PP v Ng Pen Tine: Drug Trafficking under the Misuse of Drugs Act

In Public Prosecutor v Ng Pen Tine and Another, the High Court of Singapore heard the case against Ng Pen Tine and Lam Chee Yong, who were charged with drug trafficking under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Ng Pen Tine was found guilty of possessing diamorphine for the purpose of trafficking and was convicted. Lam Chee Yong was acquitted, with the court finding that he acted under duress and lacked knowledge of the drugs he was transporting. The judgment was delivered by Justice Chan Seng Onn on 2009-10-14.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

First accused convicted; second accused acquitted.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Ng Pen Tine and Lam Chee Yong were charged with drug trafficking. Ng Pen Tine was convicted, while Lam Chee Yong was acquitted due to duress.

1.7 Decision Date

13 October 2009

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Public Prosecutor	Prosecution	Government Agency	Conviction of First Accused	Won	Tan Kiat Pheng of Attorney-General’s Chambers Ferlin Jayatissa of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Ng Pen Tine	Defendant	Individual	Convicted	Lost	Leo Cheng Suan of Infinitus Law Corporation Lam Wai Seng of Lam W S & Co
Lam Chee Yong	Defendant	Individual	Acquitted	Won	Fong Chee Yang of C Y Fong & Co John Tay Choon Leng of John Tay & Co

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Chan Seng Onn	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Tan Kiat Pheng	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Ferlin Jayatissa	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Leo Cheng Suan	Infinitus Law Corporation
Lam Wai Seng	Lam W S & Co
Fong Chee Yang	C Y Fong & Co
John Tay Choon Leng	John Tay & Co

4. Facts

On 2007-10-04, CNB officers observed the first accused at Block 36 Tanglin Halt Road.
The second accused drove a Malaysian-registered car to Commonwealth Drive.
The first and second accused met at a pavilion and boarded the car.
The car was parked in front of Block 61 Commonwealth Drive.
The first accused was seen holding a plastic bag after the second accused opened the car boot.
The first accused took the plastic bag containing six bundles and left the second accused.
CNB officers arrested the first accused in front of Block 55A Commonwealth Drive.
The plastic bag contained 34.97 grams of diamorphine in 61 packets.
CNB officers arrested the second accused at Woodlands Centre.
CNB officers raided the flat of the first accused’s girlfriend and recovered more controlled drugs.

5. Formal Citations

Public Prosecutor v Ng Pen Tine and Another, CC 20/2009, [2009] SGHC 230

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2007-10-04	Accused persons arrested
2007-10-04	First cautioned statement of first accused recorded
2007-10-04	Second cautioned statement of first accused recorded
2007-10-05	First long statement of second accused recorded
2007-10-05	First accused admitted to Changi Medical Centre
2007-10-07	Second long statement of second accused recorded
2007-10-08	Third long statement of second accused recorded
2007-10-10	First long statement of first accused recorded
2007-10-10	First accused discharged from Changi Medical Centre
2007-10-11	Second long statement of first accused recorded
2007-11-30	Third long statement of first accused recorded
2009-10-14	Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

Admissibility of Statements
- Outcome: The court found that all five statements were voluntarily given by the first accused and admitted them into evidence.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Voluntariness of statements
  - Threats
  - Inducements
  - Oppression
  - Drug withdrawal symptoms
- Related Cases:
  - [1999] 1 SLR 25
  - [1994] 2 SLR 251
  - [1994] 2 SLR 243
  - R v Priestly (1966) 50 Cr App R 183
  - [1997] 2 SLR 390
  - [1990] SLR 375
  - [1999] 4 SLR 181
  - [2004] 2 SLR 564
  - [1964] 1 AC 964
Drug Trafficking
- Outcome: The court found the first accused guilty of drug trafficking. The court found that the second accused did not have knowledge that he had specifically heroin in his possession.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Possession of controlled drug
  - Knowledge of the nature of the drug
  - Purpose of trafficking
- Related Cases:
  - [1999] SGCA 42
  - [1980] 1 MLJ 49
  - [1994] 1 SLR 246
  - [1992] 2 SLR 1
  - [2008] 1 SLR 1
  - [1969] 2 AC 256
  - [1978-1979] SLR 211
  - [2000] 4 SLR 589
  - [1967] 2 QB 243
  - [1996] 2 SLR 266
  - [2000] SGCA 64
  - [1996] 3 SLR 29
  - [1997] 3 SLR 564
  - [1996] 1 SLR 783
  - [1980-1981] SLR 48
Duress
- Outcome: The court found that the second accused acted under duress and acquitted him.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Threat of instant death
  - Reasonable apprehension of threat
  - Voluntary placement in situation
- Related Cases:
  - [1995] 1 SLR 274
  - [1996] 1 SLR 246
  - [1999] 2 SLR 57

