Lee Zheng Da Eddie v Public Prosecutor: Drug Trafficking, Misuse of Drugs Act
Lee Zheng Da Eddie and Yap Peng Keong Darren were jointly tried in the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore for drug trafficking offenses under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Lee was convicted of possessing diamorphine for trafficking, while Yap was convicted of delivering diamorphine to Lee. Lee appealed against his conviction and sentence, and Yap appealed against his sentence. The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, upholding Lee's conviction and mandatory death penalty, and Yap's sentence of life imprisonment and caning.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeals dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Lee Zheng Da Eddie and Yap Peng Keong Darren were convicted of drug trafficking. Lee's appeal against conviction and sentence, and Yap's appeal against sentence, were dismissed.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | April Phang of Attorney-General’s Chambers Kong Kuek Foo of Attorney-General’s Chambers Lim Woon Yee of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Lee Zheng Da Eddie | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Yap Peng Keong Darren | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Judith Prakash | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| April Phang | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Kong Kuek Foo | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Lim Woon Yee | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Loo Yinglin Bestlyn | Providence Law Asia LLC |
| Abraham Vergis SC | Providence Law Asia LLC |
| Si Hoe Tat Chorng | Acacia Legal LLC |
4. Facts
- Lee and Yap were arrested for trafficking diamorphine.
- Lee claimed he was mistakenly supplied with twice the amount of heroin he ordered.
- Yap admitted to collecting drugs for Lee but claimed ignorance of the specific type.
- Lee arranged for Yap to collect drugs and provided him with $16,000 in cash.
- Yap collected three bundles of heroin and two blocks of cannabis from an unidentified motorcyclist.
- CNB officers seized the drugs and drug-related paraphernalia from the hotel room and Yap's car.
- Lee did not raise the Oversupply Defence in his initial statements to the CNB.
5. Formal Citations
- Lee Zheng Da Eddie v Public Prosecutor and another appeal, , [2023] SGCA 36
- Lee Zheng Da Eddie v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Appeal No 29 of 2022, Criminal Appeal No 29 of 2022
- Yap Peng Keong Darren v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Appeal No 30 of 2022, Criminal Appeal No 30 of 2022
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Lee and Passara checked into Pan Pacific Singapore Hotel. | |
| Lee sent Yap a Telegram message instructing him to collect drugs. | |
| Yap collected $16,000 cash from Lee at the hotel. | |
| Yap collected three bundles of heroin and two blocks of cannabis at Gul Avenue. | |
| Yap arrived at the hotel with the drugs. | |
| Lee, Yap, and Passara were arrested by CNB officers. | |
| Statement of Agreed Fact was dated. | |
| Yap was sentenced to life imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Judgment delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Drug Trafficking
- Outcome: The court upheld the convictions of both appellants for drug trafficking.
- Category: Substantive
- Rebuttal of Statutory Presumptions
- Outcome: The court found that Lee did not successfully rebut the presumption under s 17(c) of the MDA, and Yap did not rebut the presumption under s 18(2) of the MDA.
- Category: Substantive
- Oversupply Defence
- Outcome: The court rejected Lee's Oversupply Defence, finding it lacked credibility and corroboration.
- Category: Substantive
- Prosecutorial Discretion
- Outcome: The court found no basis to argue that the Prosecution had breached Yap's Art 12(1) rights in preferring and maintaining the trafficking charge against him.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against Conviction
- Appeal against Sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Drug Trafficking
- Possession of Controlled Drugs for the Purpose of Trafficking
- Delivery of Controlled Drugs
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
- Drug Offences
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Lee Zheng Da Eddie and another | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC 199 | Singapore | The current judgment is an appeal from this case. |
| Ramesh a/l Perumal v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 1003 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the presumptions of trafficking and possession in ss 17 and 18(1) of the MDA cannot run together. |
| Munusamy Ramarmurth v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2023] 1 SLR 181 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that when applicable, a presumption allows the court to shift the burden of proof on a particular issue completely to the accused. |
| Roshdi bin Abdullah Altway v Public Prosecutor and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 1 SLR 535 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the accused bears the legal burden of proving the Oversupply Defence on a balance of probabilities in order to rebut the presumption under s 17(c) of the MDA. |
| Kwek Seow Hock v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 157 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that adverse inferences may be drawn from the accused person’s failure to mention any fact or matter relevant to his defence in his cautioned statement. |
| Gobi a/l Avedian v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 180 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a mere assertion by an accused person that he is ignorant as to the nature of the drug found in his possession cannot suffice to rebut the presumption in s 18(2) of the MDA. |
| Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 2 SLR 872 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the exercise of the prosecutorial discretion under Art 35(8) is subject to judicial review on two grounds, viz: (i) abuse of power (ie, an exercise of power in bad faith for an extraneous purpose); and (ii) breach of constitutional rights. |
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(1) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 33B(2) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) s 23 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) s 261 | 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(2) | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (2020 Rev Ed) Art 12(1) | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (2020 Rev Ed) Art 35(8) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Trafficking
- Oversupply Defence
- Courier
- Presumption of Trafficking
- Presumption of Possession
- Certificate of Substantive Assistance
15.2 Keywords
- Drug Trafficking
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Singapore
- Criminal Appeal
- Oversupply Defence
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Criminal Law | 95 |
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Sentencing | 70 |
| Evidence | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking