Lim Lye Huat Benny v Public Prosecutor

[1995]3SLR(R)689; [1995]SGCA80

SuitNo :CriminalAppealNo39of1995DecisionDate:1November1995Court :CourtofAppealCoram :MKarthigesuJA,LPTheanJAandGohJoonSengJCounsel :SRadakrishnan(Bernard,Rada&Barker)andStevenSeah(Drew&Napier)fortheappellant

FooCheowMing(DeputyPublicProsecutor)fortherespondent.

CriminalLawStatutoryoffencesMisuseofDrugsAct(Cap185,1985RevEd)UndisputedfactsshowedaccusedtransportinganddeliveringdrugsWhetherProsecutionoughttoinvokess5(2)and17MisuseofDrugsAct(Cap185,1985RevEd)

CriminalLawStatutoryoffencesMisuseofDrugsAct(Cap185,1985RevEd)PresumptionofpossessionandknowledgeofcontrolleddrugsWhetherpresumptionrebuttedSections18(1)and18(2)MisuseofDrugsAct(Cap185,1985RevEd)

Facts

TheappellantwasarrestedbyofficersfromtheCentralNarcoticsBureau("CNB")whilecarryingawhiteplasticbagcontaining38.52gofdiamorphine.Theappellantwasthenchargedunders5(1)(a)readwiths5(2)oftheMisuseofDrugsAct(Cap185,1985RevEd)("theAct").Attrial,theappellant'sdefencewasthat he genuinely believed that hewas only delivering counterfeitmoney for oneRichard. The learnedjudgefoundthatthefactofpossessionhadbeenprovedbytheProsecutionandassuch,theappellantwaspresumedtohaveknowledgeofthecontentsinhispossessionbyreasonofs18(2)oftheAct.Thejudgefurther rejected the defence as the appellant had never mentioned his belief that the bag containedcounterfeitmoneyinbothhisss121and122(6)statements.Ontheevidence,thejudgewassatisfiedthattheProsecutionhadproveditscase,andtheappellantwasaccordinglyconvictedascharged.Onappeal,itwassubmittedonbehalfoftheappellantthat:(a)thecourtbelowfoundnoevidencethattheappellantknewthathewascarryingdrugsand(b)theappellanthadraisedacredibledefence.

Held,dismissingtheappeal:

(1)Thetrialjudgeerredinfindingthatpossessionofthedrugsbytheappellanthadbeenprovedas:(a)therewasnodirectevidenceshowingthattheappellantknewthatthecontentsof thebagweredrugsand(b)toinvokethepresumptionunders18(2),apersonmustfirstbe"provedorpresumedtohavehadacontrolleddruginhispossession":at[16].

(2)Onthefacts,theappellantwasnotmerelyinphysicalpossessionofthedrugsbutwastransportingand delivering the drugs to another person. Thiswas not a case of passive physical possession of thedrugsbutwherethepersonwasfoundtobetrafficking inthedrugs inquestion.Assuch,therewasnonecessityfortheProsecutiontoinvokes5(2)andtorelyonthepresumptionofpossessionofdrugsforthepurposeoftraffickingunders17.Instead,theapplicablepresumptionswouldbess18(1)and18(2):at[17]and[18].

(3) Looking at the totality of the evidence, the trial judgewasnot plainlywrong in finding that theappellant'sevidencewasnotsufficientlyconvincing,and to reject theappellant'sallegedbelief that thecontentoftheplasticbagwascounterfeitmoney.Inthecircumstances,theappellanthadnotrebuttedthepresumptionsunderss18(1)and18(2),andtheappealaccordinglyfailed:at[25].

[Observation: The Prosecutionwas in error in invoking s 5(2), as on the agreed facts, the acts of theappellant clearly fell within the definition of trafficking. Further, it was not necessary to make anyreferencetos17as itwasanevidentialsectionthatraisedapresumptionofacertainfactandwasno

QL113

QL113

differentfromtheothersectionsraisingrebuttablepresumptionsofcertainfacts:at[26].]

Case(s)referredto

LowKokWaivPP[1994]1SLR(R)64[1994]1SLR676(folld)

PPvWanYueKong[1995]1SLR(R)83[1995]1SLR417(folld)

RvWarner[1969]2AC256(refd)

TanAhTeevPP[19791980]SLR(R)311[19781979]SLR211(folld)

Legislationreferredto

CriminalProcedureCode(Cap68,1985RevEd)ss121,122(6)

MisuseofDrugsAct(Cap185,1985RevEd)ss5(2),17,18(1),18(2)(consd)s5(1)(a)

1November1995Judgmentreserved.

LPTheanJA(deliveringthejudgmentofthecourt):

Thecharge

1TheappellantwasconvictedintheHighCourtonthechargethat:

onorabout17February1995atabout8.30pmatthevoiddeckofBlk614BedokReservoirRoad,Singapore, [he] did traffic in a controlled drug specified in Class A of the First Schedule to theMisuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) by having in [his] possession for the purpose of trafficking 60packetsofsubstancecontainingnot less than38.52gofdiamorphineat thesaidvoiddeckofBlk614BedokReservoir Roadwithout any authorization under the saidAct or the regulationsmadethereunderandbyvirtueofs17oftheMisuseofDrugsAct,[hehas]therebycommittedanoffenceunders5(1)(a)readwiths5(2)andpunishableunders33ofthesaidAct.

Agreedfacts

2Astatementofagreedfactswastenderedatthetrialandwasadmitted.Thestatement,insofarasmaterial,statedasfollows:

1On17February1995atabout8.11pm,atthevoiddeckofBlk614BedokReservoirRoad,CNBofficersSgtLeongWaiWah,CplLimSengYong,CplMohdRusdiBSuhudi,SgtAngOonThoandNarcoticsOfficerMohdAzliBNasibattendedabriefing conductedbySSSgtChanHonKit.SSSgtChanHonKitinformedthemthattheyweretolookoutforamaleChineseknownas'Benny'whowouldappearonthatdayatthegroundfloorofBlk614BedokReservoirRoad.SSSgtChanthendeployed the officers into two parties, the first ofwhich comprisedCplMohdRusdi, Cpl Lim,NOMohdAzliandSgtAng,thesecondcomprisedtherestoftheaforementionedofficers.

2Atabout8.15pm,CplMohdRusdi,CplLim,NOAzliandSgtAngpositionedthemselvesatthevicinityofBlk617BedokReservoirRoad.Atabout8.30pm,amaleChinesewasseencomingfromthe carparkofBlk614,BedokReservoirRoad.Hewas carryingawhiteplasticbagandwalkingtowardsthevoiddeckofBlk614BedokReservoirRoad.ThemaleChinesethenputdowntheplasticbagonthefloorbehindhim.Atthisjuncture,themaleChinesewasarrestedbyCplMohdRusdiandSgtAng.ThemaleChinesewasascertainedtobeoneBennyLimLyeHuat,m/36IC:1333136GofBlk 253 Jurong East St 24 #02267, Singapore (who shall hereinafter be called the accused).

Q

A

Q

A

Subsequently,SSSgtChanquestionedtheaccusedinHokkiendialect:

Whatisinsidetheplasticbag?

Don'tknow.

Wheredidyouparkedyourcar?

There.

3 TheaforesaidwhiteplasticbagwhichcontainedtwostyrofoamboxeswasthenseizedbyCplMohdRusdi.TheaccusedthenledtheofficerstothecarparkwherehiscarSBN1422LwasparkedneartoBlk614BedokReservoirRoad.SSSgtChaninstructedSgtAngtodrivetheaccused'svehicleSBN1422LtogetherwithSgtLeong,CplRusdi, theaccusedandthewhiteplasticbagseized forGeylangPoliceDivisionHq.ThewhiteplasticbagremainedinCplMohdRusdi'scustody.Therestoftheambushpartyalsoreturnedthereto.

4 At about 8.50pm, they arrived at Geylang PoliceDivisionHQ. SSSgt Chan informed Insp CSivakumaran of the arrest. The accused Bennywas told to sit at room#0133, escorted byCplMohdRusdiandNOAzli.Atroom#0133,inthepresenceoftheaccused,SgtAngopenedoneofthe two styrofoam boxes found in the white plastic bag, and discovered that there were sixpackageswrapped innewsprint therein.He thenunwrappedoneof the said packages and foundthat it contained five plastic sachets of granular substance believed to be drugs. Sgt Ang thenrewrappedthesachetsandputthembackintothestyrofoambox.CplRusdithenstoodguardoverthedrugsexhibitsseized.Atabout11.55pm,ASPAdrianTaninstructedSgtAngtosendSgtLeong,theaccused(escortedbyCplMohdRusdi)andthewhiteplasticbag(heldbyCplMohdRusdi)backtoCNBHQintheaccused'svehicleSBN1422.

