Khor Soon Lee v PP: Rebutting Presumption of Knowledge in Drug Importation
Khor Soon Lee appealed to the Court of Appeal of Singapore against his conviction for importing 27.86 grams of diamorphine into Singapore. The Court of Appeal, with Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA delivering the judgment, allowed the appeal, finding that Khor Soon Lee had successfully rebutted the presumption of knowledge under Section 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, given his prior consistent conduct of importing other controlled drugs and his relationship with an individual named Tony, who assured him the package did not contain diamorphine.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Khor Soon Lee appealed his conviction for importing diamorphine. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding he rebutted the presumption of knowledge under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Allowed | Lost | Aedit Abdullah of Attorney-General’s Chambers Ravneet Kaur of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Khor Soon Lee | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| V K Rajah | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Aedit Abdullah | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ravneet Kaur | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Rupert Seah Eng Chee | Rupert Seah & Co. |
| Joseph Tan Chin Aik | DSCT Law Corporation |
4. Facts
- Khor Soon Lee was charged with importing 27.86 grams of diamorphine into Singapore.
- Khor claimed he did not know the package contained diamorphine, believing it contained other controlled drugs.
- Khor claimed he was working for Tony to pay off a debt and had previously transported other controlled drugs for him.
- Tony assured Khor that the packages would not contain heroin.
- Khor and Tony usually travelled together, but on the day of the arrest, they travelled separately.
- Tony was arrested but later released due to a lack of evidence.
- DNA evidence linked Tony to the package.
5. Formal Citations
- Khor Soon Lee v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Appeal No 21 of 2009, [2011] SGCA 17
- Public Prosecutor v Khor Soon Lee, , [2009] SGHC 291
- Tan Kiam Peng v PP, , [2008] 1 SLR(R) 1
- Tan Ah Tee v PP, , [1979-1980] SLR(R) 311
- Bachoo Mohan Singh v Public Prosecutor, , [2010] 1 SLR 966
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Khor Soon Lee imported drugs into Singapore at Woodlands Immigration Checkpoint. | |
| Pre-Trial Conference held. | |
| Tony granted a discharge not amounting to an acquittal and was repatriated to Malaysia. | |
| Appellant's counsel requested an inspection of Tony's passport. | |
| Appellant's counsel stated his client's case was prejudiced. | |
| Tony was thought to be required as a witness for the Appellant. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. | |
| Further arguments heard from the Appellant and the Prosecution. |
7. Legal Issues
- Rebutting Presumption of Knowledge
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal found that the Appellant had successfully rebutted the presumption of knowledge under s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Wilful Blindness
- Consistent Pattern of Conduct
- Relationship of Trust
- Wilful Blindness
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal found that the Appellant was not wilfully blind to the fact that the package contained diamorphine.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
9. Cause of Actions
- Importing Controlled Drugs
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
- Drug Trafficking
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Khor Soon Lee | High Court | Yes | [2009] SGHC 291 | Singapore | Cited as the decision from which the appeal was made. |
| Tan Kiam Peng v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 1 | Singapore | Cited for principles pertaining to wilful blindness and the interpretation of Section 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. |
| Warner v Metropolitan Police Commissioner | House of Lords | Yes | [1969] 2 AC 256 | England and Wales | Cited for the general concept of possession. |
| Tan Ah Tee v PP | Not Available | Yes | [1979-1980] SLR(R) 311 | Singapore | Cited for adopting the general concept of possession. |
| Bachoo Mohan Singh v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 966 | Singapore | Cited to emphasize the Prosecution's role as guardian of the people's rights. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 7 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 12 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 18 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) s 33 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Controlled Drugs
- Presumption of Knowledge
- Wilful Blindness
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Tony
- DNAQ
- Importation
- Rebuttal
- Consistent Pattern of Conduct
15.2 Keywords
- Drug Importation
- Diamorphine
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Presumption of Knowledge
- Wilful Blindness
- Singapore Court of Appeal
- Criminal Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 70 |
| Evidence Law | 60 |
| Statutory Interpretation | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Statutory Interpretation
- Presumptions in Law