Public Prosecutor v Shen Hanjie

1. [1]

   [1] The accused is a 31-year-old male Singaporean who was arrested in his home on 20 November 2018. Multiple packets of drugs were found in his bedroom at the time of arrest. On 21 November 2018 at about 1.39pm, the accused was charged with an offence under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”). The charge (“the Charge”) reads as follows:

2. [2]

   [2] This judgment deals with the question of whether the accused is to be convicted on the Charge.

3. [3]

   [3] Before discussing the background facts and the parties’ respective cases, I set out the applicable statutory provisions for ease of reference. Sections 5(1)(a) and 5(2) of the MDA provide:

4. [4]

   [4] The three elements of the offence under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the MDA as stated in Masoud Rahimi bin Mehrzad v Public Prosecutor and another appeal [2017] 1 SLR 257 at [28] are:

5. Background facts

6. Arrest and seizure

7. [6]

   [6] At about 8.25pm, SI Alwin, SI Tay, SSgt Yi Xun, SI Eugene, SSgt Nurshila, Sgt Yogaraj, SSSgt Fardlie, Sgt Hidayat and Insp Kua went to a unit of the Block (“the Unit”). The main door to the Unit was open. Force was used to break into the accused’s bedroom as it was locked. SI Alwin, SSgt Low and SI Tay then arrested the accused inside his bedroom.

8. [7]

   [7] The following exhibits, inter alia, were seized from the third side drawer of the accused’s bedroom:

9. There were in total 25 packets containing granular/powdery substances.

10. [8]

    [8] Other exhibits were also seized from the accused’s bedroom, and they include:

11. Statement recording

12. [9]

    [9] A total of eight statements were recorded from the accused.

13. [10]

    [10] SI Eugene recorded a statement from the accused under s 22 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) (“the CPC”) in the accused’s bedroom shortly after he was arrested (the “Contemporaneous Statement”). The Contemporaneous Statement was recorded from 11.05pm on 20 November 2018 to 12.05am on 21 November 2018, in a question-and-answer format. SI Eugene asked the accused what language he wished to speak in. The accused chose to give his Contemporaneous Statement in Mandarin. SI Eugene asked the accused questions in Mandarin, and the accused answered in Mandarin. SI Eugene recorded the questions and answers in writing in English. After recording the Contemporaneous Statement, SI Eugene read it back to the accused in Mandarin. The accused affirmed that the Contemporaneous Statement, as read back by SI Eugene to the accused in Mandarin, was true and correct. SI Eugene invited the accused to make any alterations to the Contemporaneous Statement, but the accused declined. SI Eugene then wrote an acknowledgment clause at the end of the Contemporaneous Statement and read it to the accused in Mandarin. The accused appended his signature at the end of each page and below the acknowledgment clause. SI Eugene also signed below the acknowledgment clause.

14. [11]

    [11] Another statement was recorded by Assistant Superintendent Yang Weili (“ASP Yang”) under s 23 of the CPC on 21 November 2018 from 1.33pm to 2.03pm (the “Cautioned Statement”). During the course of investigations, ASP Yang recorded six more statements from the accused under s 22 of the CPC (collectively, the “Long Statements”):

15. [12]

    [12] The statement-recording process for the Long Statements was as follows:

16. (a) Before recording the statement, ASP Yang asked the accused what language he wished to speak in. He chose to speak in Mandarin.

17. (b) Language Executive Wong Png Leong (“LE Wong”) acted as a Mandarin interpreter for the recording. The accused did not object to LE Wong acting as a Mandarin interpreter.

18. (c) ASP Yang asked the accused questions in English. LE Wong interpreted the same to the accused in Mandarin. The accused answered in Mandarin. LE Wong interpreted the same to ASP Yang in English.

19. (d) ASP Yang typed out the answers of the accused in narrative form on his laptop. The same process was repeated until the statement-recording process was completed.

20. (e) For each of the statements, ASP Yang printed out the statement and handed it to LE Wong, who interpreted and read back each statement to the accused in Mandarin.

21. (f) Several amendments and corrections to typographical errors were made during this process. Each amendment was explained to the accused in Mandarin. He was invited to make further amendments to his statement. He declined. The accused then signed at the bottom of each page of each statement, and against each amendment.

22. (g) Thereafter, ASP Yang wrote out an acknowledgment clause at the end of each statement. LE Wong read the clause to the accused in Mandarin. The accused confirmed that he understood the clause, as read by LE Wong to him in Mandarin, and signed below the clause after affirming each statement to be his. LE Wong and ASP Yang similarly appended their signatures.

23. The statement-recording process for the Cautioned Statement was the same.

24. [13]

    [13] It is an agreed fact between parties that the Contemporaneous Statement, Cautioned Statement and Long Statements were made by the accused voluntarily, and there were no threats, inducements or promises made to him during the recording of these statements.

25. Analysis of seized drug exhibits

26. [14]

    [14] The seized drug exhibits were subsequently sent to the Health Sciences Authority (“HSA”). Mr Koh Hui Boon (“Mr Koh”), an analyst with the Illicit Drugs Laboratory of the HSA, analysed the 25 packets of granular/powdery substances in exhibits D4 to D9 set out at [7] above and found that they contained not less than 34.94g of diamorphine (the “Drugs”). The Drugs are the subject of the Charge (see above at [1]).

27. [15]

    [15] On 16 April 2019, Analyst Tang Sheau Wei June issued two reports stating that the accused’s DNA profile was found on, inter alia, the following exhibits:

28. Parties’ cases

29. [16]

    [16] It is undisputed that the Drugs were in the accused’s possession within the meaning of s 5 of the MDA. The Prosecution initially proceeded on the basis that the Defence was not disputing the chain of custody of the Drugs, and focused its submissions on showing that the other two elements of the Charge, ie, knowledge of the nature of the Drugs and possession of the Drugs for the purpose of trafficking, have been satisfied. In this regard, the Prosecution invokes the presumption of knowledge under s 18(2) of the MDA (“the s 18(2) presumption”) and seeks to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had the intention to traffic the Drugs in his possession. The Prosecution relies primarily on the accused’s lack of credibility, as seen from how his account of events has shifted across his statements and oral testimony, as well as various admissions in the accused’s statements that he had delivered and sent drugs on previous occasions.

30. [17]

    [17] On the other hand, the Defence, in its closing submissions, contends that there is a reasonable doubt in the integrity of the chain of custody from the time after the exhibits were seized and sealed into tamper-proof bags. The Defence also submits that the accused has successfully rebutted the presumption of knowledge under s 18(2) of the MDA on a balance of probabilities, and has raised a reasonable doubt that the accused possessed the Drugs with the intention to deliver the same. Central to the Defence’s case is that the accused thought that the Drugs were cannabis (which is known either as “grass”, “ganja” or “gu”), and that the accused was merely safekeeping drugs, including the Drugs, for a person known as “Alan” with the intention of returning the drugs to him.

31. [18]

    [18] The Prosecution, in reply, alleges that the Defence has failed to put (or even suggest) to the relevant CNB officers that their evidence on the chain of custody of the Drugs was untrue, or not within their personal knowledge, and submits that the Defence should be precluded from challenging the chain of custody at this stage of the proceedings. Nevertheless, the Prosecution sets out in its reply submissions what is in its view an unbroken chain of custody of the Drugs from seizure to analysis, and rebuts the Defence’s attempts to raise a reasonable doubt on this point.

32. [19]

    [19] In the light of parties’ respective cases, I will first address the issue of the chain of custody of the Drugs and consider whether there is merit in the Defence’s challenges as to the accuracy with which several of the accused’s statements were recorded and/or interpreted, before considering whether the elements of the Charge have been satisfied. In my analysis, the terms “grass”, “ganja” and “gu” will be used interchangeably to refer to cannabis, where applicable, so as to accurately reflect the different terms used by the accused across his statements, testimony and notebooks found in his possession.

33. Chain of custody

34. [20]

    [20] As held by the Court of Appeal in Mohamed Affandi bin Rosli v Public Prosecutor and another appeal [2019] 1 SLR 440 (“Affandi”) at [39]–[40], the Prosecution bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the drug exhibits analysed by the HSA are the very ones that were initially seized by the CNB officers from the accused. It is first incumbent on the Prosecution to establish an unbroken chain of custody and account for the movement of the drug exhibits at every point from seizure to analysis. In the context of the Prosecution establishing the chain of custody, the Defence may seek to show that at one or more stages, there is a reasonable doubt as to whether the chain of custody may have been broken. Where this is shown to be the case and a reasonable doubt is raised as to the identity of the drug exhibits, then the Prosecution has not discharged its burden.

35. The chain of custody according to the Prosecution

36. [21]

    [21] I now turn to consider whether the Prosecution has proven a complete chain of custody in relation to the Drugs. In this regard, the Prosecution relies on the evidence of Sgt Hidayat, SI Alwin, SI Eugene and SI Tay, who handled the seized exhibits in the accused’s home, and ASP Yang, Sergeant Goh Yang Lun (“Sgt Goh”) and Mr Koh, who handled the seized exhibits at CNB HQ.

37. [22]

    [22] The chain of custody, as submitted by the Prosecution, is as follows:

38. (a) Shortly after the accused’s arrest on 20 November 2018, Sgt Hidayat conducted a search of the accused’s bedroom at about 8.38pm. Sgt Hidayat seized the Drugs (that is, exhibits D4 to D9) from the third side drawer in the accused’s view and presence. While Sgt Hidayat was seizing the exhibits, a colleague was writing down descriptions of the same in a field diary.

39. (b) SI Alwin assisted Sgt Hidayat with the packing and sealing of the exhibits into CNB tamper-proof polymer bags (the “Tamper-Proof Bags”). At about 9.50pm, SI Alwin handed over the seized exhibits to SI Eugene.

