Liew Zheng Yang v Public Prosecutor: Abetting Conspiracy to Traffic Drugs & Misuse of Drugs Act
Liew Zheng Yang appealed to the High Court of Singapore against his conviction for abetting in a conspiracy to traffic controlled drugs. The High Court, presided over by Justice Steven Chong, allowed the appeal on 14 July 2017, clarifying that a buyer who orders drugs for personal consumption lacks the necessary mens rea to be guilty of abetting the seller in a conspiracy to traffic drugs. The court set aside the convictions for the conspiracy charges and convicted Liew on reduced charges of attempted possession of controlled drugs.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding conviction for abetting conspiracy to traffic drugs. The court allowed the appeal, clarifying the distinction between drug consumption and trafficking.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Partial Loss | Partial | John Lu of Attorney-General’s Chambers Rimplejit Kaur of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Liew Zheng Yang | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Steven Chong | Judge of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| John Lu | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Rimplejit Kaur | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Suang Wijaya | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
| Eugene Singarajah Thuraisingam | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
4. Facts
- Liew contacted Fanyu to purchase marijuana.
- Fanyu agreed to get the marijuana for Liew from other suppliers and deliver it to Liew.
- Liew would pay Fanyu $400 for the marijuana.
- Fanyu traveled to Johor Bahru to obtain the drugs.
- Fanyu was arrested with two blocks of marijuana, one meant for Liew and the other for his own consumption.
- Liew claimed the drugs were for his own consumption, which was unchallenged by the Prosecution.
- The Judge accepted Liew's unchallenged evidence that the drugs were meant for his own consumption.
5. Formal Citations
- Liew Zheng Yang v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9253 of 2016, [2017] SGHC 157
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Liew contacted Fanyu to purchase marijuana. | |
| Liew's long statement was recorded. | |
| Fanyu's long statement was recorded. | |
| Fanyu pleaded guilty to drug charges. | |
| Fanyu testified contrary to his earlier statement. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Abetting in a Conspiracy to Traffic Controlled Drugs
- Outcome: The court held that a person who buys drugs for his own consumption would not have the necessary mens rea to commit the offence of abetting in a conspiracy to traffic.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Lack of mens rea
- Intention to distribute drugs to a third party
- Attempted Possession of Controlled Drugs
- Outcome: The court convicted Liew of two lesser charges of attempted possession of controlled drugs.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
9. Cause of Actions
- Abetment by Conspiracy to Traffic Controlled Drugs
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Drug Offences
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Liew Zheng Yang | District Court | Yes | [2017] SGDC 21 | Singapore | The District Court's decision that the buyer was guilty of abetting in a conspiracy to traffic controlled drugs was the subject of the appeal. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mohamad Shafiq bin Ahamad | District Court | Yes | [2015] SGDC 81 | Singapore | Cited as a case where a buyer of drugs was successfully prosecuted for conspiracy to traffic drugs to himself, but distinguished because the buyer in that case did not claim the drugs were for his own consumption. |
| Public Prosecutor v Vejiyan a/l Muniandy and another | High Court | Yes | [2016] SGHC 76 | Singapore | Cited as a case where a buyer of drugs was successfully prosecuted for conspiracy to traffic drugs to himself, but distinguished because the buyer in that case did not claim the drugs were for his own consumption. |
| Harven a/l Segar v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 771 | Singapore | Cited for the restatement of the rule in Browne v Dunn regarding cross-examination of witnesses. |
| Browne v Dunn | N/A | Yes | (1893) 6 R 67 | N/A | Cited for the rule that a party must give a witness the opportunity to respond to a submission before making it. |
| Public Prosecutor v Adnan bin Kadir | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 1052 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of 'trafficking' under the Misuse of Drugs Act, requiring the purpose of distribution to someone else. |
| Ong Ah Chuan v Public Prosecutor | Privy Council | Yes | [1979–1980] SLR(R) 710 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that 'to traffic' under the MDA means doing the acts stated in s 2 of the MDA for the purpose of distribution to someone else and for the evident purpose of the MDA is to distinguish between dealers in drugs and the unfortunate addicts who are their victims. |
| Muhammad bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 427 | Singapore | Cited for the recognition of the 'defence of consumption' in drug trafficking cases. |
| Public Prosecutor v Dahalan bin Ladaewa | High Court | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR(R) 124 | Singapore | Cited as an example where the defence of consumption was successfully invoked, leading to a reduction in the drug quantity stated on the charge. |
| Public Prosecutor v Dahalan bin Ladaewa | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] SGCA 87 | Singapore | Cited as the appeal case for Public Prosecutor v Dahalan bin Ladaewa [1995] 2 SLR(R) 124. |
| R v Anderson | N/A | Yes | [1986] 1 AC 27 | N/A | Cited for the principle that a pretence conspirator cannot be guilty of conspiracy if they do not intend to carry the conspiracy into effect. |
| Yip Chiu-Cheung v R | Privy Council | Yes | [1995] 1 AC 111 | N/A | Cited for the principle that a pretence conspirator cannot be guilty of conspiracy if they do not intend to carry the conspiracy into effect. |
| Kannan s/o Kunjiraman and another v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR(R) 294 | Singapore | Cited for adopting the same position as Anderson and Yip regarding pretence conspirators. |
| Rolls v The Queen | N/A | Yes | [2011] VSCA 401 | Australia | Cited to support the argument that the mistress had agreed with her lover to murder the lover’s wife because she had a stake in the plan to murder the wife. |
| R v Moran & Mokbel | N/A | Yes | [1998] VSCA 64 | Australia | Cited to support the argument that a supplier of ingredients to make drugs was found not guilty of conspiring to manufacture the drugs because the supplier had no stake in what the buyer was to do with the ingredients once it was supplied to him. |
| R v Thomas Roland Trudgeon | N/A | Yes | [1988] 39 A Crim R 252 | Australia | Cited to support the argument that the mere fact that the seller of drugs would have expected the buyer to sell the drugs to third parties did not mean that there was an agreement between the buyer and seller for the buyer to subsequently sell the drugs to others. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lam Leng Hung and other appeals | High Court | Yes | [2017] SGHC 71 | Singapore | Cited as it is permissible for this court to pass sentence on the reduced charges instead of remitting the case back to the Judge for sentencing. |
| Sim Wen Yi Ernest v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2016] 5 SLR 207 | Singapore | Cited as it is permissible for this court to pass sentence on the reduced charges instead of remitting the case back to the Judge for sentencing. |
| Mohd Hazwan bin Mohd Muji v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 516 | Singapore | Cited as it is permissible for this court to pass sentence on the reduced charges instead of remitting the case back to the Judge for sentencing. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Abetting
- Conspiracy
- Trafficking
- Controlled Drugs
- Mens Rea
- Consumption
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Dominant Purpose
- Attempted Possession
15.2 Keywords
- Drug trafficking
- Conspiracy
- Mens rea
- Singapore
- Criminal law
- Appeal
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Abetment
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Drug Trafficking | 90 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Conspiracy | 80 |
| Abetment | 70 |
| Criminal Procedure | 60 |
| Statutory Interpretation | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Conspiracy
- Mens Rea