PP v Soh Jing Zhe: Drug Trafficking, Misuse of Drugs Act, Similar Fact Evidence
In [2024] SGHC 331, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore heard the case of Public Prosecutor v Soh Jing Zhe and Pong Jia Rong Kenji. Soh was charged with abetting Pong to traffic diamorphine, while Pong was charged with trafficking diamorphine under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The court found both accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, based on evidence including WhatsApp messages and forensic analysis. Both accused elected to remain silent. The court imposed the mandatory death penalty on both Soh and Pong.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Both accused convicted.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Soh Jing Zhe and Pong Jia Rong Kenji were convicted of drug offenses. The case involved WhatsApp messages and admissibility of evidence.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Prosecution | Government Agency | Judgment for Prosecution | Won | Jiang Ke-Yue of Attorney-General’s Chambers Wuan Kin Lek Nicholas of Attorney-General’s Chambers Cheah Wenjie of Attorney-General’s Chambers Koh Yi Wen of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Soh Jing Zhe | Defendant | Individual | Convicted | Lost | |
| Pong Jia Rong Kenji | Defendant | Individual | Convicted | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Mavis Chionh Sze Chyi | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Jiang Ke-Yue | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Wuan Kin Lek Nicholas | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Cheah Wenjie | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Koh Yi Wen | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Mohammad Shafiq bin Haja Maideen | M Shafiq Chambers LLC |
| Andre Darius Jumabhoy | Andre Jumabhoy LLC |
| Aristotle Emmanuel Eng Zhen Yang | Andre Jumabhoy LLC |
| Chooi Jing Yen | Chooi Jing Yen LLC |
| Eugene Singarajah Thuraisingam | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
| Ng Yuan Siang | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
| Chen Yongxin | Chooi Jing Yen LLC |
4. Facts
- Pong was found in possession of five bundles containing not less than 42.02g of diamorphine.
- Soh was jointly tried with Pong on a charge of abetting by intentionally aiding Pong to traffic the Drug Bundles.
- WhatsApp messages between Soh and Pong were extracted from their phones.
- Soh's DNA was found on the packaging of the Drug Bundles.
- CCTV footage showed Soh bringing a DHL Box from his residence.
- Pong was seen holding a Carter’s Bag at the lift lobby of Block 864.
- Pong advanced three different versions of events to explain his possession of the Drug Bundles.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Soh Jing Zhe and another, Criminal Case No 5 of 2024, [2024] SGHC 331
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Soh aided Pong to traffic Drug Bundles. | |
| Pong trafficked in a Class A controlled drug. | |
| Arrests of Soh and Pong. | |
| Seizure of Drug Bundles from Pong's flat. | |
| Long statement recorded from Pong. | |
| Long statement recorded from Pong. | |
| Long statement recorded from Pong. | |
| Long statement recorded from Pong. | |
| Long statement recorded from Pong. | |
| Long statement recorded from Pong. | |
| Long statement recorded from Pong. | |
| Long statement recorded from Pong. | |
| Long statement recorded from Pong. | |
| Trial began. | |
| Trial continues. | |
| Defence submits 'no case to answer'. | |
| Trial continues. | |
| Closing submissions by Prosecution and Defence. | |
| Reply submissions by Prosecution and Defence. | |
| Trial continues. | |
| Submissions on Sentence. | |
| Trial continues. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Drug Trafficking
- Outcome: The court found both accused guilty of drug trafficking offences.
- Category: Substantive
- Admissibility of Similar Fact Evidence
- Outcome: The court ruled on the admissibility of prior WhatsApp messages as similar fact evidence.
- Category: Procedural
- Adverse Inferences
- Outcome: The court considered drawing adverse inferences against the accused due to their silence.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Conviction
- Mandatory Death Penalty
9. Cause of Actions
- Trafficking in a Class A Controlled Drug
- Abetment by Intentionally Aiding
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 Wong Wee Keong | High Court | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 965 | Singapore | Cited for the test to be applied at the close of the Prosecution’s case. |
| Re Nalpon Zero Geraldo Mario | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 3 SLR 440 | Singapore | Cited for the test to be applied at the close of the Prosecution’s case. |
| Chong Hoon Cheong v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 2 SLR 778 | Singapore | Cited for the essential elements of the offence under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the MDA. |
| Mohammad Azli bin Mohammad Salleh v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 1374 | Singapore | Cited for the essential elements of the offence of abetment by intentionally aiding. |
| Rosman bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 10 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there is no blanket rule against the admission of similar fact evidence. |
| Tan Meng Jee v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 2 SLR(R) 178 | Singapore | Cited for the correct approach in considering the admissibility of similar fact evidence was to balance the probative value of the evidence against its prejudicial effect. |
| Muhammad Abdul Hadi bin Haron v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 537 | Singapore | Provides further illustration of the courts’ approach to similar fact evidence. |
| Roshdi bin Abdullah Altway v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 1 SLR 535 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of traffic in s 2 of the MDA and that the term “deliver” may include the act of returning drugs to a person originally in possession of them. |
| Ramesh a/l Perumal v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 1003 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a person who returns drugs to the person who originally deposited those drugs with him would not ordinarily come within the definition of “trafficking”. |
| Eu Lim Hoklai v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 167 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the responsibility of interpreting the Material Messages rested solely with the court. |
| Public Prosecutor v GCK and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 486 | Singapore | Cited for the Court of Appeal’s definition of a reasonable doubt as a “reasoned doubt”. |
| Sakthivel Punithavathi v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 983 | Singapore | Cited for the Court of Appeal’s definition of a reasonable doubt as a “reasoned doubt”. |
| Jagatheesan s/o Krishnasamy v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 45 | Singapore | Cited for the Court of Appeal’s definition of a reasonable doubt as a “reasoned doubt”. |
| Masoud Rahimi bin Mehrzad v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 257 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that as an expert witness, PW1’s opinion as to the meaning of specialised drug-related terms was relevant and admissible under s 47 of the EA. |
| Public Prosecutor v Shen Han Jie | High Court | No | [2022] SGHC 103 | Singapore | Cited by the defence for the proposition that a bailee’s knowledge that a bailor eventually intends to traffic the drugs renders the bailment to be part of the process of supply or distribution of drugs. |
| Munusamy Ramarmurth v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | No | [2023] 1 SLR 181 | Singapore | Cited by the defence for the proposition that a bailee’s knowledge that a bailor eventually intends to traffic the drugs renders the bailment to be part of the process of supply or distribution of drugs. |
| Arun Ramesh Kumar v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 1 SLR 1152 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the key inquiry as to whether the “bailee” is liable for trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking, is if he knew or intended that the “bailment” was in some way part of the process of supply or distribution of the drugs. |
| Ilechukwu Uchechukwu Chukwudi v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 67 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court’s power to draw adverse inferences was a discretionary one based on the specific facts at hand. |
| R v Lucas | Queen's Bench | Yes | [1981] QB 720 | England and Wales | Cited for the Lucas principles as a set of guidelines for aiding the court’s determination of whether to draw an adverse inference predicated on the lies and omissions of an accused person. |
| Took Leng How v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 2 SLR(R) 70 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that the accused’s silence could not be used as a make-weight to fill any gaps in the Prosecution’s case. |
| Zainudin bin Mohamed v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 449 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in seeking to argue that his conduct fell within one of the permitted types of activities stipulated in s 33B(2)(a)(i) to s 33B(2)(a)(iv) of the MDA, Soh bore the burden of proof. |
| Public Prosecutor v Chum Tat Suan | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 834 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an intention to sell the drugs is dispositive of the issue as to whether an accused may be a courier. |
| Weissensteiner v R | High Court of Australia | Yes | Weissensteiner v R (1993) 178 CLR 217 | Australia | Cited for the principle that an adverse inference is properly drawn if the accused’s silence affects the probative value of the evidence given. |
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) read with s 5(2) | Singapore |
| s 33(1) | Singapore |
| s 12 | Singapore |
| s 18 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act 1893 (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 14 | Singapore |
| s 15 | Singapore |
| s 33B | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 261 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diamorphine
- Drug Bundles
- Trafficking
- Abetment
- WhatsApp Messages
- Similar Fact Evidence
- Adverse Inference
- Hot
- Batu
- Throw
- Milo type
- Safekeeping
- Bailment
15.2 Keywords
- Drug Trafficking
- Misuse of Drugs Act
- Similar Fact Evidence
- Adverse Inferences
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misuse of Drugs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Statutory offences | 85 |
| Evidence Law | 80 |
| Admissibility of evidence | 75 |
| Similar fact evidence | 70 |
| Adverse inferences | 65 |
| Sentencing | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Offences
- Evidence