Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chan Sek Keong CJ
• Judgment Date: 04 April 2012
• Neutral Citation: [2012] SGCA 23
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Criminal Motion No 2 of 2012
• Year: 2012
• Published date: 10 April 2012
• Hearing Date: 14 March 2012
• Plaintiff Counsel: M Ravi (L F Violet Netto)
• Defendant Counsel: Mavis Chionh, Teo Guan Siew, Kow Weijie Kelvin and Kok Shu-en (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Subject Matter: Constitutional Law,Attorney-General,Prosecutorial discretion,Equality before the law
• Citation: [2012] SGCA 23

Chan Sek Keong CJ (delivering the judgment of the court): Introduction

On 10 January 2012, this court delivered its judgment in Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-General [2012] SGCA 2 (“Ramalingam”). Based on the principles which we clarified and enunciated in Ramalingam (see [17] below), Yong Vui Kong (“Yong”) filed this criminal motion (“this Motion”) on 27 January 2012 seeking the following orders: that this court re-opens its decision upholding Yong’s conviction of a capital drug trafficking offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2001 Rev Ed) (“the MDA”); that the selective prosecution as between Yong and his alleged boss and supplier, Chia Choon Leng (“Chia”), who had the charges against him discontinued pursuant to a discontinuance not amounting to an acquittal (“DNAQ”) and who was detained under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (Cap 67, 2000 Rev Ed) (“the CLTPA”), violated Yong’s right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law under Art 12(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) (“the Constitution”); and that Yong’s conviction be quashed and the matter remitted to the Attorney-General (“the AG”) to consider whether or not to proceed against both Yong and Chia for the same offence; or, alternatively that the capital charge against Yong be amended, and the sentence of death imposed on him be set aside and replaced with a suitable non-capital sentence so that there is no difference in treatment as between Yong and Chia.

The basis of Yong’s application is that the decision of the AG (who is also the Public Prosecutor) to prosecute him for a capital offence under s 5(1)(a) of the MDA was a breach of Art 12(1) of the Constitution because the AG had, in contrast, applied for (and obtained) a DNAQ of various charges under the MDA against Chia, including three capital charges, even though Chia was Yong’s alleged boss and supplier. Chia is currently still being detained under the CLTPA.

The factual background

Yong was convicted on 14 November 2008 of trafficking in 47.27g of diamorphine and was sentenced to suffer death pursuant to s 33 of the MDA read with the Second Schedule thereto (see Public Prosecutor v Yong Vui Kong [2009] SGHC 4). Yong appealed against his conviction and sentence, but subsequently withdrew the appeal on 29 April 2009 before this court on (inter alia) the ground that as a converted Buddhist, he could not rely on a defence which was a lie. He then petitioned the President for clemency. Yong’s petition for clemency was rejected on 20 November 2009.

Yong later changed his mind about not appealing against his sentence, and applied to this court for an extension of time to pursue such an appeal on the ground that the mandatory death penalty (“MDP”) imposed by s 33 of the MDA read with the Second Schedule thereto was unconstitutional. This court granted the application (see Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor [2010] 2 SLR 192). Subsequently, at the substantive hearing of Yong’s appeal against his sentence, this court dismissed Yong’s constitutional challenge to the MDP (see Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor and another matter [2010] 3 SLR 489).

Yong next applied for leave to bring judicial review proceedings in respect of the integrity of the clemency process set out in Art 22P of the Constitution on the ground that due to certain remarks made by the Minister for Law (“the Law Minister”) at a constituency function (which remarks were reported by the media), the integrity of the clemency process in his case had been fatally compromised as the Law Minister’s remarks showed that the Cabinet had made up its mind to reject his second clemency petition (which he had not even filed at that point in time). This application was dismissed by the High Court (see Yong Vui Kong v Attorney-General [2011] 1 SLR 1). Yong’s appeal to this court against the High Court’s decision was dismissed on 4 April 2011 (see Yong Vui Kong v Attorney-General [2011] 2 SLR 1189). On 14 July 2011, Yong applied to the President a second time for clemency.¹

As mentioned earlier, on 10 January 2012, this court delivered its judgment in Ramalingam. That case, which was likewise a drug trafficking case, concerned a criminal motion filed by an accused person who was unconnected with Yong but who was represented by Yong’s counsel in this Motion, Mr M Ravi (“Mr Ravi”). In that judgment, this court set out the principles of law governing the relationship between the prosecutorial discretion vested in the AG as the Public Prosecutor by Art 35(8) of the Constitution and the right to equal protection set out in Art 12(1) of the Constitution (see [17] below). These two Articles provide as follows:

Equal protection 12.—(1) All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.

