The facts

3. The appellant is a Malaysian citizen. At the time of his arrest, he was 20 years old. Prior to his arrest, he was working as a renovation sub-contractor in Johor Bahru.

4. On 1 September 1998, at about 8.55 am, the appellant was seen arriving at a BP station located along Changi Road by several Central Narcotics Bureau ("CNB") officers including Cpl Loong Tean Huat and Sgt Ngo Hing Wong. The appellant was driving a Malaysian registered silver coloured car bearing the registration number JDD 4045. The appellant alighted from his car after parking it next to a phone booth at the petrol station. He was seen making a phone call through his handphone.

5. At about 9.15 am, the appellant boarded his car and left. He was followed by some other officers along Changi Road, Lorong Sarina, Sim’s Avenue and Lorong Marican. Cpl Loong Tean Huat and Sgt Ngo Hing Wong however remained at their observation post. The appellant came back to the BP station a while later.

6. At 9.20 am, the appellant was seen leaving the BP petrol station again. He was again trailed by a few officers. At about 9:30 am, he was seen arriving back at the same petrol station. Cpl Loong saw the boot of the car being opened. The appellant then walked to the front passenger door and opened it. He retrieved from inside the car a pink plastic bag which he promptly carried to the boot and placed within the boot before shutting it immediately. The appellant then left the BP petrol station again and was followed by other officers. At 9.45 am, four CNB officers moved in on the appellant and arrested him while he was making a three point turn at the end of Chapel Close. The appellant appeared calm throughout his arrest.

7. At about 10.00 am, SSgt Ravi Vellu and officers from the Special Task Force arrived at Chapel Close. Custody of the appellant was handed over to SSgt Ravi Vellu and his team along with a handphone, a handphone battery, a set of car keys and the appellant’s identity card.

8. At about 10.05 am, SSgt Ravi Vellu asked the appellant in English whether there were any drugs in the car. This was interpreted to the appellant by Cpl Tang Kok Heng in Mandarin. The appellant told the officer, " You search yourself."

9. A bodily search was conducted on the appellant by Cpl Tang Kok Heng at about 10.07 am. At about 10.13 am, SSgt Ravi conducted a search of the car, JDD 4045. He further instructed Sgt Goh Teck Kiat to open the boot of the car. A pink plastic bag was recovered from the boot. SSgt Ravi then pointed to the pink plastic bag and asked the appellant, with Sgt Tang Kok Heng as the interpreter, what was in the plastic bag. The material portion of the exchange between SSgt Ravi Vellu and the appellant read as follows:

Q: What is this?

A: This is drug. But I don’t know what drug.

…

Q: This drug belongs to who?

A: My boss put this inside my car and asked me to bring over to Singapore.

…

Q: Your boss put the drug where?

A: Yesterday night my boss borrowed this car under my name and passed the car and this drug to me. Then I was instructed to drive through Woodlands Checkpoint. The drug was put in the car at Johor Bahru.

10. At about 10.23 am, a further search was conducted of the car. This time a Tanita digital weighing scale was recovered from the glove compartment and a baseball bat was recovered from beside the driver’s seat. The appellant was then asked what he would receive for delivering the drugs. He replied that he would receive RM$1,000.00. The entire series of questions and answers was recorded contemporaneously by SSgt Ravi Vellu in his pocket notebook and signed by the appellant, SSgt Ravi Vellu and Sgt Tang Kok Heng.

11. At about 10.56 am, ASP Paschal Rebeira of the Major Investigation Branch ("MIB"), CNB, arrived at the scene. At about 11.27 am, officers from the Scene of Crime Unit ("SCU") also arrived. Together, ASP Paschal and the officers from SCU opened the pink plastic bag in the presence of the appellant. They recovered from within the pink plastic bag a black bin bag containing four bundles, each wrapped in newspapers, and a bundle wrapped in a clear plastic wrapper containing a yellow granular substance. The newspapers were removed from the four bundles and each bundle revealed a clear plastic bag containing a yellow granular substance.

12. The appellant was brought back to the CNB headquarters at 12.22 pm. He was sent for a urine test. The urine sample tested negative for heroin.

