Chew Seow Leng v PP: Drug Trafficking, Chain of Custody, Mandatory Death Penalty under Misuse of Drugs Act
Chew Seow Leng appealed his conviction for drug trafficking under the Misuse of Drugs Act in the Court of Appeal of Singapore. The High Court had found him guilty based on possession of diamorphine exceeding statutory limits. The Court of Appeal, comprising Chao Hick Tin JA, Lai Kew Chai J, and Yong Pung How CJ, dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and the mandatory death penalty. The court found no merit in the arguments regarding amalgamation of charges, chain of custody, or the legality of the mandatory death penalty.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Chew Seow Leng was convicted of drug trafficking. The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction and mandatory death penalty, finding no break in chain of custody.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal dismissed | Won | Bala Reddy of Deputy Public Prosecutors Seah Kim Ming Glenn of Deputy Public Prosecutors |
| Chew Seow Leng | Appellant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Lai Kew Chai | Judge | Yes |
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Bala Reddy | Deputy Public Prosecutors |
| Seah Kim Ming Glenn | Deputy Public Prosecutors |
| Teo Choo Kee | CK Teo and Co |
| Lim Choon Mong | David Rasif and Partners |
4. Facts
- Appellant was arrested on 7 January 2004 with 149.1 grams of diamorphine in a taxi.
- 77.47 grams of diamorphine, a pocket weighing scale, and over 3,000 empty plastic packets were found in the appellant's apartment.
- Appellant admitted to owning the drugs and intending to sell them to repay loan sharks.
- Appellant claimed to consume about one packet of heroin a day.
- Two individuals, Boo and Tan, testified that the appellant gave them heroin free of charge.
- Medical experts testified that the appellant's withdrawal symptoms were mild, inconsistent with his claimed heroin consumption.
- The total amount of diamorphine seized was 226.57 grams.
5. Formal Citations
- Chew Seow Leng v Public Prosecutor, Cr App 16/2004, [2005] SGCA 11
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Drugs seized from taxi and apartment | |
| Appellant arrested | |
| Appellant gave statement to Senior Station Inspector Siew Lai Lone | |
| Appellant gave statement to Staff Sergeant Tony Ng | |
| Drugs weighed in appellant's presence | |
| Appellant referred to Changi Prison Hospital | |
| Appellant convicted | |
| Appeal dismissed |
7. Legal Issues
- Chain of Custody
- Outcome: The court found no break in the chain of custody of the drugs seized.
- Category: Substantive
- Mandatory Death Penalty
- Outcome: The court upheld the legality of the mandatory death penalty imposed under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
- Category: Substantive
- Statutory Presumption of Possession for Purpose of Trafficking
- Outcome: The court found that the drug trafficking paraphernalia seized together with drug exhibits was circumstantial evidence supporting the statutory presumption.
- Category: Substantive
- Duplicity of Charges
- Outcome: The court held that the amalgamation of charges was not bad for duplicity and did not occasion a failure of justice.
- Category: Procedural
- Voluntariness of Statements
- Outcome: The court held that the trial judge was correct to place weight on the statements because the accused did not challenge the voluntariness of statements at trial.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction and sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Drug Trafficking
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fun Seong Cheng v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR 523 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that to be found in possession of drugs, one must have physical control of the drugs and knowledge of their existence. |
| Shahary bin Sulaiman v PP | Unknown | Yes | [2004] 4 SLR 457 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that drugs need not be found on the appellant physically for him to be in physical control of the drugs for the purposes of s 17 of the MDA. |
| Thiruselvam s/o Nagaratnam v PP | Unknown | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR 125 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Prosecution has a wide discretion to determine the charges that are preferred against an offender. |
| Yong Yow Chee v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR 273 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that multiple charges of drug possession for the purposes of trafficking in different locations and at different times may be amalgamated. |
| Tham Wing Fai Peter v PP | Unknown | No | [1988] SLR 424 | Singapore | Cited as a case where the offenders were properly convicted on multiple distinct charges where each criminal act constituted a separate offence. |
| Chinniah v PP | Unknown | No | [1948] MLJ 59 | Malaysia | Cited as a case where the offenders were properly convicted on multiple distinct charges where each criminal act constituted a separate offence. |
| See Yew Poo v PP | Unknown | No | [1949] MLJ 131 | Malaysia | Cited as a case involving one charge that disclosed an offence punishable under two different provisions. |
| Wee Hui Hoo v PP | Unknown | No | [1987] 1 MLJ 498 | Malaysia | Cited as a case that involved alternative provisions creating separate and distinct offences. |
| Muthan v PP | Unknown | No | [1947] MLJ 86 | Malaysia | Cited as a case that involved alternative provisions creating separate and distinct offences. |
| Lim Ah Poh v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR 713 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court will not disturb the findings of fact made by the trial judge, unless they are clearly reached against the weight of the evidence or plainly wrong. |
| Ameer Akbar v Abdul Hamid | Unknown | Yes | [1997] 1 SLR 113 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court will not disturb the findings of fact made by the trial judge, unless they are clearly reached against the weight of the evidence or plainly wrong. |
| Yap Giau Beng Terence v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR 656 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court will not disturb the findings of fact made by the trial judge, especially where the findings turn on the trial judge’s assessment of the credibility and veracity of the witnesses. |
| PP v Nguyen Tuong Van | High Court | Yes | [2004] 2 SLR 328 | Singapore | Cited for the decision that the mandatory death penalty imposed under the MDA was constitutional. |
| Nguyen Tuong Van v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 1 SLR 103 | Singapore | Cited for upholding the decision of Kan J in the High Court that the mandatory death penalty was constitutional. |
| Chan Hock Wai v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1995] 1 SLR 728 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that possession of drug trafficking paraphernalia may be relevant as circumstantial evidence of drug trafficking. |
| Jusri bin Mohamed Hussain v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1996] 3 SLR 29 | Singapore | Cited for the test for apportionment, requiring credible evidence that part of the drugs seized was meant for self-consumption, as well as of the offender’s rate of consumption and the number of days the drugs were meant for. |
| Ladd v Marshall | Unknown | Yes | [1954] 1 WLR 1489 | England and Wales | Cited for the test for adducing fresh evidence on appeal. |
| Juma’at bin Samad v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1993] 3 SLR 338 | Singapore | Cited for affirming the test for adducing fresh evidence on appeal set out in Ladd v Marshall. |
| PP v Mohamed Noor bin Jantan | Unknown | Yes | [1979] 2 MLJ 289 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that there was no need for the Prosecution to prove that the statements were made voluntarily in this case because the appellant did not challenge the voluntariness of any of his statements. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 5(1)(a) Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| Section 5(2) Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| Section 33 Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| Section 17(c) Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 122(6) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 168 Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| Section 396 Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Drug Trafficking
- Chain of Custody
- Mandatory Death Penalty
- Statutory Presumption
- Amalgamation of Charges
- Voluntariness of Statements
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Drug Paraphernalia
15.2 Keywords
- Drug Trafficking
- Diamorphine
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Mandatory Death Penalty
- Singapore Law
- Criminal Appeal
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 70 |
| Sentencing | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Criminal Procedure