Pang Siew Fum v PP: Drug Trafficking - Knowledge of Diamorphine Possession
Pang Siew Fum and Cheong Chun Yin appealed to the Court of Appeal of Singapore on 22 February 2011, against their conviction in the High Court for trafficking not less than 2,726 grams of diamorphine. Pang and Cheong were sentenced to death. The Court of Appeal, comprising Chao Hick Tin JA, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA, and V K Rajah JA, dismissed the appeals, finding that both Pang and Cheong knew they were smuggling drugs and failed to rebut the presumption of knowledge under Section 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Appeals Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Pang Siew Fum and Cheong Chun Yin appeal against their conviction for trafficking diamorphine. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding they knew they were smuggling drugs.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pang Siew Fum | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Irving Choh, Lim Bee Li |
| Cheong Chun Yin | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Ramesh Tiwary, Adrian Chong |
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Leong Wing Tuck, Toh Shin Hao |
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 |
|---|---|
| Irving Choh | M/S Khattarwong |
| Lim Bee Li | M/S Khattarwong |
| Ramesh Tiwary | M/S Ramesh Tiwary |
| Adrian Chong | M/S Low Yeap Toh & Goon |
| Leong Wing Tuck | Attorney General's Chambers |
| Toh Shin Hao | Attorney General's Chambers |
4. Facts
- Pang and Cheong were arrested for trafficking not less than 2,726 grams of diamorphine.
- Pang claimed she was helping Teng Mor smuggle precious stones to repay a debt.
- Cheong claimed he was helping Lau De smuggle gold bars for payment.
- Both Pang and Cheong claimed they did not know the luggage contained drugs.
- Pang received RM235,500 in her bank account before collecting the luggage.
- Cheong escorted another person involved in the scheme to the airport.
- Pang did not react when the luggage was cut open and drugs were found.
5. Formal Citations
- Pang Siew Fum & another v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Appeal 4 of 2010, [2011] SGCA 5
- Public Prosecutor v Pang Siew Fum and another, , [2010] SGHC 40
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| CNB officers conduct surveillance on Pang and Cheong | |
| Cheong arrives at Changi Airport from Yangon, Myanmar | |
| Pang meets Cheong at Changi Airport | |
| Cheong hands A1 to Pang | |
| Cheong is arrested by CNB officers | |
| Pang is arrested by CNB officers | |
| CNB officers search Pang's flat and find luggage bags | |
| ASP Gary arrives at the flat with his Special Investigation Team | |
| Officers from the Forensic Management Branch arrive at the flat | |
| ASP Gary takes over the 3 luggage bags in the flat | |
| High Court decision in [2010] SGHC 40 | |
| Appeals heard and dismissed | |
| Grounds of decision of the court delivered |
7. Legal Issues
- Rebuttal of Presumption of Knowledge
- Outcome: The Court held that both Pang and Cheong failed to rebut the presumption that they knew that A1 contained drugs.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to report discrepancies to principal
- Inconsistencies in statements to police
- Lack of credible explanation for actions
- Possession of Controlled Drugs
- Outcome: The Court found that Pang and Cheong were in possession of A1 and were thus presumed to be in possession of the drugs contained in A1.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction and 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Pang Siew Fum and another | High Court | Yes | [2010] SGHC 40 | Singapore | Appeal from the decision of the High Court |
| Tan Kiam Peng v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 1 | Singapore | Cited for the meaning and scope of the presumptions provided for in s 18(1) and (2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act |
| Van Damme Johannes v PP | High Court | Yes | [1993] 3 SLR(R) 694 | Singapore | Cited for the observations made by Yong Pung How CJ on possession and knowledge under s 18(1) and s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act |
| Iwuchukwu Amara Tochi v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 2 SLR(R) 503 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that rebutting the statutory presumption is a matter of fact and requires proof on a balance of probabilities |
| Tan Meng Jee v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 2 SLR(R) 178 | Singapore | Cited for the elements the prosecution must prove under s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act |
| PP v Leong Soy Yip and Anor | High Court | Yes | [2009] SGHC 221 | Singapore | Cited for the court giving weight to the accused persons’ lack of response when the packets in their possession were opened up to reveal a white powdery substance |
| Lee Lye Hoe v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] SGCA 55 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Court may draw adverse inferences from an accused person’s omission to mention his/her defence on arrest |
| Lai Chaw Won v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] SGCA 29 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an adverse inference may be drawn from the accused’s omission to mention his defence in his conditioned statement |
| Public Prosecutor v Chee Cheong Hin Constance | High Court | Yes | [2006] 2 SLR(R) 24 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that lies told by an accused can only strengthen or support evidence if it is clear that the lie was deliberate, relates to a material issue, and there is no innocent explanation for it |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 18(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 121 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 122(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Drug Trafficking
- Presumption of Knowledge
- Rebuttal
- Controlled Drug
- Smuggling
- Courier
- Luggage
- Precious Stones
- Gold Bars
15.2 Keywords
- Drug Trafficking
- Diamorphine
- Singapore
- Criminal Appeal
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Presumption of Knowledge
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Evidence Law