3AttheCNBheadquartersthewhiteplasticbagwashandedtotheinvestigatingofficerSeniorStaffSgtCheongWahChow("S/SSgtCheong").Theplasticbagcontainedtwostyrofoamboxes,andeachoftheboxescontainedsixpackageswrappedinnewsprint.Eachofthesesixpackagesinturncontainedfiveplastic packets of granular substance. The contents of all the packets were sent to the Department ofScientificServicesforanalysisandwerefoundtocontainatotalof38.52gofdiamorphine.Therewasnodisputeontheresultsofthescientificanalysisofthegranularsubstance.

Thestatements

4Astatementwasrecordedfromtheappellantpursuanttos122(6)oftheCriminalProcedureCode(Cap68)("theCPC")andwasadmittedinevidence.Thiswasrecordedbetween4.25amand4.55amon18February1995.Theappellantstatedthathehadnothingtosaywhenthechargeandnoticeofwarningwerereadtohim.On21February1995,alengthystatementwasrecordedfromhimunders121oftheCPC.TheDefencedidnotobjecttotheadmissionofthesetwostatements.

5 In the s 121 statement, the appellant said that hewasworking as a freelance car dealer andsalesman at the time of his arrest. Hementioned that he had financial problems after hismarriage in1990. In December 1994, hemet a friend known as Ah Seng whilst he was having some drinks at akaraoke lounge. He was introduced by Ah Seng to one "Richard". They exchanged contact numbers.Richard gave the appellant his handphone number 020107722174, which was a Malaysianregisteredhandphone number, while the appellant gave his pager number to Richard in turn. They then partedcompany. Over the next few weeks, Richard paged the appellant, who managed to reach him on hishandphone.Theytalkedaboutbusinessopportunities inSingapore.Theappellant toldRichardabouthisfinancialproblems,andthatheneededmoneyforthecomingChineseNewYear.Richardthensuggestedthattheappellantcouldhelphimoperategamblingandprostitutiondens.TheappellanttoldRichardthathewasnotfamiliar inthoselinesandheturneddowntheoffer.On2February1995,theappellantwaspagedbyRichard,buthedidnotreturnthecall.Thereafter,Richardpagedhimafewmoretimesoverthe

QL113

QL113

QL113

nexttwoweeks,buttheappellantagaindidnotreturnhiscall.HedidnotwanttohaveanyconnectionwithRichard.On16February1995,theappellantwasagainpagedbyRichard.Heresponded,intendingtoinformRichardthathedidnotwanttogetinvolvedinhisbusiness.Richardmanagedtopersuadehimtochangehismind.TheappellantthenowedtheHousingandDevelopmentBoardoutstandingrent forsixmonths. Richard asked him whether he would deliver a package for him, for which he would be paid$3,000.Theappellantwasinneedofmoneyandheacceptedtheoffer.HetoldRichardthatthatwouldbethelasttimehewoulddeliverthingsforhim.

6On17February1995,RichardandtheappellantarrangedtomeetthateveningattheMcDonald'srestaurantalongRochorRoad,between7.30pmand7.45pm.TheappellantdrovetomeetRichardthere.When theymet,Richardhanded theappellant awhite plastic bag and instructed him to deliver it to aslightly fat male Chinese with short hair who would be waiting at the void deck at Block 614 BedokReservoirRoad.Theplasticbagwasleftonthefrontpassengerseatfloorboardoftheappellant'scar.Hesawthat therewere twowhite styrofoamboxes inside.He did not open the boxes to checkwhat theycontained. After arriving at Block 614 Bedok Reservoir Road, he carried the plastic bag and walkedtowardsamaleChinesewhofittedthedescriptiongivenbyRichard.Atthatpointhewasarrested.Whenthe styrofoam boxeswere opened in his presence and the newspaper packages removed, he saw thattherewere packets of yellowish substances.He did not knowwhat theywere.He later learnt that theyellowishsubstanceswereheroin.

Thedefence

7Theappellantgaveevidenceinhisdefence,andhisevidencewasthis.Atthetimeofarrest,hewasworkingasafreelancecarsalesman.Heclarifiedthathehadastammersincebirthandalsoblinkedoften.HewasmarriedtooneDianaNgandtheyhadayoungson.Hestatedthathewasnotadrugaddictandhadneverseendrugsbefore.HetestifiedthatinmidDecember1994,hewenttotheKMartdepartmentstore at Lucky Plaza to buy a Christmas present for his son. After getting the present, he went to akaraokeloungeinthesamebuildingwherehemet"AhSeng"whointroducedhimtoaMalaysiannamedRichard.TheappellantfoundoutthatRichardwasinvolvedingamblingdensandprostitutionrackets.Hesaid that Richard also mentioned running a counterfeit money operation. Richard gave him a samplecounterfeitMalaysian$50noteasasouvenir.Itwasalreadytornintotwopieces.Therewasnomentionofdrugsorheroin.