8. Remedies Sought

Imprisonment
Capital Punishment

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
Chai Chien Wei Kelvin v PP	High Court	Yes	[1999] 1 SLR 25	Singapore	Cited for the principle that there must objectively be a threat, inducement or promise and this subjectively must operate on the mind of the accused for a statement to be considered involuntary.
Lu Lai Heng v PP	High Court	Yes	[1994] 2 SLR 251	Singapore	Cited for the principle that any self-perceived inducement will not in law amount to an inducement or promise.
Garnam Singh v PP	High Court	Yes	[1994] 2 SLR 243	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a statement given when the accused exhibited drug withdrawal symptoms would be involuntary if he is in a state of near delirium such that his mind did not go with the statement he was making.
R v Priestly	Court of Criminal Appeal	Yes	R v Priestly (1966) 50 Cr App R 183	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that oppression must be something which leads to sap or has sapped the accused’s free will before a confession is rendered involuntary.
Yeo See How v PP	High Court	Yes	[1997] 2 SLR 390	Singapore	Cited for the principle that there was no necessity for the interrogators to remove all discomfort and the issue was whether the discomfort was of such a great extent that it caused the making of an involuntary statement.
PP v Tan Boon Tat	High Court	Yes	[1990] SLR 375	Singapore	Cited for the principle that even when an accused person was tired, hungry, and thirsty and under great stress, this was insufficient to amount to oppression unless he was in such a state that he had no will to resist making the statement.
Ong Seng Hwee v PP	High Court	Yes	[1999] 4 SLR 181	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the relevant inquiry was whether the circumstances prevailing at the time of the recording of the statement were such that the appellant’s free will was sapped and he could not resist making the statement.
Teo Yeow Chuah v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2004] 2 SLR 564	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court ought to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the statements of the accused sought to be admitted in evidence were given voluntarily without any threat, inducement or promise or any form of oppressive conduct or coercion before admitting them into evidence at the trial.
Sparks v R	Privy Council	Yes	[1964] 1 AC 964	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to establish that statements given were “made freely and voluntarily and not under the influence of improper inducement”.
Wong Soon Lee v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1999] SGCA 42	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the appellant was in possession of a controlled drug, he was in possession of a controlled drug for the purposes of trafficking and he had knowledge of the nature of the drugs.
Tan Ah Tee & Anor v. PP	Federal Court	Yes	[1980] 1 MLJ 49	Malaysia	Cited for the principle that if the prosecution fails to prove any one of the elements necessary to constitute the offence of drug trafficking, the appellant will have to be acquitted.
Van Damme Johannes v PP	High Court	Yes	[1994] 1 SLR 246	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the onus is always on the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt but, in the context of the Misuse of Drugs Act, the law has provided the prosecution with presumptions and the court must have regard to them.
Tan Boon Tat v PP	High Court	Yes	[1992] 2 SLR 1	Singapore	Cited for the principle that whether or not the presumptions are rebutted is entirely a question of fact.
Tan Kiam Peng v PP	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2008] 1 SLR 1	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the operation of the presumption of knowledge of controlled drugs is conditional upon the presumption of possession operating.
Warner v Metropolitan Police Commissioner	House of Lords	Yes	[1969] 2 AC 256	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that an accused person would not be regarded as being in unlawful possession of drugs if he genuinely believed that the parcel he was in possession contained an innocent substance and had no reasonable opportunity of examining the contents of that parcel.
Tan Ah Tee v PP	High Court	Yes	[1978-1979] SLR 211	Singapore	Cited for the application of the Warner position on the general concept of possession.
Lim Beng Soon v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2000] 4 SLR 589	Singapore	Cited for the application of the Warner position on the general concept of possession.
Lockyer v Gibb	Queen's Bench Division	Yes	[1967] 2 QB 243	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that a person cannot be said to be in possession of some article which he or she does not realise is in a place over which she has control.
PP v Koo Pui Fong	High Court	Yes	[1996] 2 SLR 266	Singapore	Cited for the principle that knowledge entails a high degree of certainty.
Khalid Bin Abdul Rashid v PP	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2000] SGCA 64	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an accused had to adduce credible evidence to show that part of the offending substance was intended for self-consumption and in this regard a mere casual declaration by the accused would not suffice.
Jusri bin Mohamed Hussain v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[1996] 3 SLR 29	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an accused had to adduce credible evidence to show that part of the offending substance was intended for self-consumption and in this regard a mere casual declaration by the accused would not suffice.
Fung Choon Kay v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[1997] 3 SLR 564	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an accused had to adduce credible evidence to show that part of the offending substance was intended for self-consumption and in this regard a mere casual declaration by the accused would not suffice.
Public Prosecutor v Dahalan bin Ladaewa	High Court	Yes	[1996] 1 SLR 783	Singapore	Cited for the principle that another factor which would weigh in the mind of the court is the financial means or the ability of the accused to pay for the drugs.
Ong Ah Chuan v PP	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1980-1981] SLR 48	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the larger the quantity of drugs involved, the stronger was the inference that the bearer of those drugs did not intend to consume them personally and hence the more convincing the evidence needed to rebut the presumption of trafficking.
PP v Goh Hock Huat	High Court	Yes	[1995] 1 SLR 274	Singapore	Cited for the interpretation of 'instant' to mean 'imminent, persistent and extreme' in the context of duress.
Wong Yoke Wah v PP	High Court	Yes	[1996] 1 SLR 246	Singapore	Cited for the interpretation of 'instant' to mean 'imminent, persistent and extreme' in the context of duress.
Shaiful Edham bin Adam v PP	High Court	Yes	[1999] 2 SLR 57	Singapore	Cited for the interpretation of 'instant' to mean 'imminent, persistent and extreme' in the context of duress.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2004 Rev Ed) section 5(1)(a)	Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2004 Rev Ed) section 5(2)	Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2004 Rev Ed) section 17(c)	Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2004 Rev Ed) section 18	Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2004 Rev Ed) section 21	Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2004 Rev Ed) section 33	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code section 121	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code section 122(6)	Singapore
Penal Code section 94	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Diamorphine
Drug trafficking
Controlled drug
CNB
Statements
Duress
Possession
Knowledge
Trafficking
Wilful blindness

15.2 Keywords

Drug trafficking
Misuse of Drugs Act
Diamorphine
Singapore
Criminal law
Duress
Statements
Possession
Knowledge

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Misuse of Drugs Act	95
Criminal Law	75
Offences	60
Evidence	40
Criminal Procedure	30

16. Subjects

Criminal Law
Drug Trafficking
Statutory Offences