Yen May Woen v Public Prosecutor

JudgeChao Hick Tin JA
Judgment Date08 July 2003
Neutral Citation[2003] SGCA 29
Citation[2003] SGCA 29
CourtCourt of Appeal (Singapore)
Plaintiff CounselEddy Tham,Christina Goh, Morris Tan (Christina Goh & Co)
Subject MatterEvidence,Weight of evidence,Effect of appellant's physical condition on statements made by her,Whether discrepancies between appellant's evidence at trial and her earlier statements ought to have been viewed on the basis that statements were made while experiencing withdrawal symptoms.,Break in chain of evidence,Whether doubt raised as to identity of drug exhibits.
Published date17 December 2003

Delivered by Kan Ting Chiu J

1. The appellant Yen May Woen was charged with trafficking in not less than 30.16 grams of diamorphine. She was convicted and was sentenced to suffer death.

2. On 8 May 2002, a team of officers of the Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) was instructed to look for her near a taxi stand near Block 179 Toa Payoh Central. They saw her arriving in a taxi which stopped a short distance from the taxi stand. She alighted and brought a black sling bag to the boot of the taxi and closed the boot. She then went to meet a male Chinese near the taxi stand while the taxi remained where it had stopped. The officers moved in and arrested the appellant, the male Chinese and the driver of the taxi.

3 The boot of the taxi was opened in the presence of the appellant. One of the officers, Senior Staff Sergeant Tan Yian Chye saw the sling bag and questioned her. The English transcript of the exchange reads

Q: This bag, does it belong to you?

A: (Accused nods her head)

Q: What is inside the bag?

A: Inside the bag contained more than 30 packets of heroin.

4 The bag was not taken out of the boot at that time. It remained there until Station Inspector Ronnie See Su Khoon arrived. SI See retrieved the sling bag from the boot and handed it to another officer, Woman Corporal Tay Sie Siz. SI See then directed the taxi driver to drive the taxi to a car park at Block 178. W/Cpl Tay and the appellant went to the car park in a CNB car, while SI See went in the taxi.

5 At the car park SI See recorded a statement from the appellant. The statement reads in English

Q: This black colour bag belongs to whom?

A: It’s mine.

Q: What is inside?

A: Heroin.

Q: How much heroin?

A: I don’t know.

6 SI See then opened the bag. There were two brown paper bags each containing 30 sachets inside one compartment. In another compartment, there was a pouch with another 30 sachets and a brown paper bag with a further 30 sachets. These 120 sachets were analysed subsequently and were found to contain the diamorphine for which the appellant was prosecuted and convicted.

7 SI See then questioned the appellant further

Q: The heroin here belongs to who?

A: It’s mine.

Q: What are this heroin meant for?

A: Consume.

Q: Whom you obtained the heroin from?

[Accused shook her head.]

Q: Do you have anything else to say?

[Accused shook her head.]

8 Subsequently the appellant was taken in a CNB car together with SI See and W/Cpl Tay to the CNB Headquarters at the Police Cantonment Complex. There SI See briefed the investigation officer Woman Inspector Neo Ling Sim on the facts of the case, and handed over the drug exhibits to her.

9 In the early hours of the next morning W/Insp Neo recorded a cautioned statement from the appellant under s 122(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code on a charge of trafficking in the 120 sachets of diamorphine. The appellant’s statement was “I did not know there was so much heroin. That is all.”

10 Subsequently a series of five investigation statements was recorded from her between 10 May and 20 August 2002. In these statements she said that

(i) on the day of arrest a friend “Tua Kang” telephoned her and arranged to return to her some cash and cheque arising from a football bet,

(ii) she called her drug supplier “Jack” and ordered a week’s supply of 20-30 sachets of heroin from him, and collected and paid for the drugs at Thomson Plaza, and

(iii) she went from Thomson Plaza to Toa Payoh Central where Tua Kang handed her some cash, and they were both arrested by CNB officers.

11 She also said in her investigation statements that when a CNB officer recovered the sling bag from the boot of the taxi he asked her if the bag belonged to her, she told him that it did and that she had ordered 20-30 sachets of heroin from her supplier. She had ordered 20 sachets of heroin and one sachet of “Ice” from Jack. She had not checked the bag when Jack handed it to her because she was “high”. She added that the sling bag was hers and that Jack had borrowed it from her a few weeks previously.

12 When she gave her defence at the trial, she claimed that she had no knowledge of the presence of the diamorphine in the sling bag. On the day of arrest one “Ah Chwee” asked to borrow $4000 from her. She agreed to lend him the money, but asked for the return of her sling bag which she had lent him earlier. They agreed to meet at Thomson Plaza. When she went there she saw him in a car with another male person, and she handed Ah Chwee the money. She saw her sling bag in the back of the car and took it. She brought it with her to the taxi from where it was eventually recovered.

13 She told the officer who recovered it that a friend had returned it to her, and that there was nothing inside it. Subsequently at the car park she told another officer that the bag belonged to her and that there was nothing inside it. When the officer opened the bag and showed her a packet and asked if it belonged to her, she told him it did not.

14 The appellant sought to explain the discrepancies between her testimony in court and her investigation statements. She said she was very frightened and was at a loss when she realised that there was so much heroin in the bag. She felt that she would not be believed if she said the heroin did not belong to her, and thought that if she admitted that 20-30 sachets belonged to her, she would evade the death penalty.

15 The appellant also said that when she made those statements “I did not take heroin for a few days, I felt very lousy.” She did not go further and was not asked to elaborate on this. Counsel relied on the evidence of Dr Ranjeet Narulla, a medical officer attached to Changi Women’s Prison Hospital instead. The doctor had examined the appellant for drug withdrawal symptoms on 9 and 10 May, and had put up a report that

[She] was admitted twice to Changi Women’s Prison on 9/5/02 and 10/5/02 for withdrawal symptoms. On 9/5/02 she was noted to have mild withdrawal symptoms. She was discharged on 10/5/02.

Re-admitted on 10/5/02 admission – she was noted to have withdrawal symptoms.

16 She was discharged for the second time on 15 May. The doctor explained in court that the appellant was observed to be yawning, sleepy and lethargic. She was not prescribed any medication because her symptoms were quite mild, and she was improving with time, such that by 15 May she was much clearer than she was before and could answer questions.

17 At the conclusion of the trial Woo Bih Li J found that the appellant had not rebutted the presumption under s 17 of the Misuse of Drugs Act that she was in possession of the diamorphine for the purpose of trafficking, and convicted her.

18 Counsel argued before us that the judge should have viewed the discrepancies between the appellant’s evidence and her earlier statements on the basis that the statements were made when she was experiencing withdrawal symptoms.

19 When a person claims that she had made a statement when she was unwell, that assertion may affect the statement in two ways. Firstly, it may render the statement inadmissible in evidence, and secondly, if...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Tey Tsun Hang v PP
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 28 Febrero 2014
    ...(1980) 50 FLR 19 (distd) United Malacca Rubber Estates Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Johor Bahru [1997] 4 MLJ 1 (distd) Yen May Woen v PP [2003] SGCA 29 (refd) Yeo See How v PP [1996] 2 SLR (R) 277; [1997] 2 SLR 390 (refd) Yuen Chun Yii v PP [1997] 2 SLR (R) 209; [1997] 3 SLR 57 (refd) Const......
  • Public Prosecutor v Rohaizad bin Suadi
    • Singapore
    • District Court (Singapore)
    • 30 Junio 2005
    ...short of sapping the will, it can still have a bearing on the weight to be attached to the statement (Yan May Woen v Public Prosecutor [2003] SGCA 29). 157 The first accused testified that, from the day he was arrested, he had been subjected to repeated questioning, not only when he was bro......
  • Public Prosecutor v Chua Ai Lin
    • Singapore
    • District Court (Singapore)
    • 23 Abril 2007
    ...due to the established caselaw which has held that oppression can render a statement involuntary and inadmissible. In Yen May Woen v PP [2003] SGCA 29, the Court of Appeal cited with approval the following statement outlining the concept of oppression at para Nevertheless it is recognised t......
1 books & journal articles
  • MODERNISING THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE FRAMEWORK
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2011, December 2011
    • 1 Diciembre 2011
    ...Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) s 24. 185 See Poh Kay Keong v PP [1995] 3 SLR(R) 887 at [42]. 186 See generally Yen May Woen v PP [2003] SGCA 29 at [20]-[25]; Chai Chien Wei Kelvin v PP [1998] 3 SLR(R) 619 at [48]-[50]. See also Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (Act 15 of 2010) s 258, Explan......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT