Public Prosecutor v Yen May Woen: Trafficking of Diamorphine under Misuse of Drugs Act
In Public Prosecutor v Yen May Woen, the High Court of Singapore found Yen May Woen guilty of trafficking in diamorphine under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The court determined that the accused failed to rebut the presumption that she possessed the drugs for the purpose of trafficking, based on inconsistencies in her testimony and statements to CNB officers. The court convicted and sentenced her according to the law.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Guilty
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Yen May Woen was charged with trafficking diamorphine. The High Court found her guilty, failing to rebut the presumption under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Prosecution | Government Agency | Won | Won | |
| Yen May Woen | Defendant | Individual | Guilty | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Woo Bih Li | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Benjamin Yim | Public Prosecutor |
| Janet Wang | Public Prosecutor |
| Laura Liu | Public Prosecutor |
| Goh Siok Leng | Christina Goh & Co |
| Morris Yow | David Chong & Co |
4. Facts
- The accused was arrested for possessing not less than 30.16g of diamorphine.
- The arrest occurred on 8 May 2002 at Toa Payoh Central.
- CNB officers found a sling bag containing 120 sachets of heroin in the boot of a taxi.
- The accused initially denied knowledge of the drugs but later admitted to ordering 20-30 sachets.
- The accused claimed she was merely returning a sling bag to a friend.
- The accused's long statement contradicted her oral testimony.
- The aggregate weight of the granular substance from the 120 sachets was 883.8 g.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Yen May Woen, CC 2/2003, [2003] SGHC 60
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Accused charged with drug trafficking | |
| Accused arrested at Toa Payoh Central | |
| CNB officers recorded statements from the accused | |
| Accused gave long statement | |
| Accused gave long statement | |
| Accused gave long statement | |
| Accused gave long statement | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Drug Trafficking
- Outcome: The court found the accused guilty of drug trafficking, failing to rebut the presumption under s 17 of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Possession of controlled drugs
- Purpose of trafficking
- Rebuttal of presumption
- Chain of Evidence
- Outcome: The court found that there was no reasonable doubt that the drugs analyzed were the same as those seized from the accused.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Integrity of drug exhibits
- Identification of exhibits
- Break in chain of possession
- Admissibility of Statements
- Outcome: The court considered the accused's statements and found inconsistencies that undermined her credibility.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Voluntariness of statements
- Inconsistencies in statements
- Use of statements to impeach credit
8. Remedies Sought
- Conviction
- Sentencing according to the law
9. Cause of Actions
- Drug Trafficking
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lu Lai Heng v PP | High Court | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR 251 | Singapore | Cited regarding the rebuttal of the presumption of possession for the purpose of trafficking under Section 17 of the Misuse of Drugs Act on a balance of probabilities. |
| Somwang Phattanasaeng v PP | High Court | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR 850 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that a previous statement made by an accused, which has been used to impeach his credit, is only admissible for that limited purpose, and not as substantive evidence of the content thereof. |
| PP v Hla Win | High Court | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR 424 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that knowledge of the illicit nature of the contents of a bag does not necessarily mean the accused knew the contents were drugs. |
| Teoh Hoe Chye v PP | Supreme Court | Yes | [1987] 1 MLJ 220 | Malaysia | Cited regarding a break in the chain of evidence and its effect on the identity of exhibits. |
| Su Ah Ping v PP | Federal Court | Yes | [1980] 1 MLJ 75 | Malaysia | Cited regarding the need to call evidence to ensure there is no break in the chain of evidence. |
| Abdul Rashid v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 1 SLR 119 | Singapore | Cited regarding the prosecution's burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the seized package was the substance eventually analyzed. |
| Lai Kam Loy & Others v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 1 SLR 787 | Singapore | Cited regarding the principle that the need to call every single witness to establish the chain of possession of seized drugs only arises where a doubt as to the identity of an exhibit has arisen. |
| Satli bin Masot v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR 637 | Singapore | Cited regarding the principle that there must be a doubt as to the identity of the exhibit refers to a reasonable doubt. |
| Warner v Metropolitan Police Commissioner | House of Lords | Yes | [1969] 2 AC 256 | United Kingdom | Cited for the proposition that ignorance simpliciter was not enough to negate possession under the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse Act) Act 1964. |
| PP v Yeo Choon Poh | High Court | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR 867 | Singapore | Cited regarding the criteria in R v Lucas (Ruth) for self-confessed lies amounting to corroboration of guilt. |
| Browne v Dunn | House of Lords | Yes | [1894] 6R 67 | United Kingdom | Cited regarding the failure of the Defence to put various matters to the prosecution witnesses. |
| R v Lucas (Ruth) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1981] QB 720 | United Kingdom | Cited regarding the criteria for lies amounting to corroboration of guilt. |
| Ukthunthod v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 1 SLR 225 | Singapore | Cited regarding the admissibility of previous inconsistent statements as evidence of fact under s 147(3) of the Evidence Act. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) s 5(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) s 5(2) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) s 17 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 122(6) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act s 147(3) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Trafficking
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- CNB
- Sling bag
- Sachets
- Heroin
- Presumption
- Chain of evidence
- Inconsistent statements
15.2 Keywords
- Drug trafficking
- Diamorphine
- Singapore
- Criminal law
- Misuse of Drugs Act
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Drug Trafficking | 80 |
| Criminal Law | 60 |
| Criminal Procedure | 50 |
| Evidence | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking