Low Lin Lin v Public Prosecutor: Cocaine Possession, Presumption of Possession, Adverse Inference
In Low Lin Lin v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by Low Lin Lin against her conviction in the District Court for possession of 0.27 grams of cocaine under s 8(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The prosecution's case relied heavily on the testimony of Sybil Foo Yen Pin, who claimed she and Low Lin Lin consumed cocaine together. Low Lin Lin denied the allegations, claiming the cocaine was not hers. Yong Pung How CJ dismissed the appeal, finding the presumption of possession was appropriately invoked and that the trial judge did not err in preferring Sybil's evidence over Low Lin Lin's.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Low Lin Lin appeals her conviction for cocaine possession. The High Court considers the presumption of possession and the credibility of witness testimony.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Judgment upheld | Won | Hamidul Haq of Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Low Lin Lin | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Hamidul Haq | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Foo Cheow Ming | Sant Singh Partnership |
| Sant Singh | Sant Singh Partnership |
4. Facts
- Appellant met two friends at Double-O Pub.
- Appellant, Sybil, and Jerry left for Velvet Underground.
- Appellant left her handbag at Tables 6 and 7 in Velvet Underground.
- Velvet Underground staff found a packet of whitish substance in the handbag.
- ASP Tan searched the handbag and found the packet of substance.
- Appellant claimed ownership of the handbag but denied knowledge of the substance.
- Sybil testified that she and the appellant consumed cocaine together in a toilet.
5. Formal Citations
- Low Lin Lin v Public Prosecutor, MA 57/2002, [2002] SGHC 199
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant met friends at Double-O Pub. | |
| Appellant, Sybil, and Jerry left Double-O for Velvet Underground. | |
| Appellant left handbag at Tables 6 and 7 in Velvet Underground. | |
| Appellant returned to Velvet Underground. | |
| Soo Han's friends left Velvet Underground, leaving appellant's handbag behind. | |
| Velvet Underground staff found a plastic packet of whitish substance inside the wallet. | |
| ASP Tan searched the handbag and found the packet of substance. | |
| Appellant arrested. | |
| Appellant gave a urine sample to the CNB. | |
| Appellant provided another urine sample. | |
| Sybil gave a statement to the CNB. | |
| Sybil gave another statement to the CNB. | |
| Appellant charged with possession of cocaine. | |
| Appeal dismissed. |
7. Legal Issues
- Presumption of Possession
- Outcome: The court found that the presumption of possession was appropriately invoked based on the evidence presented.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Invocation of presumption
- Rebuttal of presumption
- Adverse Inference
- Outcome: The court held that it was not appropriate to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution due to the absence of certain evidence.
- Category: Procedural
- Credibility of Witness
- Outcome: The court upheld the trial judge's assessment of the witness's credibility, finding her explanations reasonable and her testimony reliable.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Inconsistencies in statements
- Potential bias
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Possession of Cocaine
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
- Drug Offences
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Van Damme Johannes v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR 246 | Singapore | Cited to discuss the meaning of 'possession' under s 18(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, but distinguished on the facts. |
| PP v Ho So Mui | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 2 SLR 59 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the question of what amounts to 'possession' for the purposes of s 18(1) is one of fact and varies from case to case. |
| Chai Chien Wei Kelvin v PP | N/A | Yes | [1991] 1 SLR 25 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court should consider all circumstances of the case and test the evidence against objective facts when assessing the evidence of an accomplice. |
| Mususamy v PP | N/A | Yes | [1987] 1 MLJ 492 | N/A | Cited to explain the scope of s 116(g) of the Evidence Act regarding adverse inference. |
| Murugan v Lew Chu Cheong | N/A | Yes | [1980] 2 MLJ 139 | N/A | Cited for the principle that it is not appropriate to draw an adverse inference if a reasonable explanation for the failure to produce evidence is given. |
| Chua Poh Kiat Anthony v PP | N/A | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR 713 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a conviction may be warranted on the testimony of one witness alone, so long as the court is aware of the dangers and subjects the evidence to careful scrutiny, even if the witness is an accomplice. |
| Tan Khee Koon v PP | N/A | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR 724 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a conviction may be warranted on the testimony of one witness alone, so long as the court is aware of the dangers and subjects the evidence to careful scrutiny, even if the witness is an interested witness. |
| Kwang Boon Keong Peter | N/A | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR 592 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a conviction may be warranted on the testimony of one witness alone, so long as the court is aware of the dangers and subjects the evidence to careful scrutiny, even if the witness is an interested witness. |
| Lim Ah Poh v PP | N/A | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR 713 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court will be slow to disturb the findings of a lower court unless they were clearly reached against the weight of the evidence. |
| Browne v Dunn | N/A | Yes | [1893] 6 R 67 | N/A | Cited for the rule that any matter upon which it is proposed to contradict the evidence-in-chief given by the witness must normally be put to him so that he may have an opportunity of explaining the contradiction. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| s 8(a) Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) | Singapore |
| s 18(1) Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 85, 2001 Ed) | Singapore |
| s 116 Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Cocaine
- Possession
- Presumption
- Adverse Inference
- Accomplice
- Credibility
- Witness
- Evidence
- Misuse of Drugs Act
15.2 Keywords
- cocaine
- possession
- drugs
- criminal law
- evidence
- singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 90 |
| Evidence Law | 80 |
| Criminal Law | 75 |
| Evidence | 70 |
| Admissibility of evidence | 60 |
| Duty of Candour | 40 |
| Criminal Revision | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Offences
- Evidence Law