Public Prosecutor v Phuthita Somchit: Trafficking Diamorphine Conspiracy Case
In Public Prosecutor v Phuthita Somchit and Quek Hock Lye, the High Court of Singapore addressed charges against Somchit and Quek for conspiracy to traffic diamorphine. Somchit was found not guilty of the primary charge due to a lack of knowledge that the drugs were diamorphine, but was convicted of attempting to traffic a Class C drug. Quek was found guilty of trafficking diamorphine. The court sentenced Quek to death and Somchit to 9 years imprisonment.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Somchit acquitted of trafficking diamorphine but convicted of attempting to traffic a Class C drug; Quek convicted of trafficking diamorphine and sentenced to death.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
High Court case involving Phuthita Somchit and Quek Hock Lye, charged with conspiracy to traffic diamorphine. Somchit was acquitted of the primary charge but convicted of attempting to traffic a Class C drug.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Prosecution | Government Agency | Partial | Partial | Kenneth Yap of Attorney-General’s Chambers Stella Tan of Attorney-General’s Chambers Luke Tang of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Quek Hock Lye | Defendant | Individual | Convicted | Lost | |
| Phuthita Somchit | Defendant | Individual | Acquitted of main charge, convicted of attempting to traffic a Class C drug | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lee Seiu Kin | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Kenneth Yap | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Stella Tan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Luke Tang | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Singa Retnam | Kertar & Co |
| Nedumaran Muthukrishnan | K Krishna & Partners |
| Thrumurgan s/o Ramapiram | Thiru & Co |
| Amarick Singh Gill | Amarick Gill & Co |
4. Facts
- Somchit and Quek were in a relationship and resided together.
- Quek leased a condominium unit under a false name.
- CNB officers arrested Quek and subsequently raided the condominium unit.
- Drugs were found in the condominium unit.
- Somchit admitted to packing drugs but claimed she did not know they were diamorphine.
- Quek admitted the drugs were his and that he intended to traffic them.
- Winai testified that Quek instructed him to deliver white substances to customers.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Phuthita Somchit and another, Criminal Case No 52 of 2009, [2011] SGHC 67
- Public Prosecutor v Phuthita Somchit and another, Criminal Appeal No 20 of 2010, [2012] SGCA 25
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Quek entered into a lease agreement for the rental of the unit. | |
| Quek asked Winai to move into Block 21 Bedok Reservoir View #01-02. | |
| Quek was arrested by CNB officers. | |
| CNB officers raided the unit and arrested Somchit, Wannarat Tancharoen, and Samruai Phutthawan. | |
| Winai was arrested near the poolside. | |
| Somchit and Quek were escorted to Alexandra Hospital for pre-statement medical examination. | |
| Somchit and Quek were escorted to Alexandra Hospital for post-statement medical examinations. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Knowledge of the nature of the drug
- Outcome: The court found that Somchit had rebutted the presumption that she knew the drugs were diamorphine, while Quek was found to have knowledge.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Rebuttal of presumption of knowledge
- Wilful blindness
- Presumption of Trafficking
- Outcome: The court found that the presumption of trafficking applied to Quek as the amount of diamorphine exceeded the statutory threshold.
- Category: Substantive
- Conspiracy to traffic drugs
- Outcome: Quek was convicted of conspiracy to traffic drugs. Somchit was acquitted of the conspiracy charge.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Imprisonment
- Death Penalty
9. Cause of Actions
- Drug Trafficking
- Conspiracy to Commit Drug Trafficking
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
- Drug Offences
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tan Kiam Peng v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 1 | Singapore | Discusses the interpretation of section 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act regarding the presumption of knowledge of the nature of a drug. |
| Warner v Metropolitan Police Commissioner | House of Lords | Yes | [1969] 2 AC 256 | England | Discusses the concept of possession under the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act 1964 and the knowledge of the nature of the substance possessed. |
| Tan Ah Tee and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1979-1980] SLR(R) 311 | Singapore | Deals with the presumption of possession under the Misuse of Drugs Act and the burden of proof on the accused to show lack of knowledge. |
| Roshdi v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR(R) 1 | Singapore | States that section 122(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code does not require the accused person to minutely detail the defence he will be relying on at the trial. |
| Public Prosecutor v Low Kok Heng | N/A | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 183 | Singapore | Discusses the modern local position on the construction of penal statutes and the application of purposive interpretation. |
| Forward Food Management Pte Ltd and another v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR(R) 443 | Singapore | Discusses the theoretical basis of the strict construction rule and its applicability in the modern legal environment. |
| Teng Lang Khin v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR(R) 1040 | Singapore | Discusses the interpretation of penal statutes and the principle that if there is a reasonable interpretation which will avoid the penalty in any particular case we must adopt that construction. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| 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 18(1)(c) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 18(2) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 17 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224) s 120B | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 376(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 175(2) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 163(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 163(2) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 164(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 167 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Trafficking
- Conspiracy
- Presumption of Knowledge
- Wilful Blindness
- Controlled Drug
- Statement of Agreed Facts
15.2 Keywords
- Diamorphine
- Drug Trafficking
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
- Conspiracy
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Presumption of Knowledge
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Criminal conspiracy | 80 |
| Criminal Procedure | 70 |
| Offences | 60 |
| Evidence | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Conspiracy