13. At 12.40 pm, narco dogs were used to detect if there were any drugs hidden in the car which had not been recovered. The dogs appeared to be very excited while inside the car but nothing further was recovered.

14. At 5.25 pm, the appellant was referred into the custody of the CID lockup after having his photograph and fingerprints taken. Further drugs were subsequently recovered from the side door panel of the car, JDD 4045. This formed the basis of the second charge against the appellant.

15. A cautioned statement under s 122(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code (‘CPC’) was recorded from the appellant by the Investigating Officer, ASP Paschal Rebeira, on 1 September 1998 at 3.55 pm. In the cautioned statement, the appellant stated that

The thing belongs to my boss who put it in the boot of my car. I did not know what the things was. After my arrest, I came to know that the thing contained five packets. I learnt later from the person who arrested me that the five packets were heroin … I came to Singapore to look for a job …

16. A further statement made under s 121 of the CPC was recorded by ASP Paschal Rebeira on 4 September 1998 at 2.50 pm. The salient part of the investigation statement read as follow

1. I got to know my boss through a friend of mine by the name Chung Min. I got to know Chung Min through our renovation contract work. I know Chung Min for less than a month in Johor Bahru. A few days prior to my arrest, I met Chung Min at a coffeeshop in Johor Bahru. Chung Min was with another male Chinese. Chung Min introduced this male Chinese to me as a friend of his. He did not tell me his name. I call him "lao pan" or "boss" because he looks like a businessman … I went to the coffeeshop to ask Chung Min if there was any contract work for me and I left my phone number with Chung Min. I left the coffeeshop alone a while later.
2. After this meeting, I did not meet Chung Min or the boss again. On 31 August 1998, at about 7 pm, my boss called me over my handphone and asked me to meet him at Mei Yah Restaurant opposite The Store Shopping Centre at Johore Bahru. When I met my boss, I asked him if there was any contract work for me. The boss said that he did not have any work for me at the moment. I then told him that I would be going to Singapore tomorrow to look for a job. My boss then told me to bring something to Singapore for him. I agreed and he asked me to go back first and he will call me again later. About 11 pm, my boss called me over my handphone and asked me to meet him outside The Store Shopping Centre as he wanted to pass something to me. I then drove a car, which I had rented a week ago, to meet my boss The registration number of the car which I rented a week ago is JDD 4045.
3. About 11.30 pm, when I met my boss, he gave me a cardboard box and told me that there were eight packets of things inside the cardboard box. My boss then instructed me to put five packets inside the boot of my car and another three packets to be hidden within the driver’s side door panel. He then instructed me to go into Singapore through the Woodlands Checkpoint at 7.00 am the next morning. I then opened the cardboard box and saw packets containing a yellow stoney substance. Some of the packets were wrapped in newspaper which I did not open up. I then asked my boss what the plastic packets of yellow substance in the other newspaper were. My boss then told me that it was nothing serious He then instructed me to immediately hide the packets of yellow substance. There were some black trash bag inside my car and my boss told me to place five packets inside the trash bag. I did as instructed and tied the trash bag and placed it in a pink plastic bag which was also from my car. I placed this pink plastic bag with my working tools in the car boot. I then removed the driver’s side panel of the driver’s door and hid the remaining packets of yellow substance … I then replaced the side door panel.
4. My boss did not assist me in hiding these plastic packets … My boss told me that when I returned to Johore Bahru, he will pay me about RM$1,000.00.
5. We then parted and I drove my car home …

17. On 7 September 1998, the appellant made another statement amending his s 121 statement. In this later statement, he stated that he picked up a friend Ah Kee before meeting the boss at 11.30 pm. Ah Kee took the cardboard box from the boss and placed it in the boot. They drove to a dimly lit area where Ah Kee placed some packets from the cardboard box into a black plastic bag. The appellant asked him what the yellow substance was and Ah Kee told him they were nothing serious. The appellant handed Ah Kee a pink plastic bag and Ah Kee placed the black trash bag within the pink bag. According to the appellant, Ah Kee then placed more...