Yong Yow Chee v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Karthigesu JA
• Judgment Date: 22 October 1997
• Neutral Citation: [1997] SGCA 45
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 14 of 1997
• Date: 22 October 1997
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1997
• Plaintiff Counsel: Kelvin Lim Phuan Foo (Kelvin Lim & Partners) and Jason Peter Dendroff (Yeo Dendroff & Partners)
• Citation: [1997] SGCA 45
• Defendant Counsel: RD Gangatharan (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Whether judge right in rejecting defence,Whether trial judge right in allowing appellant to be tried for two offences together and later amalgamating charges into one -Whether any prejudice caused,Rule of practice,Joinder of capital and non-capital charges,ss 169, 170, 171, 172 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68),Possession and Trafficking in controlled drugs,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Criminal Law,Whether within judge's discretion to order separate trials or to order joinder of offences,Charge,Statutory offences,Misuse of Drugs Act,Whether appellant in possession for purpose of trafficking

Judgment:

KARTHIGESU JA

(delivering the grounds of judgment of the court): The appellant was initially tried in the court below on the following two charges:

(a) 1st Charge

That you, Yong Yow Chee,

on or about 21 December 1996 at about 5.30pm at an apartment known as 545-C, East Coast Road, Singapore, did traffic in a controlled drug specified in Class A of the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) to wit, by having in your possession seven packets and 45 sachets of substance containing not less than 244.35g of diamorphine for the purpose of trafficking at the said apartment without any authorisation under the said Act or the regulations made thereunder, and you have thereby committed an offence under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) and punishable under s 33 of the Misuse of Drugs Act.

(b) 2nd Charge

on or about 21 December 1996 at about 4.55pm near the junction of Jalan Besar and Sam Leong Road, Singapore did traffic in a controlled drug specified in Class A of the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) to wit, by having in your possession five sachets of substance containing not less than 2.58g of diamorphine for the purpose of trafficking near the said junction without any authorisation under the said Act or the regulations made thereunder, and you have thereby committed an offence under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) and punishable under s 33 of the Misuse of Drugs Act.

2.Four other charges preferred against him for possession of (a) 1.23g of diamorphine, (b) 2 tablets containing nimetozepan, a Class C drug, (c) 13 tablets also containing nimetozepan, and (d) 3 `Wellcome L4A` tablets containing methadone, a Class A drug were stood down by the prosecution pending the outcome of the trial.

3.At the close of the prosecution`s case the trial judge after hearing arguments from the deputy public prosecutor and defence counsel expressing the view that there would not be any prejudice to the appellant if the two charges were amalgamated as one, ruled that the charges should be amended and amalgamated as follows:

You, Yong Yow Chee, m/38 yrs

NRIC S 1362689-H

are charged that you, on or about 21 December 1996, at about between 4.55pm and 5.30pm did traffic in a controlled drug specified in Class A of the First Schedule of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) by having in your possession, to wit, on your person as well as at 545-C Ocean Apartments East Coast Road, Singapore, seven packets and 50 sachets of a substance amounting to not less than 246.93g of diamorphine for the purpose of trafficking, without any authorisation under the said Act or the regulations made thereunder, and you have thereby committed an offence under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) and punishable under s 33 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185).

At the end of the trial, the trial judge found the appellant guilty. As to the other charges which were stood down earlier, the appellant was given a discharge amounting to an acquittal pursuant to s 177 of the CPC. We heard his appeal on 24 September 1997 which we dismissed without calling on the deputy public prosecutor. We now give our reasons.

4. Prosecution evidence

The following is the evidence adduced by prosecution at the trial.

5.On 21 December 1996 at about 12.45pm, Corporals Tan Choon Kiang Ivan, Lim Eng Poh, Lim Yee Chong, Chan Siang Hock and Woman Narcotics Officer Tan Wee Cheng Delphine, officers from the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB), were deployed in the vicinity of Ocean Apartments at 545-C East Coast Road to look out for a male Chinese nicknamed `Tua Pui Gan` who was suspected to be living at the said address.

6.Tua Pui Gan, who was later identified as the appellant, was seen emerging from Ocean Apartments at about 3.50pm. He boarded a taxi and this taxi was trailed by the CNB officers to the junction of Jalan Besar and Syed Alwi Road. The appellant was seen alighting from the taxi and meeting with an unknown male Chinese who walked with the appellant for a short distance before they parted company. The appellant then entered a coffee shop at the junction of Sam Leong Road and Jalan Besar where he had a drink and was subsequently joined by a male Chinese. At 4.30pm, the CNB officers on duty moved in and arrested both the appellant and the other person, at the coffee shop. Subsequently at about 4.55pm, ASP Chew Kai Chow (ASP Chew) who was then accompanied by Sergeant Goh Seow Thian (Sgt Goh) and Corporal Iqbal bin Mohamed (Cpl Iqbal) arrived at the scene and took charge of the appellant from the officers who had him in their custody. The appellant was escorted into a waiting CNB vehicle by Cpl Iqbal.