8 The appellant testified that Richard later pagedhim inmidDecember. They engaged in casualconversationatfirst.Richardeventuallyaskedhimtodoafavourforhimbydeliveringsomecounterfeitmoney.Richardsaidthattheappellantwouldbepaid$2,000forhelpinghim.ThiswasprobablysometimebeforetheChineseNewYearin1995.Theappellantagreedashewasthenfacingfinancialproblemsandheneededmoney.Thearrangementwasfortheappellanttosendaplasticbagcontainingagiftwrappedbox to the baggage deposit counter at Yaohan Parkway Parade. He was to obtain the baggageidentificationtagandthereaftertohandittoRichard.Hesaidthathewaspaid$2,000forthedelivery.ThistransactionwasthefirstofonlytwooccasionsinwhichhehadagreedtodelivercounterfeitmoneysforRichard.Thesecondtransactionledtohisarrestandisthesubjectmatteroftheseproceedings.TheappellantsaidthathetrustedRichardsincehehadbeenpaid$2,000forthefirstdelivery.HistrustwasfortifiedbythefactthathehadbeengiventhecounterfeitRM50note,whichsuggestedthatRichardwasgenuinelyrunningacounterfeitmoneyoperation.

9 Theevents leadingup to theappellant'sarrestwereas follows.Richardpagedhima few timesduringtheChineseNewYear.Theappellantdidnotrespond.Hewasbusyhavingfamilyoutingsduringthefestiveseason.Moreover, healreadyhad the$2,000whichwas sufficient to tidehimover theChineseNewYear.HeeventuallydidcallRichardon16February,after the latterhadpagedhimagain.Richardaskedhimwhetherhewasinterestedtomakeonemoredelivery.TheappellanthadnosuchintentionbutlateragreedashehadtopayoffhisarrearsofrentowingtotheHousingandDevelopmentBoardwhichamounted to about $3,000. Richard agreed to pay him$3,000 for helping him. On 17 February 1995,Richard arranged tomeet the appellant at around 7.30pm to 7.45pm at theMcDonald's restaurant atRochor. The appellant's evidence from this juncture onwards was substantially similar to what he had

relatedinhiss121statement.Hemaintainedthathedidnotcheckwhatwascontainedwithintheplasticbagashewasinahurrytodeliverthebag.

10Thus,hisdefencewasthathegenuinelybelievedthathewasatthematerialtimeonlydeliveringcounterfeitmoneyforRichard.Heacknowledgedthatthiswasnotexpresslymentionedinhisstatementstothepolice.Hesaidthatwhenthes122(6)statementwasrecorded,hewastootired,hungryandsleepyandthatallhewantedwas to rest.Hehadnotbeengiven foodordrink fromthe timeofhisarrestatabout8.30pmon17February1995 till about7.00amthenextmorning.Heasserted that thes122(6)noticewasnotexplainedtohim.

11Asforthes121statement,whiletherewasafairlydetailedaccountoftheevents leadingtotheappellant'sarrestaswellasexpressmentionofRichard'srole,hedidnotmentionthatwhatRichardhadasked him to help deliver was counterfeit money. He believed that he could relate this in greaterconfidencetohislawyer,whomhisbrotherhadpromisedtoengagetodefendhim.Hedidnotthinkitwasimportanttomentionthepointaboutthecounterfeitmoney.HemaintainedthathedidnotthinkthattheCNBofficerswouldbelievehim.

Decisionbelow

12 The learned trial judge found that the fact of possession was proved by the testimony of thearrestingofficers,SgtAngOonThoandCplMohdRusdi,aswellas theadmissionof theappellant,andheld that by reason of s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) ("the Act"), the appellant waspresumed tohaveknowledgeof the contents in his possession. The learned judge thennoted that theappellantsoughttorebut thepresumptionofknowledge,and thereby, the intention to trafficbysayingthathethoughthewascarryingcounterfeitmoney.Inthelearnedjudge'sview,thisdefence"ranstraightinto trouble" because the appellant had never mentioned his belief that the bag contained counterfeitmoneyinbothhiss122(6)statementands121statement.Thelearnedjudgesaid:

Ihaveconsideredhisevidencecarefullyandamnotsatisfiedthathehasrebuttedthepresumptionoftrafficking.Hisfailure,fromhisarrestupto21February1995,tomentionthathethoughthewascarrying counterfeit money can only leadme to the inference that his evidence is not true. HisexplanationsfortheomissionwerenotconvincingandfailedtopersuademethatIshouldnotdrawanyadverseinferencefromtheomission.