40. (c) SI Eugene received a black duffel bag from SI Alwin, which he understood contained the exhibits seized from the accused’s bedroom. Although SI Eugene did not see the exhibits being placed into the black duffel bag, he testified that it was “STF’s procedure” to place all the exhibits into the duffel bag.

41. (d) At 10.31pm, SI Eugene handed over the black duffel bag, containing all the seized exhibits, to SI Tay.

42. (e) At 11pm, SI Tay handed over the black duffel bag, containing the seized exhibits, to SI Eugene for the latter to record the Contemporaneous Statement from the accused.

43. (f) SI Eugene testified that before the Contemporaneous Statement was recorded, the five black packets (ie, exhibits D5 to D9) had already been sealed in Tamper-Proof Bags, which were inside the black duffel bag. SI Eugene took out the Tamper-Proof Bags, containing the five black packets (ie, exhibits D5 to D9), to show them to the accused, and placed them back into the black duffel bag thereafter.

44. (g) After the Contemporaneous Statement was recorded, SI Eugene handed over all the seized exhibits in the duffel bag to SI Tay.

45. (h) On 21 November 2018 at about 1.55am, SI Tay escorted the accused out of the Unit with all the seized exhibits in his custody.

46. (i) At about 2am, in the accused’s presence, SI Tay placed all the seized exhibits into the boot of the CNB operational car.

47. (j) From 2am to 2.30am, the black duffel bag was in the boot of the CNB operational car and nobody opened the car boot until the car reached CNB HQ. Thereafter, SI Tay brought the black duffel bag up to CNB “A” office and kept the black duffel bag beside him in the CNB “A” office from 2.35am to 3.50am.

48. (k) At about 4.09am, SI Tay handed over all the seized exhibits to ASP Yang at the Exhibit Management Room. ASP Yang then cross-checked the exhibits against a police report filed by Sergeant Muhammad Fauzi bin Mohamed Said (“Sgt Fauzi”).

49. (l) On 22 November 2018 at about 1pm, ASP Yang handed over custody of the exhibits to Sgt Goh at the Exhibit Management Room. Sgt Goh then kept the exhibits in a locked cupboard.

50. (m) On 23 November 2018 at about 10.49am, Sgt Goh retrieved the drug exhibits (including the 25 exhibits constituting the Drugs) and submitted them to the Illicit Drugs Laboratory of the HSA for analysis. The Drugs were analysed by Mr Koh, who later issued certificates setting out the results of his analysis.

51. (n) On 26 March 2019, at about 2.23pm, Sgt Goh collected 25 case exhibits (ie, the 25 packets constituting the Drugs) from the Illicit Drugs Laboratory, and deposited the same in the CNB Operations Planning Store for safekeeping.

52. [23]

    [23] Having reviewed the evidence, I am satisfied that the Prosecution has proven a complete chain of custody in relation to the Drugs. In particular, I accept the Prosecution’s submissions at [22(a)]–[22(k)] above, as the evidence of the respective witnesses which sets out this part of the chain of custody (ie, the parts of their testimonies and conditioned statements which the Prosecution relies on) was entirely within their personal knowledge. Those parts of their evidence withstood scrutiny under cross-examination and remain cogent, credible and internally and externally consistent. I elaborate.

53. (a) In court, Sgt Hidayat maintained that he had personal knowledge of the descriptions of the exhibits seized from the accused’s bedroom listed in paragraph nine of his conditioned statement, because he was the one who searched the accused’s bedroom and seized those exhibits. This position remains unshaken even when questioned by this court. The accuracy of paragraph nine of Sgt Hidayat’s conditioned statement is bolstered by his repeated confirmation in court that before he signed his conditioned statement, he cross-checked the descriptions of the seized exhibits in paragraph nine against the field diary, which contains a contemporaneous record of the exhibits which were seized from the accused’s bedroom. It bears mentioning that six of the seized exhibits described at paragraph nine of Sgt Hidayat’s conditioned statement correspond to exhibits D4 to D9.

54. (b) SI Alwin stated in his conditioned statement that he assisted Sgt Hidayat in packing and sealing the exhibits seized from the accused’s bedroom into Tamper-Proof Bags. This is corroborated by Sgt Hidayat’s oral testimony.

55. (c) SSgt Low testified that after the seized exhibits were packed and sealed into Tamper-Proof Bags, he and SI Alwin checked the seized exhibits against the field diary before placing all the seized exhibits into the black duffel bag. SSgt Low affirmed that the exhibits seized from the accused’s bedroom were placed into the black duffel bag even when pressed under cross-examination. Buttressing this is SI Tay’s testimony that after the seized exhibits were packed and sealed into Tamper-Proof Bags, they were placed into the black duffel bag. SI Tay was present in the accused’s bedroom at the material time because his role was to escort the accused while the search and seizure was ongoing.

56. (d) According to SI Alwin, at about 9.50pm, he handed over all the seized exhibits found in the accused’s bedroom to SI Eugene. In the light of [23(c)] above, the seized exhibits were handed to SI Eugene in the black duffel bag. This is reinforced by SI Tay’s testimony that he witnessed SI Alwin handing over the black duffel bag to SI Eugene, as well as SI Eugene’s testimony that he received the black duffel bag from SI Alwin.

57. (e) SI Eugene testified that at 10.31pm, he handed the black duffel bag to SI Tay. This is corroborated by SI Tay’s and SI Alwin’s evidence: SI Tay stated in his conditioned statement that SI Eugene handed all the exhibits to him at 10.31pm, and SI Alwin testified that he saw SI Eugene handing over the black duffel bag to SI Tay at 10.31pm.

58. (f) SI Eugene also gave evidence that at 11pm, SI Tay handed him the black duffel bag so that he could record the Contemporaneous Statement from the accused. This was confirmed by SI Tay. Up until this point in time, there is no evidence that any of the exhibits seized from the accused’s bedroom were removed from the black duffel bag.

59. (g) However, when SI Eugene asked the accused question one of the Contemporaneous Statement, SI Eugene took out Tamper-Proof Bags, containing exhibits D5 to D9, from the black duffel bag and showed them to the accused. SI Eugene’s evidence in this regard is consistent across his examination-in-chief and cross-examination.

60. (h) SI Eugene testified in cross-examination that he placed the Tamper-Proof Bags, containing exhibits D5 to D9, back into the black duffel bag before asking question three in the Contemporaneous Statement. There is no reason to disbelieve SI Eugene’s testimony, especially since the exhibits which eventually made it to the Exhibit Management Room ultimately tallied with what is recorded in the field diary (see below at [23(n)]).

61. (i) According to SI Eugene’s conditioned statement, after recording the accused’s Contemporaneous Statement at about 12.05am on 21 November 2018, he (SI Eugene) then handed over all the seized exhibits to SI Tay. This is corroborated by SI Tay, who testified that SI Eugene handed over the black duffel bag to him after he (SI Eugene) had recorded the Contemporaneous Statement.

62. (j) It is stated in SI Tay’s conditioned statement that at 1.55am, SI Tay, together with SSgt Low and SSgt Nurshila, escorted the accused out of the Unit, during which time SI Tay was holding on to all the seized exhibits. This is supported by SSgt Low’s and SSgt Nurshila’s evidence that they saw SI Tay holding on to the black duffel bag at 1.55am.

63. (k) SI Tay also stated in his conditioned statement that at 2.00am, he placed all the seized exhibits and the accused’s personal properties into the car boot of the CNB operational vehicle. In his oral testimony, SI Tay clarified that he placed the black duffel bag, containing all the seized exhibits and the accused’s personal property, into the car boot. This coheres with SSgt Nurshila’s testimony that she saw SI Tay placing the black duffel bag into the boot.

64. (l) SI Tay testified that from 2.00 to 2.30am, the black duffel bag was in the boot of the CNB operational vehicle, and that while he was inside the CNB operational vehicle, nobody opened the car boot until they reached CNB HQ. This is confirmed by SSgt Nurshila’s oral evidence, who was in the said CNB operational vehicle at the material time.

65. (m) SI Tay gave evidence that after the CNB operational vehicle reached CNB HQ at 2.30am, he brought the black duffel bag up to the CNB “A” office and kept the black duffel bag beside him in the CNB “A” office the entire time he was there. I observe that there is a minor discrepancy between SI Tay’s testimony and his conditioned statement as to the time at which he (and other CNB officers) escorted the accused out of the CNB “A” office. SI Tay’s testimony indicates that he was in the CNB “A” office until 3.50am before he (and other CNB officers) escorted the accused to the Exhibit Management Room. However, SI Tay’s conditioned statement indicates that at about 3.45am, he (and other CNB officers) had escorted the accused out of the CNB “A” office and arrived at the Exhibit Management Room at about 3.50am. The Defence has not relied on this discrepancy in its written submissions. In my judgment, this slight discrepancy as to timing in no way affects the overall consistency of SI Tay’s evidence and the chain of custody. It is clear that the black duffel bag was in SI Tay’s custody the whole time he was in the CNB “A” office, after which, SI Tay (along with a few other CNB officers) escorted the accused from the CNB “A” office to the Exhibit Management Room.

66. (n) According to both SI Tay and ASP Yang, SI Tay handed over all the seized exhibits to ASP Yang at about 4.09am in the Exhibit Management Room. ASP Yang testified that he cross-checked the exhibits against the police report filed by Sgt Fauzi. In this connection, Sgt Fauzi testified that the descriptions of the exhibits in his police report were copied “word-for-word” from the field diary. Accordingly, the seized exhibits which SI Tay handed to ASP Yang ultimately tallied with what was recorded in the field diary. The Defence did not put to Sgt Fauzi that the contents of the police report were inaccurate or materially different from the entries in the field diary.

67. For completeness, I also accept the Prosecution’s submissions at [22(l)]–[22(n)] above, which are supported by evidence.

