Tang Hai Liang v Public Prosecutor: Trafficking of Diamorphine and Application of Statutory Presumptions
Tang Hai Liang appealed to the Court of Appeal of Singapore against his conviction in the High Court for trafficking in not less than 89.55g of diamorphine, an offense under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The primary legal issue concerned the trial judge's application of statutory presumptions regarding possession and knowledge of controlled drugs. The Court of Appeal, comprising Chao Hick Tin JA, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA, and V K Rajah JA, dismissed the appeal, finding sufficient evidence to prove Tang's possession, knowledge, and intent to traffic the diamorphine, even without relying on the presumptions.
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
Appeal against conviction for trafficking diamorphine. The court clarified the application of presumptions under the Misuse of Drugs Act and upheld the conviction.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Han Ming Kuang of Attorney-General’s Chambers Mohamed Faizal of Attorney-General’s Chambers Joel Chen of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tang Hai Liang | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of Appeal | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of Appeal | No |
| V K Rajah | Justice of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Han Ming Kuang | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Mohamed Faizal | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Joel Chen | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Wong Seow Pin | S P Wong & Co |
| Luke Lee Yoon Tet | Luke Lee & Co |
4. Facts
- Appellant was arrested on 15 April 2009 based on information received by CNB officers.
- 136 packets of granular substance containing diamorphine were found in the Appellant's flat.
- The Appellant admitted the drugs belonged to him and were meant for selling.
- The Appellant accurately estimated the number of drug packets before they were counted by CNB.
- DNA tests confirmed the Appellant's DNA on some of the items containing the drugs.
- The Appellant's statements consistently admitted possession, knowledge, and intent to traffic.
- The Defence did not challenge the voluntariness or truth of the Appellant's statements.
5. Formal Citations
- Tang Hai Liang v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Appeal No 26 of 2010, [2011] SGCA 38
- Public Prosecutor v Tang Hai Liang, , [2011] SGHC 1
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant arrested and drugs seized from his residence | |
| Contemporaneous statement taken from Appellant | |
| Cautioned statement taken from Appellant | |
| First long statement taken from Appellant | |
| Second and third long statements taken from Appellant | |
| Fourth long statement taken from Appellant | |
| Appellant's petition of appeal filed | |
| Court of Appeal dismisses the appeal |
7. Legal Issues
- Application of Statutory Presumptions
- Outcome: The court clarified that the presumptions under sections 17(c) and 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act cannot be applied conjunctively but found that the trial judge's decision was supported by sufficient evidence even without relying on the presumptions.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Conjunctive application of presumptions
- Sufficiency of evidence without presumptions
- Trafficking of Controlled Drugs
- Outcome: The court found sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant possessed diamorphine, knew it was diamorphine, and intended to traffic it.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Possession of diamorphine
- Knowledge of the nature of the drug
- Intention to traffic
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction and sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Trafficking in a controlled drug
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Tang Hai Liang | High Court | Yes | [2011] SGHC 1 | Singapore | The judgment under appeal; the Court of Appeal clarifies aspects of the High Court's decision regarding the application of statutory presumptions. |
| Mohd Halmi bin Hamid and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 548 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the presumptions under sections 17(c) and 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act cannot be applied conjunctively. |
| Lim Lye Huat Benny v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR(R) 689 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that for the s 17 presumption to apply, it must first be proved that the accused knew that he was in possession of the drugs. |
| Public Prosecutor v Teo Yeow Chuah | High Court | Yes | [2003] SGHC 306 | Singapore | Cited as a case where the trial judge erroneously applied the then equivalent of the ss 17(c) and 18(2) presumptions conjunctively. |
| Teo Yeow Chuah v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] 2 SLR(R) 563 | Singapore | Cited as a case where the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as there was overwhelming evidence to conclude that the accused was in possession of the drugs in question for the purpose of trafficking in them. |
| Public Prosecutor v Azman bin Mohamed Sanwan and others | High Court | Yes | [2010] SGHC 196 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a CNB officer is endowed with all the powers that a police officer has under the CPC in relation to an investigation into a seizable offence. |
| Nguyen Tuong Van v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 1 SLR(R) 103 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there may be discrepancies between the weight of drugs recorded by a CNB investigation officer and that recorded by a HSA officer due to the difference in the purpose of the weighing by each officer and the different levels of their expertise. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 33 | 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 17(c) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 18 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 18(2) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 2 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 16 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 32 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 122(6) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 121(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 122(5) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 121 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Trafficking
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Statutory presumptions
- Possession
- Knowledge
- Intent to traffic
- CNB
- HSA
- Statements
- Contemporaneous statement
- Cautioned statement
- Long statement
15.2 Keywords
- Diamorphine
- Drug Trafficking
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Singapore
- Criminal Appeal
- Statutory Presumptions
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 70 |
| Criminal Procedure | 60 |
| Evidence Law | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Statutory Interpretation