13 The learned trial judgewas also not convinced that itwas unremarkable to be paid $3,000 forcarryingaplasticbagfromRochorRoadtoBedokReservoirRoad.Hedidnotacceptcounsel'ssuggestionthat the accused was a simpleton who was "dumb" enough to be led into carrying drugs without hisknowledge. Being satisfied that the Prosecution had proved its case, the learned judge convicted theappellantascharged.

Theappeal

14Essentially,thereweretwogroundsofappeal.Firstly, itwassubmittedonbehalfoftheappellantthatthecourtbelowfoundnoevidencethattheappellantknewthathewascarryingdrugsandthiswasstatedby the learned trial judge in the courseof the closing submissionmadeby theProsecution.Thecourtalsodidnotmakeanyfindingoffactfromwhichitcouldreasonablybeinferredthattheappellanthadknowledgeofthecontentsoftheplasticbag.Inotherwords,theProsecutionhasnotprovedthattheappellantatthematerialtimehadpossessionofthedrugs,andinconsequencethepresumptionunders17oftheActdidnotarise.Secondly,counselfortheappellantsubmittedthattheappellanthadraisedacredibledefence.CounselemphasisedthattheexistenceofRichardwasnotdisputedbytheProsecution.Indeed, the Prosecution acknowledged that it would put its case on the basis that Richard was not afictitiouscharacter,andthatRichardhadinfactmanagedtopersuadetheappellanttodeliverthedrugs.The appellantmaintained that he genuinely believed that hewas only delivering counterfeitmoney forRichard. This was supported by the fact that he had a counterfeit RM50 note in his wallet. CounselsubmittedthattheappellanthadplacedhistrustinRichard.Hissuspicionswerenotaroused.Assuch,he

QL113

QL113

QL113

QL113

QL113

QL113

didnotseethenecessityofexaminingthecontentsoftheplasticbag.Moreover,theappellantwasamerebaileeandwasnotentitledtoopenthebagtofindoutwhatthecontentswere.Counselurgedthiscourtnottoattachsubstantialweighttotheappellant'sfailuretomentionthathewascarryingcounterfeitnotesinhisstatements.Thelearnedtrialjudgehadfoundtheappellantguiltyprimarilyonthatbasis.Counselsubmittedthattheappellantcouldnotbeconvictedonthechargeonthebasisofthisfindingalone,andthatthetrialjudgehadfailedtodirecthismindtodeterminewhethertheProsecutionhaddischargedtherequiredburdenofproof. Inparticular, thetrial judgehadnotaddressedthecogencyof theappellant'sevidence,whichsuggestedthatRichardwastheactualdrugtrafficker.

15Wenowturntoconsiderthefirstgroundofappeal.Thelearnedtrialjudgefoundthatpossessionofthedrugshadbeenproved.Hesaid:

ThefactofpossessionwasprovedbythetestimonyofthearrestingofficersSgtAngOonThoandCplMohdRusdi,aswellastheadmissionoftheaccused.Bys18(2)oftheAct,oncepossessionisproved,theaccusedispresumedtohaveknowledgeofthecontentsinhispossession.Theaccusedsoughttorebutthepresumptionofknowledgeand,thereby,theintentiontotrafficbysayingthathethoughtthathewascarryingcounterfeitmoney.

16Withrespect,thelearnedtrialjudgeerred.Firstly,therewasnodirectevidenceshowingthattheappellant knew that the contents of the bag were drugs. It is true that at the time of his arrest theappellanthadactualphysicalpossessionof thebagcontainingthedrugs.Hewasthenquestionedastowhatwasinthewhiteplasticbagandhisreplywasthathedidnotknow.Hisevidenceatthetrialwasthatthecontentsofthebagwerecounterfeitmoneys.Inouropinion,ontheevidence,possessionofthedrugshadnotbeenprovedby"thetestimonyofthearrestingofficersSgtAngOonThoandCplMohdRusdi".Norhadtherebeenanyadmissionoftheappellant.Secondly,s18(2)oftheActoperatesonlytotheextentofraising a presumption of the knowledge of the nature of a particular controlled drug, ie whether it isdiamorphine,cannabis,cocaineandsoon.Buttoinvokethispresumptionapersonmustfirstbe"provedorpresumedtohavehadacontrolleddruginhispossession".UnfortunatelytheabsenceofanyevidencefromtheProsecutiontoprovepossessionofthedrugsbytheappellantdoesnotcarrytheappealveryfar,havingregardtothematerialfactsbeforeus.

17 As can be seen from the agreed statement of facts, the most damning evidence against theappellantwasthaton17February1995atabout8.30pmhewasseenbytheCNBofficersbringingawhiteplastic bag containing 38.52g of diamorphine from the car park to the void deck of Block 614 BedokReservoirRoad,wherehewasabout todeliver thebag to"a fatmaleChinesewithshorthair".At thatpoint,hewasarrestedbytheCNBofficers.TherewasindeedamaleChinesehewasaCNBinformerandwasnotcalledasawitness.Onthesefacts,theappellantatthematerialtimewasnotmerelyinphysicalpossessionof thedrugs.Hewasdoingmore than that:hewas transportingandwas in theprocessofdelivering the bag containing the drugs to the male Chinese. This is not a case of passive physicalpossessionofthedrugs.Itisacasewhere(subjecttothequestionofproofofpossessionofthedrugs)apersonisfoundtobetraffickinginthedrugsinquestion.Hence,onthesefacts,therewasnonecessityfortheProsecutiontoinvokes5(2)oftheActandrelyonthepresumptionunders17thattheappellantatthematerial time had possession of the drugs for the purpose of trafficking. It is settled law that thepresumption under s 17 only ariseswhere possession of the drugs (notmere physical possession) hasbeenproved:seeLowKokWaivPP[1994]1SLR(R)64andPPvWanYueKong[1995]1SLR(R)83.

18But, inthiscase,it isnotnecessarytoinvokethepresumptionunders17andhencethereisnoneedfortheProsecutiontoprovepossessionofthedrugsinthesensethattheappellantknewthatwhathewascarryingweredrugs.Thematerial factswere thatat thematerial timehewascarryingawhiteplasticbagandwasbringingitfromthecarparktothevoiddeckwithaviewtodeliveringittothemaleChinese, and that bag contained the drugs, the subject matter of the charge. On these facts, thepresumptionsunderss18(1)and18(2)arise.Theseprovisions,insofarasmaterial,areasfollows:

(1)Anypersonwhoisprovedtohavehadinhispossessionorcustodyorunderhiscontrol

QL113

QL113

QL113

(a)anythingcontainingacontrolleddrug

(b)...

(c)...

shall,untilthecontraryisproved,bepresumedtohavehadthatdruginhispossession.

(2)Anypersonwhoisprovedorpresumedtohavehadacontrolleddruginhispossessionshall,untilthecontraryisproved,bepresumedtohaveknownthenatureofthatdrug.

19Thesearethetworebuttablepresumptionsoperatingagainsttheappellantanditisfortheappellanttorebutthesepresumptionsand, inparticular, thepresumptionunders18(1) ifhesuccessfullyrebutsthe presumption under s 18(1), the presumption under s 18(2)will not arise. Hence, in this case, thepossessionofthedrugsispresumedandnot"proved".

20 The material facts in the instant case are, in substance, similar to those in Tan Ah Tee v PP[19791980]SLR(R)311.Theretheaccused,TanAhTeeandLowHongEng,wereobservedbynarcoticsofficers walking towards a car near Block A, Far East Mansion, Kim Yam Road. Tan Ah Tee was seenholdingaplasticbagandonapproachingthecarhewasseenhandingthebagtoHongEng.Theybothwentintothecar:AhTeewasthedriverandHongEngthepassengeratthefrontseat.AhTeedrovethecarallthewaytoDicksonRoadwherehestopped.AtthatpointHongEngcameoutofthecarholdingtheplasticbag.Thenarcoticsofficersthenwentupandarrestedbothofthem.Theplasticbagwasfoundtocontain459.3gofdiamorphine.Bothwerecharged for trafficking in thatquantityofdrugs.At the trial,after the defencewas called, both the accused did not give any evidence in their defence. They wereconvictedofdrugtraffickingandonappealthiscourtdismissedtheappeal.WeeChongJinCJreferredtothecontentionadvancedonbehalfoftheaccusedat[18]asfollows:

Thecontention isthatalthoughitcannotbedisputedthatthesecondappellanthadpossession oftheplasticbagandthattherebyshewascorrectlypresumedtohavehadpossessionofthecontentsoftheplasticbagandtohaveknownthatitscontentswerediamorphine,acontrolleddrug,thetrialjudgesshouldhaveheld,bydrawingthecorrect inferencesontheevidencebeforethemthatshehadrebuttedthesestatutorypresumptions....

21Andthensaidat[19]:

Withregardtothequestionofpossessionofthecontentsoftheplasticbagitissubmittedthatthetrialjudgesshouldhavedrawntheinferencefromherevidencethatshedidnotinfactknowwhatwascontainedinsidetheplasticbag.Inouropiniontherewasnoplausibleevidencebeforethetrialjudgestorequirethemtodrawtheinferencethatshewasaninnocentcustodianofthecontentsoftheplasticbag.Indeed,eveniftherewerenostatutorypresumptionsavailabletotheProsecution,oncetheProsecutionhadprovedthefactofphysicalcontrolorpossessionoftheplasticbagandthecircumstances in which this was acquired by and remained with the second appellant, the trialjudgeswouldbejustifiedinfindingthatshehadpossessionofthecontentsoftheplasticbagwithinthemeaningof theActunlessshegaveanexplanationof thephysical factwhichthetrial judgesacceptedorwhichraisedadoubtintheirmindsthatshehadpossessionofthecontentswithinthemeaningoftheAct.

22HethenreferredtotheoftquotedcaseofRvWarner[1969]2AC256andthewellknownpassageofthespeechofLordPearceandconcludedthus:

... Under our Act where a person is in possession of a bag or packagewhich contains in fact acontrolleddrug it ispresumed thathe is inpossessionofandknows thenatureof thecontrolleddrugunlikeintheUnitedKingdomwherethereisonlyaprimafaciestronginferencethatheis inpossessionof its contents.ThusunderourAct theburden restsonhim toproveonabalanceof

probabilities thathewasnot inpossessionofanddidnotknowthenatureof thecontrolleddrugwhichwascontainedinthepackageorbag.

23Wenowturntoexaminewhethertheappellanthasshownonthebalanceofprobabilitiesthathedidnot know that the contents of the plastic bagwere drugs. This, in effect, is the question raised in hissecondgroundofappeal.Theappellant'sdefencewasthathemetoneRichardandagreedwithRichardtodeliveraplasticbagcontainingcounterfeitcurrencyandthathebelievedthatwhathewascarryingatthetimewascounterfeitcurrency.TosupporthisevidencehereliedonthefactthatatthetimeofhisarresthehadwithhimacounterfeitRM50notewhichhesaidwasgiventohimbyRichard inDecember1994and this caused him to trust Richard when Richard told him that the plastic bag contained counterfeitcurrency.

24Thelearnedtrialjudgedisbelievedhisevidencemainlyonthegroundthattheappellanthadnevermentioned in his s 122(6) statement or s 121 statement that he believed that the white plastic bagcontainedcounterfeitmoney.The learned judgedrewanadverse inferenceagainst theappellant.Thes122(6)statementwasrecordedattheunearthlytimebetween4.25amand4.55amon18February1995,andtheappellantsaidthatatthattimehewastootiredandhungrytothinkofhisdefence,ietomentionthat he believed that hewas carrying counterfeitmoney. That could be a plausible explanation in thecircumstances. We are inclined to agree with counsel's submission that not much weight should beattachedtotheappellant's failuretomentionhisdefenceatthetimewhenthechargeandthewarningwerereadouttohim.

25However,thesamecannotbesaidwithreferencetohisfailuretomentioninhiss121statementthathebelievedthathewascarryingcounterfeitmoney.Thatwasalengthystatementgivenbyhimon21February1995,whichwassomethreedaysafterhisarrestanditwasrecordedatthetimebetween10.30amand3.10pmwithabreak inbetween.Thatstatementcontainedadetailedaccountofhis firstmeetingwithRichard,ofhissubsequentcontactswithRichard,ofwhatRichardaskedhimtodowhentheymet on the 17 February 1995, ie the day of the offence, and of what Richard handed to him at thatmeeting.However,notawordwasmentionedofRichard'srepresentationtohimthatwhathewasaskedto deliver was counterfeit money and of how he came to possess the counterfeit note of RM50. Hisexplanationwasthathisbrotherhadtoldhimthathisbrotherwouldengagealawyertodefendhimandtherefore he did not think that it was important to mention that the plastic bag contained counterfeitmoney.Butthatexplanationwasnotacceptedby the learned trial judge. Inour judgment, the learnedtrialjudgewasentitledtotakethisviewofhisevidenceandtodrawanadverse inferenceagainsthim.Thelearnedjudgealsoheldthattheappellanthadfailedtoconvincehimthatitwasunremarkabletobepaid$3,000 forcarryingaplasticbag fromRochorRoadtoBedokReservoirRoad. Inconsequence, thelearnedtrialjudgedidnotfindhisevidencesufficientlyconvincinganddidnotaccepthisevidencethathebelievedthatthecontentoftheplasticbagwascounterfeitmoney.Lookingattheevidenceonthetotality,we cannot say that the learned trial judgewas plainlywrong in this finding. In the circumstances, theappellanthasnot,inourjudgment,rebuttedthepresumptionsunderss18(1)and18(2)oftheAct.Thisappealaccordinglyfails.

