Zheng Jianxing v AG

JurisdictionSingapore
Judgment Date26 June 2014
Date26 June 2014
Docket NumberOriginating Summons No 991 of 2013
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Zheng Jianxing
Plaintiff
and
Attorney-General
Defendant

[2014] SGHC 120

Tay Yong Kwang J

Originating Summons No 991 of 2013

High Court

Administrative Law—Judicial review—Director of Central Narcotics Bureau's discretion to commit person to approved institution to undergo treatment and/or rehabilitation—Whether Director could rely on urine analysis certificates issued by Health Sciences Authority that showed variance of higher than 20% to exercise his discretion—Section 34 (2) (b) Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2001 Rev Ed)

Administrative Law—Judicial review—Director of Central Narcotics Bureau's discretion to commit person to approved institution to undergo treatment and/or rehabilitation—Whether exercise of Director's discretion was dependent on prior establishment of existence of any objective facts—Section 34 (2) (b) Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2001 Rev Ed)

Administrative Law—Judicial review—Standard of proof for granting leave to commence judicial review proceedings—Whether applicant had discharged his burden of establishing arguable or prima facie case of reasonable suspicion in favour of granting quashing order he sought

On 28 March 2006, two bottles of urine specimen that the applicant, Zheng Jianxing (‘the Applicant’), provided were sent to the Health Sciences Authority (‘HSA’) for analysis. The HSA issued two certificates under s 16 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2001 Rev Ed) (‘MDA’) certifying that the two bottles of urine specimen were found to contain 36,300 ng and 98,700 ng of N,?-dimethyl-3,4- (methylendioxy) phenethylamine per ml of urine respectively. N,?-dimethyl-3,4- (methylendioxy) phenethylamine was a Class A controlled drug listed in the First Schedule of the MDA. The Applicant was committed to an approved institution, Sembawang Drug Rehabilitation Centre (‘DRC’), pursuant to an order made by the Deputy Director of the Central Narcotics Bureau (‘CNB’) on 11 May 2006 (‘the 2006 DRC Order’) under s 34 (2) (b) of the MDA.

Several years later, on 12 June 2013, the Applicant was charged under s 8 (b) (ii) read with s 33 A (1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) for the consumption of methamphetamine (‘the LT-1 charge’). One of the bases for the LT-1 charge was the Applicant's admission to Sembawang DRC pursuant to the 2006 DRC Order.

The Applicant applied for leave to file an application for a quashing order in respect of the 2006 DRC Order. He argued that where the variance of the results of the urine tests was higher than 20%, they had to be regarded as being so inaccurate that they could not even be relied upon as positive test results empowering the Director to exercise his discretion under s 34 (2) (b). The Attorney-General opposed the application.

Held, dismissing the application:

(1) The only objective fact that formed the condition precedent for the exercise of the Director's discretion under s 34 (2) (b) of the MDA was that the Director had to have had either the result of the medical examination conducted on a subject under s 34 (1) of the MDA or the results of both the urine tests conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed by s 31 (4) (b) of the MDA. The urine test results had to have been positive for the presence of controlled and/or specified drugs before the Director could exercise his discretion under s 34 (2) (b) to commit a person to an approved institution to undergo treatment and/or rehabilitation: at [15] .

(2) The variance of the urine test results referred to each test result's deviation from the mean of all the results obtained, calculated as a percentage of the mean. In the present case the variance was 46.22%: at [17] and [18] .

(3) The variance of higher than 20% alone would not have invalidated the HSA certificates and prevented the Director from relying on them to exercise his discretion under s 34 (2) (b). They still constituted evidence of the presence of the drug in question and therefore of consumption of the same by the provider of the urine specimens: at [32] .

(4) The Applicant had not produced any evidence to suggest that the variance of more than 20% was caused by irregularities in the process whereby his urine specimens were tested by scientists at the laboratory. Therefore he had not established an arguable or prima facie case of reasonable suspicion in favour of granting the quashing order: at [33] to [35] .

