Chan Heng Kong v Public Prosecutor: Drug Trafficking, Abetment, and Mens Rea
In Chan Heng Kong and another v Public Prosecutor, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard appeals from Chan Heng Kong and Sng Chun Heng, who were convicted of drug trafficking and abetment of drug trafficking, respectively. The court, presided over by Chan Sek Keong CJ, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA, and V K Rajah JA, dismissed Chan's appeal, finding he had the requisite mens rea. The court amended Sng's charge from abetment by instigation to abetment by aiding, but dismissed his appeal. The case involved events from January 23, 2008, concerning diamorphine.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed in respect of both appellants. Sng Chun Heng's conviction was amended from abetment by instigation to abetment by aiding.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court of Appeal upheld Chan Heng Kong's drug trafficking conviction and amended Sng Chun Heng's charge to abetment by aiding, addressing issues of mens rea and prosecutorial discretion.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Gail Wong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Kan Shuk Weng of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Chan Heng Kong | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Sng Chun Heng | Appellant | Individual | Conviction Amended | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Sek Keong | Chief Justice | No |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| V K Rajah | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Gail Wong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Kan Shuk Weng | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Cheong Aik Chye | A C Cheong & Co. |
| Wong Siew Hong | Infinitus Law Corporation |
| Daniel Koh | Eldan Law LLP |
| Loo Khee Sheng | K S Loo & Co |
4. Facts
- Chan Heng Kong delivered "Mamee Monster" snack packs containing diamorphine to Choong Peng.
- Sng Chun Heng instructed his brother, Choong Peng, to collect drugs from Chan Heng Kong.
- Chan Heng Kong suspected he was involved in smuggling illegal drugs due to the handsome rewards.
- Choong Peng had previously collected heroin for Sng Chun Heng.
- Sng Chun Heng gave Choong Peng $5,500 to pay Chan Heng Kong for the drugs.
- The drugs seized contained not less than 17.70g of diamorphine.
5. Formal Citations
- Chan Heng Kong and another v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Appeal No 11 of 2010, [2012] SGCA 18
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Drug trafficking offences occurred | |
| Public Prosecutor withdrew charge against Ang Cheng Wan | |
| Sng Choong Peng was convicted in Criminal Case No 1 of 2009 | |
| Chan Heng Kong and Sng Chun Heng were convicted in Criminal Case No 3 of 2009 | |
| Criminal Appeal No 11 of 2010 filed | |
| Appeal heard | |
| Counsel for Sng obtained leave to file further written submissions | |
| Counsel for Sng filed further written submissions | |
| Prosecution's reply to Sng's further written submissions was filed | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Mens Rea
- Outcome: The court found that Chan Heng Kong had the requisite mens rea for the offence of drug trafficking, applying the doctrine of wilful blindness.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Wilful Blindness
- Related Cases:
- [2011] 4 SLR 1156
- Abetment
- Outcome: The court amended Sng Chun Heng's charge from abetment by instigation to abetment by aiding, finding that Sng's actions constituted aiding rather than instigating Choong Peng.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Instigation
- Aiding
- Related Cases:
- [2006] 2 SLR(R) 503
- [1991] 2 SLR(R) 393
- [2005] 4 SLR(R) 249
- [2000] 1 SLR(R) 1
- [1999] 3 SLR(R) 826
- [2010] 2 SLR 958
- Prosecutorial Discretion
- Outcome: The court upheld the Prosecution's decision to charge Sng Chun Heng with a capital offence while charging Choong Peng with a non-capital offence, finding no violation of Article 12 of the Constitution.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2012] SGCA 2
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Drug Trafficking
- Abetment of 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 Sng Chun Heng and another | High Court | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 437 | Singapore | The trial judge's decision which convicted the two men of the respective capital charges brought against them. |
| Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] SGCA 2 | Singapore | Cited for the decision on the exercise of the Attorney-General’s prosecutorial discretion. |
| Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 4 SLR 1156 | Singapore | Cited to clarify the position on wilfulness and the presumption of knowledge under s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. |
| Iwuchukwu Amara Tochi and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 2 SLR(R) 503 | Singapore | Cited to establish that the word “abet” in s 12 of the MDA has the same meaning as that word in s 107 of the Penal Code. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lim Tee Hian | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1991] 2 SLR(R) 393 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that to make good the offence of abetment by instigation, there has to be “active suggestion, support, stimulation or encouragement” of the primary offence. |
| Balakrishnan S and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 4 SLR(R) 249 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that to make good the offence of abetment by instigation, there has to be “active suggestion, support, stimulation or encouragement” of the primary offence. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ng Ai Tiong | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR(R) 1 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that instigation could come in the form of “express solicitation or … hints, insinuations or encouragement”. |
| Baby John v State | Unknown | Yes | [1953] Cri LJ 1273 | India | Cited for the principle that instigation could come in the form of “express solicitation or … hints, insinuations or encouragement”. |
| Jimina Jacee d/o C D Athananasius v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR(R) 826 | Singapore | Cited to show circumstances where no form of instigation was made out and the charge was amended to abetment by aiding. |
| Whang Sung Lin v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2010] 2 SLR 958 | Singapore | Cited to show circumstances where no form of instigation was made out and the charge was amended to abetment by aiding. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2001 Rev Ed), s 5(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2001 Rev Ed), s 5(2) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2001 Rev Ed), s 12 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2001 Rev Ed), s 33 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed), s 18(2) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed), s 107 | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint), Art 12 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Drug trafficking
- Abetment
- Instigation
- Aiding
- Mens rea
- Wilful blindness
- Prosecutorial discretion
- Mamee Monster
- CNB
- Drug exhibits
15.2 Keywords
- Drug trafficking
- Abetment
- Mens rea
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 60 |
| Criminal Procedure | 50 |
| Administrative Law | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Offences
- Abetment