Lim Chee Huat v Public Prosecutor: Appeal Against Conviction Under Misuse of Drugs Act
Lim Chee Huat appealed to the High Court of Singapore against his conviction and sentence of 11 months' imprisonment for consuming methamphetamine under s 8(b)(ii) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The appellant argued that the District Judge's grounds of decision were substantially copied from the Prosecution's closing submissions. Justice Aedit Abdullah found that the District Judge had indeed copied the Prosecution’s submissions to a significant degree, but the High Court was still capable of weighing the evidence on record to determine if the appellant’s conviction should be upheld. The High Court dismissed the appeals against conviction and sentence.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeals against conviction and sentence dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal against conviction under s 8(b)(ii) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of 11 months' imprisonment.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lim Chee Huat | Appellant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | Zero Geraldo Mario Nalpon |
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal dismissed | Won | Isaac Tan, Chin Jincheng |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Aedit Abdullah | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Zero Geraldo Mario Nalpon | Nalpon & Co |
| Isaac Tan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Chin Jincheng | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- A team of Central Narcotics Bureau officers conducted a house visit at the appellant’s residence on 14 November 2016.
- The appellant reported to Ang Mo Kio Police Division Headquarters on 15 November 2016.
- The appellant’s urine samples were tested by the Health Sciences Authority and found to contain methamphetamine.
- The appellant claimed he unknowingly consumed methamphetamine from medication purchased from a man at Blk 322, Hougang Avenue 5.
- The appellant claimed the medication contained traces of methamphetamine, cocaine and ketamine.
- Two storeowners working near Blk 322, Hougang Avenue 5 testified that no sinseh sold medicine there.
- The District Judge found the Prosecution witnesses credible and accepted their evidence.
5. Formal Citations
- Lim Chee Huat v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9269 of 2018, [2019] SGHC 132
- Public Prosecutor v Lim Chee Huat, , [2018] SGDC 272
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Central Narcotics Bureau officers conducted a house visit at the appellant’s residence. | |
| The appellant reported to Ang Mo Kio Police Division Headquarters. | |
| Notes of Evidence | |
| Notes of Evidence | |
| Prosecution’s Closing Submissions | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Judicial Copying
- Outcome: The High Court found that the District Judge had copied the Prosecution’s submissions to a significant degree, but the High Court was still capable of weighing the evidence on record to determine if the appellant’s conviction should be upheld.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to exercise independent judgment
- Risk of bias
- Related Cases:
- [2018] SGDC 272
- [2012] 1 SLR 676
- [2007] 2 SCR 267
- [2002] 1 SCR 869
- [2016] 1 SLR 859
- [2014] 3 SLR 180
- [2013] 2 SCR 357
- (1998) 40 OR (3d) 1 (CA)
- (1998) 39 OR (3d) 1 (CA)
- (2005) 8 HKCFAR 387
- Anderson v City of Bessemer City 470 US 564 (1985)
- Bright v Westmoreland County 380 F 3d 729 (3d Cir, 2004)
- [2013] EWCA Civ 587
- [2012] 3 SLR 34
- [2004] 3 SLR(R) 240
- [1998] 2 SLR(R) 855
- [2002] 1 SLR(R) 839
- [2005] 3 SLR(R) 1
- [2008] 4 SLR(R) 500
- [1995] 2 SLR(R) 104
- Rebuttal of Presumption under s 22 of the Misuse of Drugs Act
- Outcome: The High Court found that the appellant did not rebut the presumption on the balance of probabilities.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Sufficiency of evidence
- Credibility of witnesses
- Internal consistency of testimony
- Related Cases:
- [2002] 1 SLR(R) 839
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Consumption of methamphetamine
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
- Drug Offences
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Lim Chee Huat | District Court | Yes | [2018] SGDC 272 | Singapore | Sets out the statement of agreed facts. |
| Thong Ah Fat v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 1 SLR 676 | Singapore | Cited for the rationale for the judicial duty to give reasoned decisions. |
| Leo Matthew Teskey v Her Majesty The Queen | Supreme Court of Canada | Yes | [2007] 2 SCR 267 | Canada | Discussed the issue of judicial reasons and judgments. |
