Koh Bak Kiang v Public Prosecutor: Revision of Conviction for Drug Trafficking
In Koh Bak Kiang v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of Singapore, presided over by Sundaresh Menon CJ, on 26 February 2016, revised the applicant's conviction on two charges of trafficking diamorphine under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The court found that the applicant's guilty plea was qualified by his claim of not knowing he was carrying diamorphine. The convictions were substituted with reduced charges of attempted trafficking in a Class A controlled drug other than diamorphine, and the applicant was resentenced to an aggregate of 13 years’ imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Convictions for the Disputed Charges were set aside and substituted with reduced charges of attempted trafficking in a Class A controlled drug other than diamorphine.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court revised Koh Bak Kiang's drug trafficking conviction, substituting it with a conviction for attempted trafficking after finding his guilty plea was qualified.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Partial Revision Granted | Partial | Francis Ng of Attorney-General’s Chambers Quek Jing Feng of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Koh Bak Kiang | Applicant | Individual | Convictions on the Disputed Charges set aside | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Francis Ng | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Quek Jing Feng | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| A Sangeetha | Trident Law Corporation |
| R Thrumurgan | Trident Law Corporation |
4. Facts
- The applicant pleaded guilty to three charges, including two for trafficking in diamorphine.
- The applicant claimed he did not know he was carrying diamorphine, believing he was carrying other drugs.
- The district judge accepted the plea despite the applicant's claim, finding wilful blindness applicable.
- The applicant's counsel stated that the applicant was not qualifying his plea.
- The High Court found that the applicant had in fact qualified his plea.
- The Prosecution agreed to substitute the charges with reduced charges of attempted trafficking.
- The applicant accepted the Amended Charges and did not intend to submit a defense.
5. Formal Citations
- Koh Bak Kiang v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 41 of 2014, [2016] SGHC 26
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Applicant arrested by Central Narcotics Bureau at Katong Plaza | |
| Applicant pleaded guilty to three charges in District Court | |
| Appeal against sentence dismissed | |
| Applicant filed Criminal Revision No 1 of 2014 | |
| Criminal Revision No 1 of 2014 dismissed by High Court | |
| Applicant filed motion for extension of time to appeal against convictions | |
| First hearing before Sundaresh Menon CJ | |
| Prosecution filed further submissions | |
| Prosecution invited to reconsider its position | |
| Prosecution stated it would not object to High Court exercising revisionary jurisdiction | |
| Prosecution wrote to court indicating it would invite court to consider making an order pursuant to s 257 read with s 268 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) | |
| Hearing before Sundaresh Menon CJ | |
| Recording of additional evidence before District Court commenced | |
| Parties filed written submissions | |
| Prosecution indicated it was amenable to the Disputed Charges being substituted | |
| Final hearing | |
| Reasons for decision issued by Sundaresh Menon CJ |
7. Legal Issues
- Qualification of Guilty Plea
- Outcome: The court found that the applicant had qualified his plea of guilt by claiming he did not know he was carrying diamorphine.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Understanding the nature and consequences of a guilty plea
- Intention to admit the offense without qualification
- Related Cases:
- [1952] 2 QB 1
- [2002] 2 SLR(R) 113
- Exercise of Revisionary Powers
- Outcome: The court exercised its revisionary powers to set aside the convictions on the Disputed Charges.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Serious injustice
- Correctness, legality, or propriety of the order passed
- Regularity of proceedings
- Related Cases:
- [2015] 2 SLR 78
- [2008] 3 SLR(R) 383
- [1995] 3 SLR(R) 929
- [1998] 3 SLR(R) 196
- Mens Rea for Drug Trafficking
- Outcome: The court considered the applicant's claim that he did not know he was carrying diamorphine and its effect on the mens rea requirement.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Knowledge of the nature of the controlled drug
- Rebutting the presumption of knowledge
- Related Cases:
- [2008] 1 SLR(R) 1
- [2011] 3 SLR 201
- [2012] 3 SLR 527
- Substitution of Charges
- Outcome: The court substituted the original charges with charges for attempted trafficking in a Class A drug other than diamorphine.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Power of the High Court to amend a charge
- Prejudice to the accused
- Related Cases:
- [1996] 1 SLR(R) 95
- [2002] 1 SLR(R) 274
- [2004] 3 SLR(R) 240
8. Remedies Sought
- Extension of time to appeal against convictions
- Setting aside convictions
- Reduced charges
- Resentencing
9. Cause of Actions
- Drug Trafficking
- Attempted Drug Trafficking
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Drug Offences
- Appeals
- Sentencing
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Koh Bak Kiang v Public Prosecutor | District Court | Yes | [2008] SGDC 18 | Singapore | Cited to show the district judge's decision and reasoning for the conviction. |
| Public Prosecutor v Yang Yin | High Court | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 78 | Singapore | Cited for the principles governing the exercise of revisionary powers by the High Court. |
| Yunani bin Abdul Hamid v PP | Unknown | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 383 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that reversionary power should be exercised sparingly. |
| Ang Poh Chuan v PP | High Court | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR(R) 929 | Singapore | Cited for the explanation of serious injustice. |
| Knight Glenn Jeyasingam v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 196 | Singapore | Cited for the high threshold for intervention. |
| Tan Kiam Peng v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 1 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the presumptions of possession and knowledge of controlled drugs do not dispense with the mens rea for drug offenses. |
| Khor Soon Lee v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 201 | Singapore | Cited as a sentencing precedent for similar cases where the accused believed they were trafficking in a different drug. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mas Swan bin Adnan and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 3 SLR 527 | Singapore | Cited as a sentencing precedent for similar cases where the accused believed they were trafficking in a different drug. |
| Regina v Durham Quarter Sessions, Ex parte Virgo | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1952] 2 QB 1 | England | Cited for the principle that a qualified plea of guilt is a plea of not guilty. |
| Koh Thian Huat v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [2002] 2 SLR(R) 113 | Singapore | Cited for the safeguards that must be complied with before a court can convict on a guilty plea. |
| XP v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 686 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the guilt of the accused is determined on the sole basis of legal proof and not mere suspicion or intuition. |
| Garmaz s/o Pakhar and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR(R) 95 | Singapore | Cited for the power of the High Court to amend a charge and convict the accused person on the amended charge. |
| Public Prosecutor v Henry John William and another appeal | Unknown | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR(R) 274 | Singapore | Cited for the power to amend a charge and convict an accused on the amended charge has also been exercised in cases where the accused had pleaded guilty in the court below. |
| Public Prosecutor v Sinsar Trading Pte Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [2004] 3 SLR(R) 240 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the High Court could amend the charge as long as there was no prejudice to the accused. |
| Annis bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [2004] 2 SLR(R) 93 | Singapore | Cited for the High Court's powers under s 256(b) of the CPC 1985 are sufficiently broad to encompass the power to amend the statement of facts. |
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 MDA 2001 | Singapore |
| s 8(a) of the MDA 2001 | Singapore |
| s 109 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 18(2) of the MDA 2001 | Singapore |
| s 257 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 268 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 180(b) of the CPC 1985 | Singapore |
| s 5(1)(a) read with s 12 of the MDA 2001 | Singapore |
| s 390 of the CPC 2012 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Trafficking
- Guilty plea
- Qualified plea
- Revisionary power
- Mens rea
- Wilful blindness
- Attempted trafficking
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Criminal Procedure Code
15.2 Keywords
- Drug trafficking
- Diamorphine
- Guilty plea
- Revision
- Sentencing
- Singapore
- Criminal law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Sentencing | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 90 |
| Criminal Revision | 75 |
| Criminal Law | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Criminal Procedure
- Sentencing