Tee Chu Feng v Public Prosecutor: Drug Trafficking Conviction Appeal
Tee Chu Feng appealed to the High Court of Singapore against his conviction for drug trafficking under s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The High Court, presided over by Yong Pung How CJ, dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge did not err in admitting the appellant's statements as evidence and that the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found the appellant guilty of selling five Ecstasy tablets to Yeo Kim Teck.
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
Appeal against drug trafficking conviction. The High Court upheld the conviction, finding the appellant's statements admissible and the prosecution's evidence sufficient.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Conviction Upheld | Won | Hay Hung Chun of Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Tee Chu Feng | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Hay Hung Chun | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| KR Manickavasagam | Manicka and Co |
4. Facts
- The appellant was convicted of drug trafficking for selling five Ecstasy tablets.
- Yeo Kim Teck (Benny Yeo) identified the appellant as the seller of the Ecstasy tablets.
- Benny Yeo died before trial, but his statements implicating the appellant were admitted as evidence.
- The appellant claimed his statements to the CNB were involuntary due to threats and duress.
- The appellant relied on a suicide note allegedly written by Benny Yeo exculpating him.
- The trial judge found the appellant to be an unreliable witness and disbelieved his defense.
- The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings.
5. Formal Citations
- Tee Chu Feng v Public Prosecutor, MA 67/2005, [2005] SGHC 181
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Sale of drugs occurred sometime between 28 July 2004 to 2 August 2004 | |
| Benny Yeo sold five tablets to Wong Pei Sien, Trissy | |
| Trissy sold five tablets to See Fi Fi, Michelle | |
| Michelle handed undercover narcotics officer SSgt Gan the five tablets | |
| Michelle was arrested | |
| Trissy was arrested | |
| Benny Yeo was arrested | |
| Appellant was arrested | |
| Benny Yeo died | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Admissibility of Confession
- Outcome: The court found that the appellant's statements were made voluntarily and were admissible as evidence.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Voluntariness of statement
- Threats
- Inducement
- Oppression
- Related Cases:
- [2002] 2 SLR 481
- [1999] 1 SLR 25
- [1993] 2 SLR 14
- [1991] SLR 150
- [1993] 2 SLR 599
- [1995] 3 SLR 341
- Drug Trafficking
- Outcome: The court upheld the conviction for drug trafficking, finding that the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Category: Substantive
- Admissibility of Evidence of Deceased Witness
- Outcome: The court admitted the statements of the deceased witness, Benny Yeo, while placing little weight on the suicide note.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against Conviction
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lim Ah Poh v PP | High Court | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR 713 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court should be slow to overturn findings of fact made by the trial judge. |
| PP v Poh Oh Sim | High Court | Yes | [1990] SLR 1047 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court should be slow to overturn findings of fact made by the trial judge. |
| PP v Azman bin Abdullah | High Court | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR 704 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court should be slow to overturn findings of fact made by the trial judge. |
| PP v Choo Thiam Hock | High Court | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR 248 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the appellate court is as competent as any trial judge to draw any necessary inferences of fact from the primary facts and circumstances of the case. |
| PP v Rozman bin Jusoh | High Court | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR 317 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the appellate court is as competent as any trial judge to draw any necessary inferences of fact from the primary facts and circumstances of the case. |
| Yap Giau Beng Terence v PP | High Court | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR 656 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the appellate court is as competent as any trial judge to draw any necessary inferences of fact from the primary facts and circumstances of the case. |
| Cheng Siah Johnson v PP | High Court | Yes | [2002] 2 SLR 481 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that statements made to narcotics officers fall to be tested under s 24 of the Evidence Act and not s 122(5) of the CPC. |
| Chai Chien Wei Kelvin v PP | High Court | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR 25 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that statements made to narcotics officers fall to be tested under s 24 of the Evidence Act and not s 122(5) of the CPC. |
| Tan Siew Chay v PP | High Court | Yes | [1993] 2 SLR 14 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that statements made to narcotics officers fall to be tested under s 24 of the Evidence Act and not s 122(5) of the CPC. |
| Sim Ah Cheoh v PP | High Court | Yes | [1991] SLR 150 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that statements made to narcotics officers fall to be tested under s 24 of the Evidence Act and not s 122(5) of the CPC. |
| Koh Aik Siew v PP | High Court | Yes | [1993] 2 SLR 599 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the burden is on the Prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the confession was made voluntarily. |
| Panya Martmontree v PP | High Court | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR 341 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the burden is on the Prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the confession was made voluntarily. |
| Kwan Peng Hong v PP | High Court | Yes | [2000] 4 SLR 96 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where there are keenly contested versions of events, the trial judge has the basic duty to lay down in a detailed and clear way how, why, the factors, evidence and considerations that he has taken or refused to take into account, the weight he has attached to them, in arriving at his findings of fact. |
| Ng Chye Meng v PP | High Court | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR 809 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that failure to put allegations to a witness would justify an inference that the appellant had formulated the allegations on the spur of the moment, and served to undermine the credibility of the allegations. |
| Sim Yew Thong v Ng Loy Nam Thomas | High Court | Yes | [2000] 4 SLR 193 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that failure to put allegations to a witness would justify an inference that the appellant had formulated the allegations on the spur of the moment, and served to undermine the credibility of the allegations. |
| Osman v PP | High Court | Yes | [1965–1968] SLR 128 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an accused person can be convicted on his own confession, even if it is retracted, if the court is satisfied of its truth, without any need for corroborative evidence to support it. |
| PP v Huang Rong Tai | High Court | Yes | [2003] 2 SLR 43 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where an accused has not proffered at trial any explanation, other than repeating what he had said at the voir dire that he was forced to fabricate the incriminating parts of his statements as a result of the treatment he received at the hands of the police, the accused’s statements ought to be treated as prima facie more reliable than his evidence in court. |
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 (Cap 185, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 24 Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 378(1)(b)(i) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 116(g) Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Drug Trafficking
- Ecstasy
- Voluntariness of Statement
- Voir Dire
- Suicide Note
- Admissibility of Evidence
- Chain of Evidence
15.2 Keywords
- Drug Trafficking
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Confession
- Voluntariness
- Evidence
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Evidence | 80 |
| Criminal Procedure | 80 |
| Criminal Law | 70 |
| Admissibility of evidence | 60 |
| Adverse inferences | 50 |
| Sentencing | 50 |
| Drug Crimes | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Evidence
- Criminal Procedure