Jeyaretnam Kenneth Andrew v AG [2013] 1 SLR 619, HC (folld)

Jeyaretnam Kenneth Andrew v AG [2014] 1 SLR 345, CA (folld)

Lau Seng Poh v Controller of Immigration [1985-1986] SLR (R) 180; [1984-1985] SLR 650 (refd)

Lim Boon Keong v PP [2010] 4 SLR 451 (refd)

Mohammad Ashik bin Aris v PP [2011] 4 SLR 802, CA (refd)

Nandakishor s/o Raj Pat Ahir v PP [2014] SGHC 121 (refd)

PP v Mohammad Ashik bin Aris [2011] 4 SLR 34, HC (refd)

PP v Tan Yong Beng DAC 14343/96 (27 January 1997) (overd)

Ramalingam Ravinthran v AG [2012] 2 SLR 49 (refd)

Subramaniam s/o Marie v Superintendent, Selarang Park Drug Rehabilitation Centre [1981-1982] SLR (R) 30; [1980-1981] SLR 488 (refd)

Teng Fuh Holdings Pte Ltd v Collector of Land Revenue [2006] 3 SLR (R) 507; [2006] 3 SLR 507, HC (refd)

Teng Fuh Holdings Pte Ltd v Collector of Land Revenue [2007] 2 SLR (R) 568; [2007] 2 SLR 568, CA (refd)

Vadugaiah Mahendran v PP [1995] 3 SLR (R) 719; [1996] 1 SLR 289 (refd)

Immigration Act (Cap 81, 1970 Rev Ed) s 56 (2)

Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 1985 Rev Ed) ss 22, 31 (5)

Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2001 Rev Ed) ss 31 (4) (b) , 34 (2) (b) (consd) ;ss 16, 31 (4) , 34 (1)

Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) ss 8 (b) (ii) , 31 (4) (b) , 33 A (1)

Misuse of Drugs (Urine Specimens and Urine Tests) Regulations (Cap 185, Rg 6, 1999 Rev Ed) regs 3, 5

Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 53, O 53 r 1 (6)

SKKumar (S K Kumar Law Practice LLP) for the applicant

Ong Luan Tze, Tan Eu Shan Kevin and Nicholas Wuan (Attorney-General's Chambers) for the respondent.

Tay Yong Kwang J

Introduction

1 This originating summons (‘OS 991/2013’) is an application by Zheng Jianxing (‘the Applicant’) for leave to file an application for a quashing order in respect of his admission to an approved institution, Sembawang Drug Rehabilitation Centre (‘DRC’), pursuant to an order made by the Deputy Director of the Central Narcotics Bureau (‘CNB’) on 11 May 2006 (‘the 2006 DRC Order’) under s 34 (2) (b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2001 Rev Ed) (‘MDA’).

2 The application was opposed by the Attorney-General (‘the Respondent’). At the conclusion of the hearing on 26 May 2014, I dismissed the Applicant's application. I now set out the grounds for my decision.

Background facts leading to OS 991/2013

3 On 27 March 2006, the Applicant was stopped by officers from the CNB at Tuas Checkpoint. He was brought to the CNB office where three bottles of his urine specimen were obtained. An instant urine test (‘IUT’) was carried out on the Applicant's urine specimen from one of the three bottles. The IUT result was positive for amphetamine, opiate and benzodiazepines.

4 The remaining two bottles of urine specimen were sent to the Health Sciences Authority (‘HSA’) for analysis on 28 March 2006. The HSA subsequently issued two certificates on 5 April 2006 and 12 April 2006 under s 16 of the MDA certifying that the two bottles of urine specimen belonging to the Applicant were found to contain 36,300 ng and 98,700 ng of N,?-dimethyl-3,4- (methylendioxy) phenethylamine per ml of urine respectively. N,?-dimethyl-3,4- (methylendioxy) phenethylamine is a Class A controlled drug listed in the First Schedule of the MDA.

5 Statements were recorded from the Applicant and other witnesses in the course of investigations. The Respondent claimed that the Applicant had never denied that he had consumed drugs in the course of the investigations. This was not disputed by the Applicant.

6 The Deputy Director (who was delegated the authority to exercise the power vested in the Director of the CNB under s 34 (1) and s 34 (2) of the MDA) made the 2006 DRC order on 11 May 2006. The Applicant was committed to Sembawang DRC from 11 May 2006 to 2 May 2007.

7 Several years later, on 12 June 2013, the Applicant was charged under s 8 (b) (ii) read with s 33 A (1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (‘2008 MDA’) for the consumption of methamphetamine (‘LT-1 charge’ or ‘Long Term 1 charge’ which carries enhanced punishment). One of the bases for the LT-1 charge was the Applicant's admission to Sembawang DRC pursuant to the 2006 DRC order.

8 The Applicant brought this application on 17 October 2013 seeking leave to file an application to quash the 2006 DRC order.

Parties' submissions

9 The Applicant argued that the exercise of the Director's discretion under s 34 (2) (b) of the MDA is dependent on the existence of an objective fact. He likened the present case to Lau Seng Poh v Controller of Immigration [1985-1986] SLR (R) 180 where it was held that the Controller of Immigration's discretion to make an order of removal under s 56 (2) of the Immigration Act (Cap 81, 1970 Rev Ed) was dependent on the premise that the person against whom the order was made had unlawfully entered Singapore. The Applicant therefore argued that the exercise of the Director's discretion under s 34 (2) (b) of the MDA is dependent on the existence of accurate and reliable results of urine tests conducted under s 31 (4) (b) of the MDA.

10 The Applicant contended that the difference between the concentration level of N,?-dimethyl-3,4- (methylendioxy) phenethylamine shown in the two urine analysis certificates from the HSA dated 5 April 2006 and 12 April 2006 was so ‘vast’ as to render the results of urine tests inaccurate and unreliable as a basis for the exercise of the Deputy Director's discretion under s 34 (2) (b) of the MDA. He pointed out that the variance of test results was well above the ‘maximum 20%...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Attorney-General
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 4 May 2018
    ...and strongest arguments before the court, instead of merely material that is skimpy or vague: Zheng Jianxing v Attorney-General [2014] 3 SLR 1100 at [35], citing Teng Fuh Holdings Pte Ltd v Collector of Land Revenue [2006] 3 SLR(R) 507 at [24]. Accordingly, the issues that, to my mind, aris......
  • Per Ah Seng Robin and another v Housing and Development Board and another
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 30 November 2015
    ...subject matter of those proceedings after the disclosure of certain information by the respondent. In Zheng Jianxing v Attorney-General [2014] 3 SLR 1100, where there was a delay of more than seven years before the applicant sought leave to apply for a quashing order, Tay Yong Kwang J did n......
  • Ahmad Kasim bin Adam (suing as administrator of the estate of Adam bin Haji Anwar, deceased) v Singapore Land Authority and others
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 5 May 2020
    ...March 2009, his purported grounds for judicial review would have been known to him by that date. In Zheng Jianxing v Attorney-General [2014] 3 SLR 1100 at [40], the High Court held that ignorance in the sense that the applicant is a lay person who did not have the benefit of legal advice wo......
  • Per Ah Seng Robin and another v Housing and Development Board and another
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 30 November 2015
    ...subject matter of those proceedings after the disclosure of certain information by the respondent. In Zheng Jianxing v Attorney-General [2014] 3 SLR 1100, where there was a delay of more than seven years before the applicant sought leave to apply for a quashing order, Tay Yong Kwang J did n......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Administrative and Constitutional Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2014, December 2014
    • 1 December 2014
    ...of Wednesbury unreasonableness. Condition precedent and want of jurisdiction 1.8 The applicant in Zheng Jianxing v Attorney-General[2014] 3 SLR 1100 sought leave to file an application for a quashing order in respect of his admission to a Drug Rehabilitation Centre (DRC) in 2006 made by an ......

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