Wong Yoke Wah v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chao Hick Tin J
• Judgment Date: 09 November 1995
• Neutral Citation: [1995] SGCA 81
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 31 of 1995
• Date: 09 November 1995
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1995
• Plaintiff Counsel: Wong Siew Hong (Teh Yip Wong & Tan) and Foo Mau Peng (Foo & Liew)
• Citation: [1995] SGCA 81
• Defendant Counsel: Sowaran Singh (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Duress,Defence,Special exceptions,Whether factual foundation of defence made out,s 94 Penal Code (Cap 224),Criminal Law

The appellant was convicted by the High Court on 3 July 1995 of an offence under s 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (the Act) and sentenced to death. The particulars of the charge were that on 15 August 1994 at about 4.10pm at the customs checkpoint at Woodlands, he imported into Singapore, by motor car from West Malaysia, 20 packets containing not less than 1,803.3g of diamorphine. We heard his appeal against the conviction on 24 October 1995 which we dismissed for the reasons that follow.

The facts are simple and uncontroversial. They are that on 15 August 1994 at about 4.10pm the appellant who was driving a Toyota motor car bearing registration JCG 3495 and entering Singapore from Johor Bahru was stopped at the customs checkpoint at Woodlands, after he had cleared immigration, for a routine check. He was alone in the car. Customs Officer Mohamed Dahlan bin Kassim (CO Dahlan) asked the appellant whether he had anything to declare. The appellant answered in the negative. CO Dahlan checked the boot of the car first and then asked the appellant to open the bonnet. The bonnet of this motor car is opened by unlatching a hook at the front of the bonnet. The appellant did this and lifted up the bonnet. CO Dahlan noticed a black coloured package tucked at the near side of the engine compartment. He suspected it to be contraband and moved to the driver`s side of the car intending to stop the engine, which was still running, and remove the ignition key.

The appellant reacted swiftly. He slammed the bonnet shut and attempted to enter the car. In the process, he punched and kicked CO Dahlan who fell to the ground. CO Dahlan shouted for help; he shouted, `catch him, catch him.` The appellant then ran away from the scene in the direction of the causeway. However, he did not get very far; he was apprehended by other customs officers near the immigration booths and taken to the search room in the customs area. The appellant put up a violent struggle and had to be handcuffed.

There, the appellant was questioned by Corporal Chua Ronnie Joseph (Cpl Chua) of the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB). Cpl Chua asked the appellant why he had run away. The appellant said it was because there were drugs in the car. He further said that the drugs were in the front of the car. The appellant was then escorted to the car by Cpl Chua and Higher Customs Officer Seah Kok Cheow (HCO Seah). At the car the appellant pointed to the bonnet. Cpl Chua lifted up the bonnet and found a black bag tucked at the near side of the engine compartment. Cpl Chua asked the appellant what was in the black bag. The appellant said that there were 20 packets of drugs. Cpl Chua then lifted up the black bag and found another black bag underneath the first. Both black bags were unzipped by Cpl Chua in the presence of the appellant, and both black bags were found to contain several packets of yellowish substances. He then re-zipped the two black bags and replaced them in their original position. Later, on examination it was found that the two black bags contained a total of 20 plastic packets, the contents of which, on analysis, were found to be not less than 1,803.3g of diamorphine. This latter evidence was not disputed by the appellant at the trial.

After this, the appellant was taken back to the search room. HCO Seah was assigned to guard the appellant. Whilst in the search room the appellant appeared to be in an emotional state. HCO Seah engaged him in casual conversation in the course of which the appellant said to HCO Seah that he was in debt and because he owed people money he had no choice but to import the drugs into Singapore. As will be seen later, the appellant maintained in his evidence that he had also told HCO Seah that he and his family had been threatened by loan sharks and that he would be killed or shot if he did not agree to bring the drugs into Singapore. However, HCO Seah could not recall anything to this effect being said to him by the appellant during the casual conversation, nor could another customs officer, HCO Ang Koon Choon, who was also present in the search room at that time, recall anything to this effect being said by the appellant. But the appellant did volunteer the information that he had some $7,000 to $8,000 in the boot of the car and true enough when the appellant was escorted back to the car by CO Dahlan, RM8,000 and S$1,000 were recovered from the boot.

The investigating officer, Senior Staff Sergeant Sim Seng Aun (the IO) arrived at the customs checkpoint at Woodlands at about 7pm and took charge of the appellant, the Toyota motor car JCG 3495 and the various exhibits which at that time comprised the two black bags containing a total of 20 plastic packets of a yellowish granular substance still in their original position in the engine compartment of the car, a pager recovered from the person of the appellant and the RM8,000 and S$1,000 recovered from the boot of the car. In a subsequent search of the car by the IO, a Motorola handphone was found. In the appellant`s wallet were found cash of $167 and some documents.

The appellant was taken to CNB Headquarters by the IO who, then, later at about 12.16am (16 August) recorded a s 122(6) CPC statement from the appellant. In it the appellant said: `I have nothing to say.` This statement was admitted in evidence at the trial without any objection from the appellant. The IO also recorded a statement under s 121 of the CPC on 22 and 23 August 1994. It was explained in evidence that the IO had wanted to record the s 121 statement earlier but this could not be done as the appellant complained of blurred vision and pain in his right eye and was hospitalized at the Changi Prison Hospital for three days. This statement, too, was admitted in evidence at the trial without objection from the appellant; in fact the appellant wanted it to be admitted.

In his s 121 statement the appellant admitted the transportation into Singapore of the two black bags containing a total of 20 plastic packets which he said he knew contained heroin concealed in the engine compartment of the motor car JCG 3495 but explained the circumstances under which he did so. For the purposes of this judgment, in the light of his defence at the trial, it is only necessary to set out six paragraphs from his s 121 statement. They are:

4 About three months ago, I started to borrow RM10,000 from a loan shark known to me as `Ah Long Seng`. About 1 month later, I borrowed another RM10,000 from him. Altogether I owed him RM20,000. My daily interest which I had to pay him was RM400. The money was for my business and family expenditures. However, I

...