68. [24]

    [24] Against this, the Defence made several arguments seeking to undermine the integrity of the chain of custody. I now turn to consider these arguments.

69. Issues raised by the Defence

70. [25]

    [25] The Defence submits that:

71. (a) The conditioned statements of SI Tay, SSgt Low, Sgt Yogaraj and ASP Yang are inadmissible because they were prepared by a third party and contain substantial matters which are not within their personal knowledge.

72. (b) Even if the conditioned statements of SI Tay, SSgt Low, Sgt Yogaraj and ASP Yang are admissible, parts of their conditioned statements and testimonies should be excluded because they are hearsay. Parts of their evidence are also based on assumptions and should be given zero weight. Similarly, parts of the evidence in the respective conditioned statements and oral testimonies of SI Eugene, SI Alwin, Sgt Fauzi, Sgt Hidayat, SSgt Au Yong, SSgt Nurshila, SSSgt Fardlie and Inspector Nur Yusyeila binte Yunus (“Insp Nur Yusyeila”) contain hearsay and should be excluded. Parts of their evidence are also based on assumptions and should be given zero weight.

73. (c) There are discrepancies in the CNB witnesses’ accounts concerning the seizure and handling of the drug exhibits in the accused’s bedroom and in the Exhibit Management Room:

74. (i) After the Tamper-Proof Bags were sealed, there is no corroborated evidence proving that the exhibits were cross-checked against the list of exhibits supposedly seized and recorded in the field diary, before the Tamper-Proof Bags were placed into the black duffel bag.

75. (ii) There are also inconsistencies in the CNB officers’ statements and testimonies as to whether SI Eugene and SSgt Low were present in the accused’s bedroom at the time of search and seizure.

76. (iii) At the Exhibit Management Room, the exhibits were checked against the police report filed by Sgt Fauzi, but that report was prepared based on hearsay. No one cross-checked the exhibits or the contents of the police report against the field diary. There is also discrepancy as to who did the cross-checking of the exhibits against the police report.

77. The Defence contends that if this courts accepts the foregoing submissions, there would be no evidence which establishes, beyond a reasonable doubt, how the drug exhibits were handled beyond the sealing of the tamper-proof bags.

78. [26]

    [26] The Defence makes two additional points. First, the Defence claims that after SI Eugene took over the black duffel bag, no one had personal knowledge as to what exactly the items inside that bag were. Second, relying on the presence of FORT Officer Yee Hui Ping’s (“Officer Yee”) DNA on exhibit D7B, the Defence argues that Officer Yee did not adhere to protocol. It is also submitted that the presence of her DNA on exhibit D7B contaminated the physical evidence, such that it is no longer reliable and safe to include that exhibit as part of the Charge.

79. [27]

    [27] In my judgment, none of these submissions raises a reasonable doubt in the Prosecution’s case.

80. [28]

    [28] I deal first with the Defence’s submission that the conditioned statements of SI Tay, SSgt Low, Sgt Yogaraj and ASP Yang should be inadmissible in their entirety (see above at [25(a)]). This submission merits greater elaboration.

81. [29]

    [29] The Defence urges this court to adopt a rule that stipulates that where a witness’s conditioned statement is prepared or reviewed by a third party before trial, and contains substantial matters that are not within that witness’s personal knowledge, that conditioned statement should be excluded because it is contaminated and unreliable.

82. [30]

    [30] In support of this rule, the Defence cites the English Court of Appeal case of R v Momodou [2005] EWCA Crim 177 (“Momodou”) which sets out principles prohibiting witness training in criminal proceedings (the “Momodou Principles”). Reference is also made to the Singapore Court of Appeal case of Ernest Ferdinand Perez De La Sala v Compañia De Navegación Palomar, SA and others and other appeals [2018] 1 SLR 894 (“Ernest Ferdinand”), which adopted the Momodou Principles in civil litigation cases, albeit with some modifications (the “Modified Momodou Principles”). The Defence submits that the Modified Momodou Principles should apply in the context of criminal proceedings as well, and contends that allowing a third party to prepare or review a witness’s conditioned statement would amount to a breach of the Modified Momodou Principles because it would be akin to training or coaching that witness as to what evidence to give by way of the conditioned statement. The Defence submits that unless the witness provides a cogent explanation as to why a third party prepared or reviewed his conditioned statement, and what steps were taken to avoid influencing the witness’s evidence, the evidence in the conditioned statement is contaminated. Further, when substantial portions of the conditioned statement are not within the witness’s personal knowledge, the conditioned statement becomes unreliable.

83. [31]

    [31] The Defence then argues that evidence given in breach of the Modified Momodou Principles should be rendered inadmissible altogether due to the prejudicial effect of such contaminated evidence. To support this point, the Defence submits that the majority reasoning in Regina v H [1995] 2 AC 596 (“R v H”) supports the proposition that evidence that is contaminated and shown to be unreliable is susceptible to be excluded. Much emphasis is placed on Lord Mackay’s decision in R v H.

84. [32]

    [32] I am unable to accept the Defence’s submissions.

85. [33]

    [33] I begin by outlining the salient principles:

86. (a) At their core, the Momodou Principles are directed at ensuring that witnesses give their own uncontaminated evidence to the court. This is likewise the nub of the Modified Momodou Principles (borrowing the Defence’s terminology) developed in Ernest Ferdinand.

87. (b) It follows from this that there is nothing inherently impermissible for an officer to prepare or review a conditioned statement on behalf of a CNB officer who was part of the drug raid based either on the self-statement of that officer or on facts gathered in a meeting with that officer. As long as a CNB officer’s conditioned statement ultimately contains that CNB officer’s own account of events, the conditioned statement would still consist of the CNB officer’s own evidence.

88. (c) Less weight (or even no weight) is placed on the witness’s testimony if it transpires that the witness’s evidence is not his own: Ernest Ferdinand at [136]–[137].

89. [34]

    [34] I now elaborate on the first proposition at [33(a)] above, which forms the foundation for the second. The essence of the principles laid down in Momodou is neatly encapsulated in Ernest Ferdinand at [134]:

90. From this, the Court of Appeal in Ernest Ferdinand at [137]–[140] derived further rules that elucidate what is permissible and what is not in the course of witness preparation. One such rule is that the solicitor, in preparing a witness for a civil trial, must not allow other persons, including the solicitor himself, to supplant or supplement that witness’s own evidence.

91. [35]

    [35] The fundamental principle that the witness’s evidence must be his own applies equally when that evidence is in the form of a conditioned statement. Section 264 of the CPC provides that a witness’s conditioned statement, if admitted, is to be treated as if it is oral evidence given by that same witness:

92. [36]

    [36] In the present case, whether a conditioned statement contains that CNB officer’s own evidence would depend on whether that conditioned statement reflects the CNB officer’s own account of events. Having another officer prepare or review the CNB officer’s conditioned statement, as stated at [33(b)] above, is not an objectionable practice in itself. It only becomes objectionable if the conditioned statement departs from the CNB officer’s own account of events. Accordingly, I am unable to accept the Defence’s submission that allowing a third party to prepare or review a witness’s conditioned statement would be akin to training or coaching the witness as to what evidence to give. This sweeping proposition is not supported by any principle or logic. Much would depend on whether the resulting conditioned statement still reflects that CNB officer’s own account of events. As acknowledged by the Court of Appeal in Ernest Ferdinand at [134], whether the evidence is the witness’s own is a fact-specific inquiry. For the same reason, it is not appropriate to lay down any hard and fast rule that unless the witness provides a cogent explanation as to why a third party prepared or reviewed his conditioned statement, and what steps were taken to avoid influencing the witness’s evidence, the evidence in the conditioned statement is contaminated, as advocated for by the Defence.

93. [37]

    [37] As for the consequence of a breach of the Momodou Principles and the Modified Momodou Principles, I am unable to accept the Defence’s contention that such a breach should affect the admissibility of the evidence and not its weight. This sits at odds with the holding of the Court of Appeal in Ernest Ferdinand at [136]–[137], which contemplates the converse:

94. Hence, the Court of Appeal indicates that a breach of the Modified Momodou Principles will affect the weight of the evidence, instead of its admissibility. This is reinforced by the fact that the possibility of ascribing no weight to the evidence is expressly canvassed in lieu of excluding the evidence altogether.

95. [38]

    [38] The Defence’s submission that contaminated evidence should be rendered inadmissible altogether rests on Lord Mackay’s decision in R v H. However, that decision does not assist the Defence. In that case, the accused was charged with sexual offences against two girls living with him in the same house. It was accepted that there was a risk that both girls had colluded to make false allegations against the accused. Against these facts, Lord Mackay was concerned with two legal issues. The first was whether evidence could be admitted as similar fact evidence, and secondly, supposing the evidence was admissible, whether it could be used as corroboration of the evidence of the witnesses supporting the allegation in issue, having regard to the admitted risk of collusion (R v H at 603). Lord Mackay held that collusion is generally not relevant at the stage of deciding whether to exclude evidence on the ground that it does not qualify as similar fact evidence. In relation to the second question, he held that if similar fact evidence has been admitted, but no reasonable jury could accept the evidence as free from collusion, the judge should direct the jury that it cannot be relied upon as corroboration. Where this is not so but the question of collusion has been raised, the judge must draw the importance of collusion to the attention of the jury and leave it to them to decide whether such evidence can be relied upon as free from collusion and tell them that if they are not so satisfied they cannot rely on it as corroboration (R v H at 612). Leaving aside the question of the relevance of R v H, as neither the issue of admissibility of similar fact evidence nor the issue of corroboration is engaged, the broad proposition relied upon by the Defence, that evidence that is contaminated and shown to be unreliable is susceptible to be excluded, does not assist the Defence in its attempt to raise a reasonable doubt in the Prosecution’s case.

96. [39]

    [39] This is because the conditioned statements of SI Tay, SSgt Low and ASP Yang were, in the first place, not contaminated within the meaning of the Momodou Principles and the Modified Momodou Principles. In other words, their conditioned statements contained their own account of events. Even though SI Tay, SSgt Low and ASP Yang admitted that a person known as “the IO” had drafted their conditioned statements on their behalf based on self-statements given by them, SI Tay, SSgt Low and ASP Yang signed their respective conditioned statements declaring that the contents therein were true to the best of their respective knowledge and belief. In court, these three officers also confirmed that the signatures on their respective conditioned statements were theirs and that the contents therein were accurate.

97. [40]

    [40] SI Tay, SSgt Low and ASP Yang further testified that before appending their respective signatures, they read their respective conditioned statements and ensured that they were accurate in substance. In particular, SI Tay verified the accuracy of the conditioned statement by comparing it with his own self-statement and the field diary, while SSgt Low checked that his conditioned statement was true and correct by comparing it with his own self-statement. More care could have been taken by SI Tay and ASP Yang in checking through their conditioned statements for typographical errors, but there is nothing to suggest that a third party has supplemented or supplanted the substance of their evidence.

98. [41]

    [41] Indeed, parts of the conditioned statements of SI Tay and SSgt Low refer to matters not within their personal knowledge. However, these are insufficient to suggest that “the IO” had supplanted or supplemented the conditioned statements of SI Tay or SSgt Low, because both SI Tay and SSgt Low were able to explain that they came to know of these matters, which were not initially within their personal knowledge, by reading the field diary or from what other officers had told them. In other words, SI Tay and SSgt Low are still putting forward their own account of events, even though their understanding and narration of what had happened is premised on secondary sources.

99. [42]

    [42] Hence, I reject the Defence’s argument that the conditioned statements of SI Tay, SSgt Low and ASP Yang are contaminated.

100. [43]

     [43] As for Sgt Yogaraj’s conditioned statement, the Prosecution is not relying on it to establish an unbroken chain of custody. The question of whether Sgt Yogaraj’s conditioned statement should be excluded therefore does not arise. I nevertheless observe in passing that Sgt Yogaraj admitted that the information contained in paragraphs nine and ten of his conditioned statement was not in his self-statement. This indicates that the IO who prepared Sgt Yogaraj’s conditioned statement had inserted the information on his or her own accord, and there is no evidence before me as to where the IO had obtained the information if it was not previously in Sgt Yogaraj’s self-statement. In these circumstances, paragraphs nine and ten, should not have been included in Sgt Yogaraj’s conditioned statement. This observation, however, does not detract from the fact that Sgt Yogaraj’s conditioned statement is immaterial to the Prosecution’s case, and accordingly my evidential analysis, of whether the chain of custody has been established beyond a reasonable doubt.

101. [44]

     [44] I now turn to consider the Defence’s second submission at [25(b)] above. While the Defence is right in pointing out that parts of the conditioned statements of SI Tay and SSgt Low refer to matters outside their personal knowledge, and that parts of SI Tay’s evidence are based on his personal assumptions, these matters are not being relied upon by the Prosecution to establish the chain of custody. The same goes for parts of the evidence given by SI Eugene, SI Alwin, Sgt Fauzi, Sgt Hidayat, SSgt Au Yong, SSgt Nurshila, SSSgt Fardlie and Insp Nur Yusyeila which are not within their respective personal knowledge and which are based on their personal assumptions. There is thus no need to take into account these affected parts in the evidential analysis.

102. [45]

     [45] As I have shown at [23] above, all the evidence relied upon to build the chain of custody is squarely in the respective CNB officers’ personal knowledge. The affected pieces of evidence at [44] above do not impact on the Prosecution’s ability to establish an unbroken chain of custody. Hence, despite the Defence’s strenuous effort in advancing its submissions set out at [25(a)] and [25(b)] above, I am unable to accept that they raise a reasonable doubt in the chain of custody.

103. [46]

     [46] I now consider the Defence’s submission set out at [25(c)] above. Here, the Defence raised several concerns regarding the seizure and handling of the drug exhibits, none of which are sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt in the chain of custody of the Drugs. One of these concerns is the presence of alleged inconsistencies in the CNB officers’ statements and testimonies as to whether SI Eugene and SSgt Low were present in the accused’s bedroom at the time of search and seizure. As the Prosecution correctly points out, nothing turns on this point. Even if there are indeed inconsistencies on this point, they do not impugn the integrity of the chain of custody as set out by the Prosecution.

