Kum Mun Hou v Public Prosecutor: Trafficking of Diamorphine

Kum Mun Hou and Gue Huay Quee were convicted in the High Court for trafficking not less than 76.53 grams of diamorphine, an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The Court of Appeal of Singapore, comprising Chao Hick Tin JA, Lai Kew Chai J, and L P Thean JA, dismissed their appeals, finding sufficient evidence that Kum instructed Yau Hock Seng to hand a white carrier bag containing the drugs to Gue, pursuant to a prior arrangement between Kum and Gue. Yau was acquitted at trial. The court found that both Kum and Gue had possession of the drugs for the purpose of trafficking.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeals Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Kum Mun Hou and Gue Huay Quee appeal against their conviction for trafficking diamorphine. The Court of Appeal dismissed their appeals, finding sufficient evidence of their involvement.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorRespondentGovernment AgencyAppeal DismissedWon
April Phang of Deputy Public Prosecutors
David Khoo of Deputy Public Prosecutors
Kum Mun HouAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
Gue Huay QueeAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chao Hick TinJudge of AppealYes
Lai Kew ChaiJudgeNo
L P TheanJudge of AppealNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
April PhangDeputy Public Prosecutors
David KhooDeputy Public Prosecutors
Ong Cheong WeiAllen & Gledhill
Yang Ing LoongAllen & Gledhill
Tan Tee GiamLawrence Wong & Co
Wong Chee Meng LawrenceLawrence Wong & Co

4. Facts

  1. Kum and Yau drove to Singapore in car No. JCV 4973.
  2. Gue drove to Singapore in car No. SBQ 3367J.
  3. Kum and Gue met at a Shell petrol station along Joo Chiat Road.
  4. Kum and Gue drove to an Esso petrol station along East Coast Road.
  5. Yau handed a white carrier bag to Gue through the windows of the cars.
  6. The bag contained not less than 76.53 grams of diamorphine.
  7. Gue placed the bag in a bedroom at 253A Onan Road.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Kum Mun Hou and Another v Public Prosecutor, CA 18/2000, [2001] SGCA 35

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Kum paged Gue and they arranged to meet at a restaurant in Senai.
Kum and Yau drove to Singapore.
Gue drove to Singapore.
Kum and Gue met at the Shell petrol station along Joo Chiat Road.
Kum and Gue drove to an Esso petrol station along East Coast Road.
Yau handed a white carrier bag over to Gue.
Kum and Yau were arrested by the CNB officers.
Gue was arrested by the CNB officers.
CNB officers conducted a raid on 253A Onan Road.
Inspector Saherly recorded a statement from Gue.
Inspector Saherly recorded a statement from Gue.
Appeals dismissed.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Drug Trafficking
    • Outcome: The court found that the appellants were guilty of drug trafficking.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Appeal against conviction and sentence

9. Cause of Actions

  • Drug Trafficking

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
No cited cases

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 1998 ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Diamorphine
  • Drug Trafficking
  • Common Intention
  • Possession
  • Controlled Drugs

15.2 Keywords

  • Drug Trafficking
  • Diamorphine
  • Singapore
  • Criminal Law
  • Misuse of Drugs Act

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Misuse of Drugs Act95
Criminal Law60
Criminal Procedure50
Theft30

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Drug Offences