Public Prosecutor v Choo Peng Kuen: Drug Trafficking, Misuse of Drugs Act, Unsoundness of Mind

In Public Prosecutor v. Choo Peng Kuen, the High Court of Singapore, on October 22, 2018, convicted Choo Peng Kuen on a capital charge of possessing not less than 36.42 grams of diamorphine for the purpose of trafficking, an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The court rejected the accused's defense based on alleged mental disorders, specifically Substance-Induced Depressive Disorder and Substance-Induced Psychotic Disorder, which he claimed negated his intent or caused him to follow a command hallucination. The court found him not to be a courier and sentenced him to the death penalty.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Convicted on the capital charge; sentenced to death penalty.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Choo Peng Kuen faced a capital charge for possessing diamorphine for trafficking. The High Court convicted him, rejecting his defense of mental disorders.

1.7 Decision Date

21 October 2018

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Public Prosecutor	Prosecution	Government Agency	Judgment for Prosecution	Won	Zhou Yihong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Ang Feng Qian of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Choo Peng Kuen	Defendant	Individual	Conviction	Lost	Chua Eng Hui of RHTLaw Taylor Wessing LLP Wong Seow Pin of S P Wong & Co

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Pang Khang Chau	Judicial Commissioner	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Zhou Yihong	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Ang Feng Qian	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Chua Eng Hui	RHTLaw Taylor Wessing LLP
Wong Seow Pin	S P Wong & Co

4. Facts

The accused, Choo Peng Kuen, faced a capital charge of possessing not less than 36.42g of diamorphine for the purpose of trafficking.
On 18 February 2015, police were tipped off about a firearm at the accused’s apartment.
The accused was found with $10,000 in cash, five handphones, and two packets of crystalline substance identified as methamphetamine.
A search of the accused's bedroom revealed several packets of brown granular substances containing diamorphine.
The accused claimed he was influenced by an auditory hallucination to purchase a large quantity of heroin to commit suicide.
The accused had a prior drug trafficking charge in May 2013 and was released on bail in September 2014.
The accused admitted to weighing and repacking heroin into small plastic packets as part of his drug trafficking activities.

5. Formal Citations

Public Prosecutor v Choo Peng Kuen, Criminal Case No 18 of 2018, [2018] SGHC 230

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2013-05-01	Accused admitted to IMH for assessment after arrest on drug trafficking charge.
2014-09-01	Accused released on bail.
2015-01-18	Accused moved into Siglap V Condominium.
2015-02-14	Accused ordered one pound of heroin and 250g of 'ice' from Billa Visu.
2015-02-15	First shipment of drugs delivered to the accused.
2015-02-17	Accused ordered two pounds of heroin from Billa Visu.
2015-02-18	Second shipment of drugs delivered to the accused.
2015-02-18	Accused arrested at Siglap V Condominium.
2015-02-22	First cautioned statement recorded from accused.
2015-02-23	Second statement recorded from accused.
2015-02-25	Investigation Officer Ranjeet Ram Behari sent letter to Prisons Complex Medical Centre.
2015-02-26	Dr. Ung examined the accused.
2015-03-03	Third statement recorded from accused.
2015-03-04	Fourth and fifth statements recorded from accused.
2015-03-05	Sixth and seventh statements recorded from accused.
2015-03-16	Investigation Officer Shafiq's report under section 247(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
2015-03-20	Dr. Gupta assessed the accused.
2015-03-24	Dr. Gupta assessed the accused.
2015-03-27	Dr. Gupta assessed the accused.
2017-02-17	Dr. Winslow interviewed the accused.
2017-03-17	Dr. Winslow interviewed the accused.
2017-03-31	Calvin and Ryan interviewed by Dr. Winslow.
2017-04-11	Dr. Ung issued first report.
2017-06-19	Dr. Winslow issued first report.
2017-07-10	Dr. Ung wrote second report.
2018-03-26	Dr. Winslow amended his report.
2018-03-27	Notes of Evidence.
2018-03-27	Ryan testified.
2018-03-27	Calvin testified.
2018-03-28	Dr. Winslow testified.
2018-03-28	Dr. Ung testified.
2018-03-29	Dr. Gupta testified.
2018-03-27	Accused testified.
2018-03-23	Prosecution’s Opening Address.
2018-03-27	Notes of Evidence.
2018-03-28	Notes of Evidence.
2018-03-29	Notes of Evidence.
2018-03-27	Notes of Evidence.
2018-03-28	Notes of Evidence.
2018-03-29	Notes of Evidence.
2018-03-27	Notes of Evidence.
2018-03-28	Notes of Evidence.
2018-03-29	Notes of Evidence.
2018-03-27	Notes of Evidence.
2018-03-28	Notes of Evidence.
2018-03-29	Notes of Evidence.
2018-03-27	Notes of Evidence.
2018-03-28	Notes of Evidence.
2018-03-29	Notes of Evidence.
2018-03-27	Notes of Evidence.
2018-03-28	Notes of Evidence.
2018-03-29	Notes of Evidence.
2018-03-27	Notes of Evidence.
2018-03-28	Notes of Evidence.
2018-03-29	Notes of Evidence.
2018-04-30	Defence’s Closing Submissions.
2018-04-30	Prosecution’s Closing Submissions.
2018-05-07	Defence’s Reply Submissions.
2018-08-14	Hearing Date
2018-10-22	Judgment Date