7.In the vehicle, ASP Chew asked the appellant in Hokkien whether he had any drugs in his possession. The appellant replied that he had five sachets of heroin on him. ASP Chew then asked him where he kept his house keys. He replied that it was in his left front trouser pocket. Cpl Iqbal retrieved the keys and ASP Chew removed a newspaper bundle from that same pocket. The newspaper bundle was found to contain five sachets of granular substance.

8.At about 5.15pm, the appellant was taken to 545-C East Coast Road, Ocean Apartments by ASP Chew and his party of CNB officers. One of the officers, Inspector Adam Fashe Huddin opened the metal grille at the front entrance of the flat, using one of the keys from the bunch of keys seized earlier. The officers found that the apartment consisted of three rooms, a hall, a kitchen and a toilet at the kitchen. All three room doors were locked. Using one of the keys from the bunch seized earlier, ASP Chew opened the door to the master bedroom of the flat.

9.There was a black suitcase on the floor beside the bed in the room. ASP Chew lifted the suitcase and found a piece of carpet partially covering a piece of wooden board on the floor. Upon lifting the carpet, he found numerous unsealed sachets of granular substance. On counting them he discovered that there were 42 sachets altogether. ASP Chew then checked the suitcase and found that it was padlocked at the zippers. Sgt Goh used a paper cutter to make an opening at the top middle part of the suitcase just above the handle of the suitcase and pulled out a black `Camus Cognac` bag and a white plastic bag. ASP Chew examined the white plastic bag whereupon he found five packets of granular substance. The black `Camus Cognac` bag was empty.

10.Thereafter Sgt Goh searched the wardrobe in the bedroom and found an OCBC bank book belonging to the appellant and a small key. Sometime later, ASP Chew found another small key in the same drawer, underneath some clothing. Whilst searching the flat, Cpl Iqbal found a single sachet of granular substance lying behind a wooden chest in the hall. Eventually, the other two bedroom doors were forced open by the officers but they were found to be uninhabited and had nothing in it of significance.

11.At about 6.15pm, the investigating officer, Senior Staff-Sergeant (SS/Sgt Wong) arrived at the flat. According to both ASP Chew and SS/Sgt Wong, the small keys found in the wardrobe drawer could unlock the padlock on the black suitcase. When SS/Sgt Wong opened the suitcase, he found and removed an opened plastic packet of yellow granular substance, a sealed packet of yellow granular substance, two sachets of yellow granular substance tied with a rubber band, a metal bowl, a digital weighing scale and a white plastic spoon. At about 7.40pm, the appellant informed ASP Chew in Hokkien that he had a small sachet of heroin in his wallet. This was added to the other exhibits which were all handed over to SS/Sgt Wong. At about 9.40pm, SS/Sgt Wong left the flat with all the seized items.

12.SS/Sgt Wong then brought all the items to the CNB Headquarters, where at about 10pm he weighed the drug exhibits in the presence of the appellant. Thereafter, he made arrangements for the appellant to be sent to Changi Hospital for a pre-statement medical examination. As a result, the appellant was warded at the Changi Prison Hospital on account of drug withdrawal symptoms. SS/Sgt Wong then handed over all the drug exhibits to the Department of Scientific Services (DSS) at about 10am on 23 December 1996.

13.On 27 December 1996, SS/Sgt Wong was informed that the appellant was fit to be discharged from hospital. The appellant was then sent to Alexandra Hospital for a pre-statement medical examination. After the examination, SS/Sgt Wong with the assistance of Mr Wu Nan Yong , a senior interpreter attached to CNB, interpreting in Hokkien, proceeded to record statements from him pursuant to s 122(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) (CPC) at about 3.41pm.

14.The appellant was served with two charges of trafficking - one in respect of the six sachets of granular substance seized from him and the other in respect of the 45 sachets and seven packets of granular substance recovered from the flat. The appellant gave a signed statement as regards the six sachets and a verbal one as regards the 45 sachets and seven packets. The defence at the trial had no objections to admitting both the statements; they had been given voluntarily without any threat, inducement or promise emanating from the recording officer or the interpreter or anyone else during or before the recording of the statement. Therefore, both statements were admitted in evidence.

15.The first statement which was signed by the appellant, recorded between 3.20pm and 3.28pm on 27 December 1996, reads as follows:

I admit that the five (5) sachets of heroin in the newspaper belong to me. The remaining one sachet was surrendered by me to the CNB officer.

The second statement recorded between 3.56pm and 4pm also on 27 December 1996, although not signed by the appellant reads:

The heroin in the apartment do (sic) not belong to me.

SS/Sgt Wong and the interpreter, Mr Wu said that the appellant declined to append his signature to the latter statement.

16.There were two further statements recorded from the appellant -...