26 Beforeweconcludeweneed to sayawordwith regard to the charge thathasbeen framed. Inessence, the charge against the appellant is for trafficking in the quantity of drugs concerned and thecharge was made on the basis of the appellant having possession of the drugs for the purpose oftrafficking,anditreferstoss5(2)and17oftheAct.OnthistheProsecutionwasinerror.Section5(2)shouldnotbeinvokedinthiscase,as,ontheagreedfacts,theappellantwastransportingandwasintheprocess of delivering thewhite plastic bag containing thedrugs to amaleChinese his acts clearly fellwithin the definition of trafficking. As for s 17, it is, in any event, wholly unnecessary to make anyreferencetothatsectioninthechargeindeeditisnotnecessarytorefertoitatallinanychargeundertheAct,whetherornots5(2)isinvoked.Itisanevidentialsectionitraisesarebuttablepresumptionofacertainfactandisnodifferentfromtheothersectionsraisingrebuttablepresumptionsofcertainfacts,egss1822oftheAct.Hence,evenifs5(2)oftheActisinvokeditisstillunnecessarytorefertos17atall.Havingregardtotheundisputedfactsinthiscaseweneedtoamendthecharge(a)bydeletingthewords:

QL113

QL113

QL113

QL113

QL113

QL113

QL113

"byhavinginyourpossessionforthepurposeoftrafficking"andsubstitutingtherefor:"bytransportingforthepurposeofdeliverytoamaleChinese"and(b)bydeletingthewords:"byvirtueofs17oftheMisuseofDrugsAct"and"readwiths5(2)".

27Thenextquestioniswhethertheproposedamendmentofthechargewouldoperatetotheprejudiceof theappellant inanyway.We thinknot. First, aswehave said, theessenceof the chargehasbeenclearlyspeltout,andtheparticularsof thechargehavebeensetout inthechargeand,apart fromthereferencetopossessionofthedrugsforthepurposeoftraffickingandthereferencetoss5(2)and17,aresubstantiallycorrect.Thematerialfactswhichhavebeennarratedarenotindispute.Itmaybesaidthatifthechargehadinitiallybeenframedinthewayaswenowpropose,theappellantmightorwouldnothaveagreedtothestatementoffactsasadmitted.Butwithorwithoutthatagreedstatement,theProsecutionwas inapositiontoadduceoverwhelmingdirectevidence fromthenarcoticsofficers toprovethat theysawtheappellantcarryingawhiteplasticbagandwalkingfromthecarparktothevoiddeckofBlock614,BedokReservoirRoad,atabout8.30pmon17February1995andthattheappellantwasarrestedbythenarcoticsofficerswhenhewasabouttodeliverthewhiteplasticbagtoamaleChinese,aCNBinformer.Inhiss121statementtheappellantadmittedthathehadthewhiteplasticbagatthetimeandhewasonhisway todeliver it to themaleChinese.Thewhiteplasticbagwas found tocontain twostyrofoamboxeswhich in turncontainedyellowishsubstancewithadiamorphinecontentof38.52g.Therewasthereforeclearanddirectevidencewhichestablishedall the ingredientsof theoffenceofdrug traffickingunders5(1)(a)oftheAct.

28Finally,theevidenceoftheappellantwasthathebelievedthatwhathewascarryingwascounterfeitmoneyandnotdrugs.Inotherwords,hehadnoknowledgethatthecontentsofthebagweredrugs.Thatwas his defence to the charge,whether the charge is framed as it is or in theway as proposed to beamendedbyus.Itisthisdefencethathasnotsucceededbeforethetrialjudge.

29Accordingly,weamendthechargeasproposedanddismisstheappeal.

HeadnotedbyLeongWengTat.