PP v Lim Boon Hiong: Drug Trafficking, Misuse of Drugs Act, Common Intention
In Public Prosecutor v Lim Boon Hiong and another, the High Court of Singapore found Lim Boon Hiong and Koay Teen Chew guilty of drug trafficking under section 5(1) read with section 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The court found that Lim and Koay had a common intention to traffic diamorphine. The court sentenced Lim and Koay to the mandatory death sentence prescribed under section 33 read with the Second Schedule of the Act.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Lim and Koay were found guilty of the Charge and convicted under section 5(1) read with section 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The mandatory death sentence prescribed under section 33 read with the Second Schedule of the Act is pronounced accordingly.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Lim Boon Hiong and Koay Teen Chew were convicted of drug trafficking under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The court found they had common intention.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Prosecution | Government Agency | Judgment for Prosecution | Won | Ng Cheng Thiam, Sharmila Sripathy-Shanaz, Davyd Chong |
| Lim Boon Hiong | Defendant | Individual | Convicted | Lost | Ramesh Tiwary |
| Koay Teen Chew | Defendant | Individual | Convicted | Lost | Shashidran Nathan, Tania Chin, Satwant Singh |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Steven Chong | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Ng Cheng Thiam | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Sharmila Sripathy-Shanaz | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Davyd Chong | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Ramesh Tiwary | M/s Ramesh Tiwary |
| Shashidran Nathan | M/s Inca Law LLC |
| Tania Chin | M/s Inca Law LLC |
| Satwant Singh | Sim Mong Teck & Partners |
4. Facts
- Lim and Koay were arrested for drug trafficking.
- The CNB officers found 219 packets of substances containing not less than 120.96 grams of diamorphine in the car.
- Lim admitted in his long statements that he agreed to act as driver for Koay to deliver drugs in Singapore.
- Koay admitted in his long statements that he was approached by AJ to deliver heroin in Singapore.
- Koay admitted that he made several previous deliveries of heroin in Singapore together with Lim.
- Lim suspected that the drugs were heroin because of the amount he was paid for delivering each packet.
- Koay knew prior to entering Singapore that the bundles found in the loudspeaker in the car contained diamorphine.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Lim Boon Hiong and another, Criminal Case No 3 of 2010, [2010] SGHC 205
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Lim and Koay entered Singapore from Johor Bahru at the Woodlands Checkpoint in the car. | |
| Goh collected a black bundle from one of the accused persons at a Shell petrol kiosk. | |
| Lim and Koay were intercepted and arrested by the CNB officers along Dunearn Road towards Newton Circus. | |
| SSSgt Ng lodged a police report pertaining to the arrest of Lim and Koay as well as the exhibits recovered from the car. | |
| First long statement recorded from Koay. | |
| Second long statement recorded from Lim. | |
| Third long statement recorded from Koay. | |
| Fourth long statement recorded from Koay. | |
| Fifth long statement recorded from Koay. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Admissibility of Confession
- Outcome: The court found that Lim's four long statements were voluntarily made and therefore admissible.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Inducement
- Threat
- Promise
- Drug Trafficking
- Outcome: The court found Lim and Koay guilty of drug trafficking.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Possession
- Knowledge
- Purpose of Trafficking
- Wilful Blindness
- Outcome: The court found that Lim was wilfully blind that the drugs in his physical custody were diamorphine.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Suspicion
- Failure to Inquire
8. Remedies Sought
- Conviction
- Mandatory Death Sentence
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 Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 619 | Singapore | Cited for the test for determining admissibility under section 24 of the Evidence Act. |
| Raman Selvam s/o Renganathan v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2004] 1 SLR(R) 550 | Singapore | Cited for the elements the Prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to convict Lim and Koay on the Charge. |
| Warner v Metropolitan Police Commissioner | House of Lords | Yes | [1969] 2 AC 256 | England and Wales | Cited for the element of possession in section 5(2) of the Act consists of both physical control and knowledge of the thing possessed. |
| Tan Ah Tee v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1979?1980] SLR(R) 311 | Singapore | Cited for the element of possession in section 5(2) of the Act consists of both physical control and knowledge of the thing possessed. |
| Tan Kiam Peng v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 1 | Singapore | Cited for the distinction between actual knowledge simpliciter and wilful blindness. |
| Mohd Halmi bin Hamid and another v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 548 | Singapore | Cited for the presumptions of trafficking and possession in sections 17 and 18, respectively, of the Act cannot be utilised in conjunction. |
| Low Kok Wai v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1994] 1 SLR(R) 64 | Singapore | Cited for the presumptions of trafficking and possession in sections 17 and 18, respectively, of the Act cannot be utilised in conjunction. |
| Public Prosecutor v Koo Pui Fong | High Court | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR(R) 734 | Singapore | Cited for wilful blindness is simply a reformulation of actual knowledge. |
| Iwuchukwu Amara Tochi and another v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2006] 2 SLR(R) 503 | Singapore | Cited for the accused’s failure to inspect suspicious articles as an example of wilful blindness. |
| Public Prosecutor v Khor Soon Lee | High Court | Yes | [2009] SGHC 291 | Singapore | Cited for the accused was wilfully blind as to the nature of the drugs in his possession, on the basis that he was conscious of the fact that he was in possession of controlled drugs, and that there had been ample opportunity for him to inspect the contents of the bag of drugs Tony had given him. |
| Public Prosecutor v Syed Abdul Aziz bin Syed Mohd Noor | High Court | Yes | [1992] 5 CLAS 10 | Singapore | Cited regarding whether an interpreter could be considered a person in authority. |
| R v Cleary | Court of Criminal Appeal | Yes | (1963) 48 Cr App R 116 | England and Wales | Cited regarding whether an interpreter could be considered a person in authority. |
| R v Moore | Court of Criminal Appeal | Yes | (1972) 56 Cr App R 373 | England and Wales | Cited regarding whether an interpreter could be considered a person in authority. |
| Deokinanan v The Queen | Privy Council | Yes | [1969] 1 AC 20 | United Kingdom | Cited for the definition of a person in authority. |
| The English and Scottish Mercantile Investment Company, Limited v Brunton | Queen's Bench Division | Yes | [1892] 2 QB 700 | England and Wales | Cited for the accused “abstain[ing] from making further inquiry”. |
| Compania Maritima San Basilo S A v Oceanus Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Ltd | Queen's Bench Division | Yes | [1977] QB 49 | England and Wales | Cited for the accused “refrain[ing] from inquiry”. |
| Manifest Shipping Co Ltd v Uni-Polaris Insurance Co Ltd | House of Lords | Yes | [2003] 1 AC 469 | England and Wales | Cited for the accused “refus[ing] to investigate”. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 5(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 5(2) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 17 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 18 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 33 | Singapore |
| Penal Code, Chapter 224 s 34 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 121(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 122(6) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) s 24 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Drug Trafficking
- Wilful Blindness
- Common Intention
- Controlled Drug
- CNB
- Loudspeaker
- Bundles
- Singapore
- Malaysia
15.2 Keywords
- Drug Trafficking
- Singapore
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Diamorphine
- Criminal Law
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Evidence Law