...

Attorney-General 35. ...

(8) The Attorney-General shall have power, exercisable at his discretion, to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for any offence.

…

The particular facts upon which this Motion is based

Yong was arrested in the early hours of the morning on 13 June 2007 near Meritus Mandarin Hotel at Orchard Road, Singapore. He admitted in his police statement recorded on 15 June 2007 that he had been asked by Chia to deliver some “gifts” to Singapore in return for a payment of RM2,000. This conversation took place on 12 June 2007 in Johor Baru, Malaysia (“Johor Baru”). Yong then asked his friend, one Chai Hor Hsiang, to drive him to Singapore. They entered Singapore at about 9.00pm on 12 June 2007, after which they proceeded to Yishun and then to Orchard Road, where they were both arrested. The “gifts” contained, inter alia, the 47.27g of diamorphine which formed the basis of the capital charge which Yong was subsequently convicted of.

In a police statement recorded on 16 June 2007, Yong was shown a photograph of Chia and was asked to identify Chia. Yong identified Chia as the man who had asked him to deliver the “gifts” to Singapore. Yong requested a colour photograph of Chia in order to confirm the identification. Approximately two weeks later, on 3 July 2007, Yong was shown a colour photograph of Chia and confirmed that Chia was indeed the man who had asked him on 12 June 2007 to deliver the “gifts”. However, Yong went on to state in a police statement recorded on 3 July 2007:²

... I do not wish to identify him in court because I am worried about my own safety as well as that of my family. I request that Chia … would never kn[o]w that I had identify [sic] him in the photo.

On 4 August 2007, Chia (who had been arrested by the police in Malaysia and handed over to the Central Narcotics Bureau (“the CNB”) in Singapore) was charged with (inter alia) instigating Yong in Johor Baru on 12 June 2007 to transport 36 packets containing a gross weight of approximately 1,227.02g of diamorphine from Johor Baru to Singapore. This charge, which was a capital charge, was amended on 7 October 2007 to state the weight of the diamorphine involved as 61.36g. On the same day, Chia was also charged with four other non-capital charges of instigating Yong to transport controlled drugs to Singapore, namely: instigating Yong on 12 June 2007 in Johor Baru to transport 189.65g of ketamine to Singapore; instigating Yong on 12 June 2007 in Johor Baru to transport 29.81g of N,α-dimethyl-3,4-(methylenedioxy)phenethylamine to Singapore; instigating Yong on 12 June 2007 in Johor Baru to transport 23.01g of methamphetamine to Singapore; and instigating Yong on 12 June 2007 in Johor Baru to transport 1,500 tablets containing nimetazepam to Singapore. As can be seen from the contents of these charges, they all arose out of the particular incident in Johor Baru on 12 June 2007 when Chia allegedly instigated Yong to transport controlled drugs to Singapore.

On 9 September 2008, Yong’s then defence counsel, Mr Kelvin Lim Phuan Foo (“Mr Lim”), made representations to the Prosecution to seek a reduction of the capital charge against Yong to a non-capital charge of trafficking in not less than 14.99g of diamorphine.³ Mr Lim drew the Prosecution’s attention to, inter alia, Yong’s young age and low level of culpability. As the Prosecution did not reduce the capital charge against Yong, we can infer that Mr Lim’s representations were rejected.

Yong’s trial in the High Court took place over five days in September and October 2008. On the second day of the trial (viz, 30 September 2008), the trial judge (“the Trial Judge”) asked the Prosecution about Chia:⁴

[DPP] Tan:	Your Honour, as we are moving on to the identification and the marking of the exhibits, can we ask for a 5 minutes’ adjournment to prepare the exhibits?
Court:	Yes, all right. By the way, what’s happened to this Chia Choon Leng?
[DPP] Tan:	Yes, your Honour.
[DPP] Koy:	He has been detained under the Criminal Law Temporary Provisions Act.
Court:	So he’s not facing any charges at the moment?
[DPP] Koy:	Initially, he was but due to the difficulty of the evidence , we decided that we would withdraw the charges against him and executive action was taken against him.
[emphasis added in italics and bold italics]

The Trial Judge queried the Prosecution about Chia (who was also known as “Ah Hiang”) again on the third day of the trial (viz, 2 October 2008):⁵

Court:	… Mr Koy, this person known as Ah Hiang, [has] he been apprehended or not?
[DPP] Koy:	This – this is the person who was arrested, initially charged but unfortunately, the evidence is not sufficient against him.
Court:	It’s the one in – under the criminal law detention.
[DPP] Koy:	That’s correct, your Honour.
Court:	Do you have his full name again?

...