| R v Sheppard | Supreme Court of Canada | Yes | [2002] 1 SCR 869 | Canada | Cited regarding the requirement and purpose of giving judicial reasons. |
| AUF v AUG and other matters | High Court | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 859 | Singapore | Cited to distinguish the position in respect of arbitral awards and decisions. |
| Yap Ah Lai v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 180 | Singapore | Addressed the issue of a judge reproducing passages from another of his decisions. |
| Eric Victor Cojocaru, an infant by his Guardian Ad Litem, Monica Cojocaru, and Monica Cojocaru v British Columbia Women’s Hospital and Health Centre and F. Bellini and Dale R. Steele, Jenise Yue and Fawaz Edris | Supreme Court of Canada | Yes | [2013] 2 SCR 357 | Canada | Considered whether a trial judge’s decision should be set aside because the reasons for judgment incorporated large portions of the plaintiffs’ submissions. |
| R v Gaudet | Ontario Court of Appeal | Yes | (1998) 40 OR (3d) 1 (CA) | Canada | The trial decision was upheld even though over 90% of its content was adopted from the Crown’s submissions. |
| Sorger v Bank of Nova Scotia | Ontario Court of Appeal | Yes | (1998) 39 OR (3d) 1 (CA) | Canada | Nearly 125 pages of a 128-page trial judgment were transcribed from the parties’ submissions. |
| Nina Kung v Wong Din Shin | Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal | Yes | (2005) 8 HKCFAR 387 | Hong Kong | Allowed an appeal against the Hong Kong Court of Appeal’s decision to uphold the trial judge’s decision that signatures on certain wills were forgeries. |
| Anderson v City of Bessemer City | US Supreme Court | Yes | Anderson v City of Bessemer City 470 US 564 (1985) | USA | The US Supreme Court expressly disapproved of the practice of judges adopting findings drafted by the winning party, but affirmed that such findings of fact will still stand and may be reversed only if clearly erroneous. |
| Bright v Westmoreland County | US Court of Appeals, Third Circuit | Yes | Bright v Westmoreland County 380 F 3d 729 (3d Cir, 2004) | USA | The district court had adopted the appellees’ proposed memorandum opinion and order, making only two substantive changes. |
| Crinion and Another v IG Markets Ltd | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] EWCA Civ 587 | England and Wales | Criticism of the practice of judicial copying was made. |
| AOF v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 3 SLR 34 | Singapore | Considered the law in relation to acquittal, retrial and remittance to the trial judge. |
| Public Prosecutor v Sinsar Trading Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2004] 3 SLR(R) 240 | Singapore | Remittal should only be ordered in limited circumstances. |
| Yap Giau Beng Terence v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR(R) 855 | Singapore | An appellate judge is as competent as any trial judge to draw any necessary inferences of fact from the circumstances of the case where the actual findings have been ascertained. |
| Cheng Siah Johnson v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR(R) 839 | Singapore | Observations on the statutory presumption in s 22 of the MDA. |
| Dinesh Singh Bhatia s/o Amarjeet Singh v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR(R) 1 | Singapore | The range of sentences for offences of consumption under ss 8(b)(i) and 8(b)(ii) of the MDA starts at six months and extends up to 18 months for a first-time offender. |
| Public Prosecutor v UI | High Court | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 500 | Singapore | Intervention by an appellate court in respect of findings of fact and the exercise of discretion generally occurs only in limited circumstances. |
| PP v Hla Win | High Court | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR(R) 104 | Singapore | A judge may be obliged to approach such a defence with greater caution and circumspection than usual in the absence of any other credible evidence. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 8(b)(ii) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 33(1) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 22 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act s 16 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 231 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 390(1)(b) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Methamphetamine
- Urine test
- Presumption
- Judicial copying
- Grounds of decision
- Closing submissions
- Sinseh
- Central Narcotics Bureau
15.2 Keywords
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Methamphetamine
- Judicial Copying
- Singapore
- Criminal Appeal
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Offences
- Criminal Procedure
- Judicial Review
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Drug Offences
- Evidence Law