Zheng Jianxing v Attorney-General: Quashing Order Application for DRC Admission under Misuse of Drugs Act
Zheng Jianxing applied to the High Court of Singapore for leave to file a Quashing Order against his admission to Sembawang Drug Rehabilitation Centre (DRC) in 2006, ordered by the Deputy Director of the Central Narcotics Bureau under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The Attorney-General opposed the application. Tay Yong Kwang J dismissed Zheng Jianxing's application, finding that Zheng Jianxing did not provide sufficient evidence to suggest lapses in the urine testing process and that the application was filed out of time.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Judicial Review
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Application for leave to file a Quashing Order regarding admission to Sembawang DRC under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The application was dismissed.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General | Respondent | Government Agency | Application dismissed | Won | Nicholas Wuan of Attorney-General’s Chambers Tan Eu Shan Kevin of Attorney-General’s Chambers Ong Luan Tze of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Zheng Jianxing | Applicant | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Nicholas Wuan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tan Eu Shan Kevin | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ong Luan Tze | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| S.K. Kumar | S K Kumar Law Practice LLP |
4. Facts
- Applicant was stopped by CNB officers at Tuas Checkpoint on 27 March 2006.
- An Instant Urine Test was positive for Amphetamine, Opiate and Benzodiazepines.
- HSA certificates indicated the presence of N, a-dimethyl-3, 4-(methylendioxy)phenethylamine in the urine specimen.
- The concentration levels of N, a-dimethyl-3, 4-(methylendioxy)phenethylamine in the two urine samples varied significantly.
- The Deputy Director made the 2006 DRC order on 11 May 2006.
- The Applicant was committed to Sembawang DRC from 11 May 2006 to 2 May 2007.
- The Applicant was charged under s 8(b)(ii) read with s 33A(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) on 12 June 2013.
5. Formal Citations
- Zheng Jianxing v Attorney-General, Originating Summons No 991 of 2013, [2014] SGHC 120
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Applicant stopped by CNB officers at Tuas Checkpoint. | |
| Urine specimens sent to Health Sciences Authority for analysis. | |
| HSA issued certificate for urine specimen analysis. | |
| HSA issued second certificate for urine specimen analysis. | |
| Deputy Director made the 2006 DRC order. | |
| Applicant committed to Sembawang DRC. | |
| Applicant released from Sembawang DRC. | |
| Applicant charged under s 8(b)(ii) read with s 33A(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed). | |
| Applicant brought application seeking leave to file an application to quash the 2006 DRC order. | |
| Hearing concluded; application dismissed. | |
| Grounds for decision set out. |
7. Legal Issues
- Whether leave should be granted to commence judicial review proceedings
- Outcome: The court held that the applicant did not meet the standard of proof for granting leave.
- Category: Procedural
- Whether the Deputy Director was entitled to rely on results of urine tests to exercise his discretion under s 34(2)(b) of the MDA even though the variance was higher than 20%
- Outcome: The court held that the variance of higher than 20% alone would not prevent the Deputy Director from relying on the HSA certificates when exercising his discretion under s 34(2)(b).
- Category: Substantive
- Whether the application was out of time
- Outcome: The court held that the application was made way out of time and the delay has not been satisfactorily accounted for.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Quashing Order in respect of admission to Sembawang Drug Rehabilitation Centre
9. Cause of Actions
- Application for a Quashing Order
10. Practice Areas
- Public Law
- Criminal Litigation
11. Industries
- Law Enforcement
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lau Seng Poh v Controller of Immigration, Singapore | High Court | Yes | [1985 – 1986] SLR(R) 180 | Singapore | Cited to argue that the Director's discretion under s 34(2)(b) of the MDA is dependent on the existence of an objective fact, similar to the Controller of Immigration's discretion in Lau Seng Poh. |
| Jeyaretnam Kenneth Andrew v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 619 | Singapore | Cited for the three conditions that must be met for leave to be granted for judicial review proceedings. |
| Jeyaretnam Kenneth Andrew v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 1 SLR 345 | Singapore | Cited for affirming the three conditions that must be met for leave to be granted for judicial review proceedings. |
| Lim Boon Keong v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2010] 4 SLR 451 | Singapore | Cited to support the precedent requirement for the exercise of the Director's discretion under s 34(2)(b) of the MDA, emphasizing the safeguards against error in urine tests. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mohammad Ashik bin Aris | High Court | Yes | [2011] 4 SLR 34 | Singapore | Cited to define the term 'variance' in urine test results and to distinguish between the urine testing process and the urine procurement process. |
| Mohammad Ashik bin Aris v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 4 SLR 802 | Singapore | Cited to support the view that 'urine test' within s 31(4)(b) only encompasses certain processes that take place at the HSA laboratory and not the urine procurement process. |
| Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2012] 2 SLR 49 | Singapore | Cited to explain the factors the Public Prosecutor considers when deciding whether to prosecute, including legal guilt, moral blameworthiness, and public welfare. |
| Vadugaiah Mahendran v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR(R) 719 | Singapore | Cited by the applicant to support his contention that urine test results showing higher than 20% variance cannot be relied upon as positive tests. The court found that this case did not assist the applicant. |
| Subramaniam s/o Marie and others v Superintendent, Selarang Park Drug Rehabilitation Centre | High Court | Yes | [1981 – 1982] SLR(R) 30 | Singapore | Cited to support the view that the Director is the sole judge in deciding whether to make an order for admission, as long as the Director acts fairly, in good faith and follows properly the procedure set out in the MDA. |
| Teng Fuh Holdings Pte Ltd v Collector of Land Revenue | High Court | Yes | [2006] 3 SLR(R) 507 | Singapore | Cited to support the view that the applicant had to place the 'fullest evidence and strongest arguments' before the court. |
| Teng Fuh Holdings Pte Ltd v Collector of Land Revenue | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 568 | Singapore | Cited to support the view that an application to quash an order must be brought within three months from the making of that order. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 53 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) |
| Order 53 r 1(6) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 34(2)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 31(4)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 16 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 8(b)(ii) read with s 33A(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 34(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 34(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 22 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 31 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Quashing Order
- Drug Rehabilitation Centre
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Urine test
- Variance
- Judicial Review
- Condition precedent
- Director's discretion
15.2 Keywords
- Quashing Order
- DRC
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Judicial Review
- Urine Test
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Judicial Review | 70 |
| Administrative Law | 60 |
| Criminal Revision | 50 |
| Criminal Procedure | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Drug Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Administrative Law