Han Fang Guan v Public Prosecutor: Impossible Attempt, Misuse of Drugs Act
Han Fang Guan appealed to the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore against his conviction in the High Court for attempting to possess diamorphine for the purpose of trafficking, an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Han claimed he ordered ketamine and Ice, not diamorphine, and that the drugs were in the custody of the Central Narcotics Bureau at the time of his arrest. The Court of Appeal, comprising Sundaresh Menon CJ, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA, and Steven Chong JA, allowed the appeal, finding a reasonable doubt as to whether Han had ordered diamorphine. The court also considered the law on impossible attempts.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Han Fang Guan appeals conviction for attempting to possess diamorphine for trafficking. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding reasonable doubt.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Original Conviction Overturned | Lost | Kwang Jia Min of Attorney-General’s Chambers Lau Wing Yum of Attorney-General’s Chambers Samuel Yap of Attorney-General’s Chambers Wu Yu Jie of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Han Fang Guan | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | |
| Khor Chong Seng | Other | Individual |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Steven Chong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Kwang Jia Min | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Lau Wing Yum | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Samuel Yap | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Wu Yu Jie | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Favian Kang Kok Boon | Peter Low & Choo LLC |
| Low Cheong Yeow | Matthew Chiong Partnership |
| Josephine Iezu Costan | David Nayar & Vardan |
4. Facts
- Han contacted a drug supplier in Malaysia to order drugs.
- Khor was arrested at Woodlands Checkpoint with seven bundles of controlled drugs.
- Khor agreed to assist CNB in a follow-up operation against the intended recipients.
- Lao Ban instructed Khor to deliver one yellow bundle to T (Han).
- Han was arrested at Block 4, Lorong 7, Toa Payoh with $3,600 in cash.
- Han claimed he ordered ketamine and Ice, not diamorphine.
- The bundle attributed to Han in the charge was a black bundle, not a yellow bundle.
5. Formal Citations
- Han Fang Guan v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Appeal No 31 of 2018, [2020] SGCA 11
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Khor collected drugs from Lao Ban in Malaysia. | |
| Khor entered Singapore through Woodlands Checkpoint and was arrested. | |
| Han was arrested at Block 4, Lorong 7, Toa Payoh. | |
| Criminal Case No 7 of 2018 | |
| Trial began | |
| Hearing date | |
| Hearing date | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Attempt to Possess Drugs for Trafficking
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal found that the Prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Han intended to possess diamorphine.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Intention to possess
- Intention to traffic
- Actus reus of attempt
- Impossible Attempts
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal outlined a two-stage framework for assessing criminal liability in cases of impossible attempts, focusing on the intention of the accused and the sufficiency of acts manifesting that intention.
- Category: Substantive
- Reasonable Doubt
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal found that a reasonable doubt existed as to whether Han had ordered diamorphine, leading to the overturning of his conviction.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction and sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Attempt to possess drugs for the purpose of trafficking
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Khor Chong Seng and another | High Court | Yes | [2018] SGHC 219 | Singapore | Cited for the High Court's decision and reasoning in convicting Han. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mas Swan bin Adnan and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 3 SLR 527 | Singapore | Cited for the elements of the offence of attempt under s 12 of the Misuse of Drugs Act and the law on impossible attempts. |
| Public Prosecutor v GCK and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] SGCA 2 | Singapore | Cited for the concept of reasonable doubt. |
| Chua Kian Kok v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR(R) 826 | Singapore | Cited for the four categories of impossibility in the context of criminal attempts. |
| Haughton v Smith | House of Lords | Yes | [1975] AC 476 | England | Cited for its position on physically impossible attempts, which was later legislatively reversed. |
| Rex v Scofield | Unknown | Yes | Cald 397 | England | Cited as the first decision to establish that an attempt to commit a crime is itself a crime. |
| Reg v Collins and Others | English Court of Criminal Appeal | Yes | (1864) 9 Cox CC 497 | England | Cited for the principle that an attempt to commit a felony can only be made out when, if no interruption had taken place, the attempt could have been carried out successfully. |
| Reg v Brown | Unknown | Yes | (1889) 24 QBD 357 | England | Cited for doubting the decision in Reg v Collins. |
| Reg v Ring and others | Unknown | Yes | (1892) 17 Cox CC 491 | England | Cited for following the decision in Reg v Brown. |
| Anderton v Ryan | House of Lords | Yes | [1985] 2 WLR 968 | England | Cited for its initial interpretation of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 (UK) and the concept of 'objective innocence'. |
| Regina v Shivpuri | House of Lords | Yes | [1987] AC 1 | England | Cited for overruling Anderton v Ryan and clarifying the application of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 (UK) to impossible attempts. |
| Britten v Alpogut | Supreme Court of Victoria | Yes | [1987] VR 929 | Australia | Cited as the leading decision on impossible attempts in Australia, emphasizing the criminal intent of the actor. |
| Queen Empress v Mangesh Jiva'ji | Unknown | Yes | (1887) ILR 11 Bom 376 | India | Cited for its approach to impossible attempts, distinguishing between attempts that would never succeed and those that fail due to one-off circumstances. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ketmuang Banphanuk and Another | High Court | Yes | [1995] SGHC 46 | Singapore | Cited for criticizing the approach taken in Queen Empress v Mangesh Jiva'ji. |
| Asgarali Pradhania v Emperor | High Court of Calcutta | Yes | (1934) ILR 61 Cal 54 | India | Cited for distinguishing between cases where failure is due to the accused's volition and those due to an independent factor. |
| R v Irwin | Unknown | Yes | R v Irwin (2006) 94 SASR 480 | Australia | Cited as following Britten v Alpogut. |
| R v Lee | Unknown | Yes | R v Lee (1990) 1 WAR 411 | Australia | Cited as following Britten v Alpogut. |
| R v English | Unknown | Yes | R v English (1993) 10 WAR 355 | Australia | Cited as following Britten v Alpogut. |
| R v Mai | Unknown | Yes | R v Mai (1992) 26 NSWLR 371 | Australia | Cited as following Britten v Alpogut. |
| R v Barbouttis | Unknown | Yes | R v Barbouttis (1995) 37 NSWLR 256 | Australia | Cited as following Britten v Alpogut. |
| R v Prior | Unknown | Yes | R v Prior (1992) 65 A Crim R 1 | Australia | Cited as following Britten v Alpogut. |
| R v Barnes | Unknown | Yes | R v Barnes (1993) 19 MVR 33 | Australia | Cited as following Britten v Alpogut. |
| Guillot v Hender | Unknown | Yes | Guillot v Hender (1997) 102 A Crim R 397 | Australia | Cited as following Britten v Alpogut. |
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 12 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 511 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 22 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 23 | Singapore |
| Theft Act 1968 (c 60) (UK) s 22 | United Kingdom |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Ketamine
- Ice
- Drug trafficking
- Impossible attempt
- Reasonable doubt
- CNB
- Yellow bundle
- Black bundle
- Specific intent
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal law
- Drug trafficking
- Attempt
- Impossible attempt
- Singapore
- Misuse of Drugs Act
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Impossible attempt | 70 |
| Criminal Procedure | 60 |
| Statutory Interpretation | 40 |
| Administrative Law | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Offences
- Attempt Law