7. Legal Issues

Whether the accused was of unsound mind at the time of the offence
- Outcome: The court found that the accused was not of unsound mind.
- Category: Substantive
Whether the accused was labouring under command hallucinations at the material time
- Outcome: The court found that the accused was not labouring under any command hallucinations.
- Category: Substantive
Whether the accused is eligible for alternative sentencing regime under s 33B(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act
- Outcome: The court found that the accused was not eligible for the alternative sentencing regime under s 33B(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
- Category: Substantive
Whether the accused was experiencing hallucinations
- Outcome: The court found that the accused was probably hearing voices, but these did not amount to hallucinations.
- Category: Substantive
Whether the accused was suffering from mental disorders such as Substance-Induced Psychotic Disorder or Substance-Induced Depressive Disorder
- Outcome: The court found that the accused was not suffering from Substance-Induced Psychotic Disorder or Substance-Induced Depressive Disorder at the material time.
- Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

Conviction
Death Penalty

9. Cause of Actions

Drug Trafficking
Possession of Controlled Drugs

10. Practice Areas

Criminal Law
Drug Offences
Mental Health Law

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Raman Selvam s/o Renganathan v Public Prosecutor	Unknown	Yes	[2004] 1 SLR(R) 550	Singapore	Cited for the elements required to prove a charge under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
Public Prosecutor v Saridewi bte Djamani and another	High Court	Yes	[2018] SGHC 204	Singapore	Cited regarding adverse inference for failure to mention facts in first statement.
Yap Giau Beng Terence v Public Prosecutor	Unknown	Yes	[1998] 2 SLR(R) 855	Singapore	Cited regarding giving the accused the benefit of the doubt.
Sakthivel Punithavathi v Public Prosecutor	Unknown	Yes	[2007] 2 SLR(R) 983	Singapore	Cited for principles on approaching conflicting expert evidence.
Singapore Finance Ltd v Lim Kah Ngam (S’pore) Pte Ltd (Eugene HL Chan Associates, third party)	Unknown	Yes	[1983-1984] SLR(R) 403	Singapore	Cited regarding scrutinising an expert’s methodology and the objective facts they had based their opinion upon.
Rosman bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor	Unknown	No	[2017] 1 SLR 10	Singapore	Cited regarding the decision in Phua Han Chuan Jeffery v Public Prosecutor [2016] 3 SLR 706.
Phua Han Chuan Jeffery v Public Prosecutor	Unknown	No	[2016] 3 SLR 706	Singapore	Cited regarding mental responsibility is a broader concept than the mental element such as knowledge or intention required to constitute the offence.
Public Prosecutor v Took Leng How	Unknown	Yes	[2005] 4 SLR(R) 472	Singapore	Cited regarding an accused suffering from an abnormality of mind may nevertheless possess the critical faculties to know that what he was doing was wrong.

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 33(1)	Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 33B	Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 33B(3)(a)	Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 16	Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 17	Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 33B(2)	Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 33B(3)(b)	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 267	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 264	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 23	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 22	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 247(1)	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code s 251	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Diamorphine
Trafficking
Misuse of Drugs Act
Unsoundness of Mind
Hallucinations
Substance-Induced Psychotic Disorder
Substance-Induced Depressive Disorder
Command Hallucination
Courier
Mental Disorder

15.2 Keywords

Drug Trafficking
Diamorphine
Singapore
Criminal Law
Mental Health
Unsoundness of Mind
Misuse of Drugs Act

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Misuse of Drugs Act	95
Criminal Law	90
Drug Trafficking	85
Mental Disorder	70
Unsoundness of Mind	65
Psychiatry	60
Criminal Procedure	50
Sentencing	40
Evidence	30

16. Subjects

Criminal Law
Drug Trafficking
Mental Health