PP v Tan Kay Yong: Trafficking of Diamorphine under Misuse of Drugs Act
In the High Court of Singapore, Tan Kay Yong and Mazlan bin Yusoff were tried for drug trafficking under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Tan Kay Yong was charged with possession of diamorphine for the purpose of trafficking, while Mazlan was charged with trafficking diamorphine. The court found both accused guilty. Tan Kay Yong received the mandatory death sentence, while Mazlan received life imprisonment due to meeting the criteria under s 33B(1)(a) of the MDA.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Accused convicted; Tan Kay Yong sentenced to death; Mazlan bin Yusoff sentenced to life imprisonment.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Tan Kay Yong and Mazlan bin Yusoff were convicted of drug trafficking. Tan Kay Yong received the death penalty, while Mazlan was sentenced to life imprisonment.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Prosecution | Government Agency | Judgment for the Prosecution | Won | Tan Zhongshan of Attorney-General’s Chambers Lau Wing Yum of Attorney-General’s Chambers Michelle Lu of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tan Kay Yong | Defendant | Individual | Convicted | Lost | |
| Mazlan bin Yusoff | Defendant | Individual | Convicted | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lee Seiu Kin | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Tan Zhongshan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Lau Wing Yum | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Michelle Lu | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Low Cheong Yeow | Tito Isaac & Co LLP |
| Loo Khee Sheng | KS Loo & Co |
| Dhanaraj James Selvaraj | James Selvaraj LLC |
| Amolat Singh | Amolat & Partners |
4. Facts
- Mazlan received two packets of granular substance from Mani to deliver to customers.
- Mazlan delivered one packet to Tan Kay Yong at Bendemeer Road.
- Tan Kay Yong handed Mazlan a stack of money after receiving the packet.
- CNB officers arrested Tan Kay Yong after he fled from them.
- A packet containing not less than 18.71 grams of diamorphine was found in Tan Kay Yong's bag.
- Mazlan, Suhana, and Aida were arrested at Mufiz Eating House along Kitchener Road.
- A stack of money amounting to $3,000 was seized from Mazlan.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Tan Kay Yong and another, Criminal Case No 51 of 2017, [2018] SGHC 67
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Tan Kay Yong possessed diamorphine for trafficking; Mazlan bin Yusoff trafficked diamorphine. | |
| Trial began | |
| Trial concluded | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Possession of a Controlled Drug for the Purpose of Trafficking
- Outcome: The court found Tan Kay Yong guilty of possession of diamorphine for the purpose of trafficking. The court found Mazlan bin Yusoff guilty of trafficking diamorphine.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Actual Possession
- Presumed Possession
- Knowledge of the Nature of the Drug
- Rebutting the Presumption of Trafficking
- Eligibility for Alternative Sentencing under s 33B(1)(a) of the MDA
- Outcome: The court found that Mazlan met the requirements under s 33B(2)(a) and s 33B(2)(b) of the MDA and was eligible for alternative sentencing.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Role as a Mere Courier
- Certificate of Substantive Assistance
8. Remedies Sought
- Conviction
- Sentencing
9. Cause of Actions
- Drug Trafficking
- Possession of Controlled Drugs for the Purpose of Trafficking
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
- Drug Offences
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tang Hai Liang v Public Prosecutor | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] SGCA 38 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the presumptions in sections 17 and 18 of the Misuse of Drugs Act cannot be applied conjunctively. |
| Warner v Metropolitan Police Commissioner | House of Lords | Yes | [1969] 2 AC 256 | England and Wales | Cited for the proposition that a person who receives physical custody of a package has possession of its contents if he does not dispose of the contents after having had a reasonable opportunity to examine them. |
| Tan Kiam Peng v PP | High Court | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 1 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that a person is not in possession of a thing if he or she believes it to be something of a wholly different nature. |
| Masoud Rahimi bin Mehrzad v PP and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 257 | Singapore | Cited for the elements of the offence of possession of a controlled drug for the purpose of trafficking. |
| Hishamrudin bin Mohd v PP | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] SGCA 41 | Singapore | Cited for the elements that must be satisfied to prove actual possession. |
| Fun Seong Cheng v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR 796 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that knowledge of the nature of controlled drugs refers to knowledge that the items were controlled drugs, and not knowledge of the specific nature of the drug in question. |
| Harven a/l Segar v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 771 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court will carefully scrutinise all the pertinent facts in determining whether the accused has discharged the burden of rebutting the presumption of knowledge. |
| Mohammed Ali bin Johari v PP | High Court | Yes | [2008] 5 SLR(R) 1058 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that proof beyond reasonable doubt does not require the Prosecution to meet a standard of absolute certainty. |
| Obeng Comfort v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 633 | Singapore | Cited for the elements that must be satisfied to raise the presumption of possession under s 18(1) of the MDA. |
| Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 4 SLR 1156 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that once the accused is proved or presumed to have had a controlled drug in his possession, he is then presumed to know the nature of that drug under s 18(2) of the MDA. |
| Muhammad bin Abdullah v PP and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 427 | Singapore | Cited for the factors the court considers where an accused relies on the defence of own consumption to rebut the presumption of possession for the purpose of trafficking. |
| Jusri bin Mohamed Hussain v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 2 SLR(R) 706 | Singapore | Cited for the evidence concerning the accused’s rate of consumption and the number of days the supply is meant for. |
| PP v Muhammad bin Abdullah | High Court | Yes | [2015] SGHC 231 | Singapore | Cited for the frequency of supply available to the accused. |
| PP v Kwek Seow Hock | High Court | Yes | [2009] SGHC 202 | Singapore | Cited for whether the accused had the financial means to purchase the drugs for himself. |
| PP v Christeen d/o Jayamany and another | High Court | Yes | [2015] SGHC 126 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that both the requirements in s 33B(2)(a) and s 33B(2)(b) must be satisfied in order for an accused to be eligible to be sentenced under s 33B(1)(a) of the MDA. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 17 of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 18 of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 33(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 33B(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 33B(2)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| s 33B(2)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 23 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 22 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 325(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Drug Trafficking
- Possession for Trafficking
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Mere Courier
- Certificate of Substantive Assistance
15.2 Keywords
- Drug Trafficking
- Diamorphine
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 70 |
| Criminal Procedure | 60 |
| Sentencing | 50 |
| Evidence | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking