Chong Hoon Cheong v Public Prosecutor: Trafficking, Misuse of Drugs Act
In Chong Hoon Cheong v Public Prosecutor, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal against conviction and sentence for a charge under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Chong Hoon Cheong was convicted of possessing diamorphine for the purpose of trafficking and sentenced to the mandatory death penalty. The appellant claimed he possessed the drugs for personal consumption, but the court found he failed to rebut the statutory presumption of trafficking. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore Court of Appeal judgment on drug trafficking. The court upheld the conviction and mandatory death penalty, finding the appellant failed to rebut the presumption of trafficking.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Conviction and Sentence Upheld | Won | Teo Siu Ming of Attorney-General’s Chambers Mark Tay Swee Keng of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Chong Hoon Cheong | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Judith Prakash | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Teo Siu Ming | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Mark Tay Swee Keng | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Koh Choon Guan Daniel | Eldan Law LLP |
| Lum Guo Rong | Lexcompass LLC |
| Kenji Ong Shao Qiang | Fullerton Law Chambers LLC |
4. Facts
- Appellant was arrested on 8 December 2015 at 26B Hamilton Road.
- Appellant was found in possession of 27 packets containing 25.01g of diamorphine.
- Appellant claimed he possessed 14.08g of diamorphine for personal consumption.
- Appellant's statements were recorded between 8 and 16 December 2015.
- Appellant claimed to have consumed diamorphine and methamphetamine prior to arrest.
- Appellant's claimed rate of drug consumption increased over time.
- Appellant claimed the diamorphine was remuneration in kind for his work.
5. Formal Citations
- Chong Hoon Cheong v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Appeal No 28 of 2021, [2022] SGCA 50
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant arrested at 26B Hamilton Road. | |
| First Contemporaneous Statement recorded from the appellant. | |
| Second Contemporaneous Statement recorded from the appellant. | |
| Cautioned Statement recorded from the appellant. | |
| First Long Statement recorded from the appellant. | |
| Second Long Statement recorded from the appellant. | |
| Third Long Statement recorded from the appellant. | |
| Fourth Long Statement recorded from the appellant. | |
| Trial began. | |
| Trial concluded. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Judgment delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Rebuttal of Statutory Presumption
- Outcome: The court held that the appellant failed to rebut the statutory presumption under s 17(c) of the MDA.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to establish consumption defence
- Inconsistent evidence of consumption rate
- Interpretation of Accused's Statements
- Outcome: The court found ambiguity in the accused's statements but ultimately disregarded them in reaching its decision.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Ambiguity in statements
- Weight accorded to statements
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Trafficking of controlled drugs
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
- Drug Offences
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Muhammad Ridzuan bin Md Ali v Public Prosecutor and other matters | High Court | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 721 | Singapore | Cited for the elements that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to make out an offence under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the MDA. |
| Zainal bin Hamad v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 1119 | Singapore | Cited for the elements that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to make out an offence under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the MDA. |
| Public Prosecutor v Chong Hoon Cheong | High Court | Yes | [2021] SGHC 211 | Singapore | The High Court judgment under appeal, where the judge rejected the respondent’s primary case but convicted the appellant on the respondent’s secondary case. |
| Muhammad bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 427 | Singapore | Cited for the factors to consider when determining whether an accused person has rebutted the statutory presumption under s 17 of the MDA. |
| A Steven s/o Paul Raj v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] SGCA 39 | Singapore | Cited for clarifying that the key pillar and essential foundation of a consumption defence is the rate of consumption. |
| Sulaiman bin Jumari v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 557 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it is for the accused person alleging a rate of consumption to show his rate of consumption by credible evidence. |
| Public Prosecutor v GCK | High Court | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 486 | Singapore | Cited for explaining the nature of the legal term 'reasonable doubt'. |
| Yeo Choon Huat v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR(R) 450 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a large quantity of drugs can be used to infer that the drugs were held for the purpose of trafficking. |
| Jusri bin Mohamed Hussain v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1996] 2 SLR(R) 706 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an accused found in possession of a large quantity of drugs faces an uphill task in rebutting the presumption of trafficking. |
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 17(c) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 18(1) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 18(2) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 18(4) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 22 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 23 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Trafficking
- Consumption Defence
- Statutory Presumption
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Statements
- Rate of Consumption
- Remuneration in Kind
- Reasonable Doubt
15.2 Keywords
- Drug Trafficking
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Diamorphine
- Consumption Defence
- Singapore Court of Appeal
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 75 |
| Criminal Procedure | 60 |
| Evidence | 50 |
| Appeal | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Statutory Interpretation