104. [47]

     [47] The Defence also raises the concern that SSgt Low’s claim that he checked the seized exhibits against the field diary together with SI Alwin remains uncorroborated by other CNB officers who were present in the accused’s bedroom at the material time. However, corroborative evidence is unnecessary especially given the absence of evidence undermining the veracity of SSgt Low’s claim. SI Alwin, who assisted Sgt Hidayat in packing and sealing the exhibits seized from the accused’s bedroom, was silent as to whether he and SSgt Low checked the items against the field diary. Sgt Hidayat could not remember if SSgt Low was in the accused’s bedroom during the search and also could not remember who was holding on to the field diary. He also did not see SI Alwin cross-checking the exhibits against the field diary. But all these are unsurprising given that Sgt Hidayat was busy conducting the search and seizure. SI Eugene who was sometimes in the accused’s bedroom and sometimes outside the accused’s bedroom, did not see SSgt Low checking the exhibits against the field diary, but this is insufficient to cast doubt on SSgt Low’s claim since SI Eugene was in the accused’s bedroom only for pockets of time.

105. [48]

     [48] In any event, I agree with the Prosecution that even if the CNB officers did not check the drug exhibits against the field diary, this would be insufficient to raise a reasonable doubt in the chain of custody. This is because the movement of the drug exhibits is still well-accounted for: there is sufficient evidence proving that after the exhibits seized from the accused’s bedroom were packed and sealed into Tamper-Proof Bags, the seized exhibits were packed into the black duffel bag, and SI Alwin handed the black duffel bag containing the seized exhibits to SI Eugene (see at [23(b)]–[23(d)] above).

106. [49]

     [49] This brings me to the next point. In view of the evidence at [23(c)] above, the Defence’s claim that no one could attest to what happened between the time after the Tamper-Proof Bags were sealed and the time that the Tamper-Proof Bags were allegedly put into the black duffel bag, is not correct. On a related note, the Defence also alleges that after SI Eugene took over the black duffel bag, no one had personal knowledge as to what the items inside that bag were. This allegation is equally meritless in attempting to raise a reasonable doubt in the chain of custody. What is important is that after SI Alwin handed over the black duffel bag to SI Eugene, and before SI Tay handed over the seized exhibits one by one to ASP Yang at the Exhibit Management Room, there is no evidence that any of the seized exhibits were removed from the black duffel bag, except when SI Eugene took out five black packets (ie, exhibits D5 to D9) when recording the accused’s Contemporaneous Statement. Even then, SI Eugene placed those exhibits back into the black duffel bag after the Contemporaneous Statement was recorded.

107. [50]

     [50] Turning now to the handling of the seized exhibits at the Exhibit Management Room, the Defence raises three concerns. The Defence observes that no one at the Exhibit Management Room cross-checked the exhibits or the police report against the field diary. I find this immaterial and incapable of raising any reasonable doubt in the chain of custody. ASP Yang testified that at the Exhibit Management Room, he cross-checked the exhibits against the police report filed by Sgt Fauzi. Sgt Fauzi testified that the descriptions of the exhibits which appeared in his police report were copied “word-for-word” from the field diary. In the circumstances, as the Prosecution argues, it is sufficient for ASP Yang to have cross-checked the exhibits against the police report. I also note that the Defence did not put to Sgt Fauzi that the contents of the police report were inaccurate or materially different from the entries in the field diary.

108. [51]

     [51] Next, the Defence claims that there is a discrepancy in the evidence given by Insp Nur Yusyeila, Officer Yee and ASP Yang as to who carried out the cross-checking of the exhibits against the police report filed by Sgt Fauzi. I set out the evidence of Insp Nur Yusyeila and Officer Yee below and explain why this discrepancy alleged by the Defence is illusory:

109. (a) Insp Nur Yusyeila’s testimony is that she did not check the exhibits against the field diary or the police report filed by Sgt Fauzi. She was unable to recall whether ASP Yang checked the exhibits against either document. This does not support but neither does it contradict ASP Yang’s testimony that he cross-checked the exhibits against the police report. In this connection, the Defence makes the point that Insp Nur Yusyeila did not cross-check against any list even though Sgt Fauzi said that the officer assisting the Investigation Officer (ie, ASP Yang) would do so together with the Investigation Officer. Sgt Fauzi did not make such a claim. What Sgt Fauzi said was that the Investigation Officer “and the official that hand over the items to the [Investigation Officer]” would do the cross-checking. As Insp Nur Yusyeila was not the officer who handed the exhibits over to ASP Yang, it is unsurprising that she did not partake in any cross-checking.

110. (b) When Officer Yee was asked whether she saw ASP Yang going through any document listing out the exhibits which were seized, Officer Yee replied that “[t]o the best of [her] knowledge”, she saw the “arresting officer” cross-checking the exhibits against the police report before passing all the exhibits to ASP Yang. While Officer Yee does not know who this “arresting officer” was, the “arresting officer” must have been SI Tay as he was the one who handed over all the exhibits to ASP Yang. However, SI Tay’s evidence is silent as to whether he cross-checked the exhibits against the police report before passing them to ASP Yang. SI Alwin, SSgt Nurshila and Sergeant Syazwan Bin Daud Mohamed were also present in the Exhibit Management Room at the material time and witnessed SI Tay handing over the exhibits to ASP Yang, but they did not expressly mention that SI Tay cross-checked the exhibits against the police report before passing them to ASP Yang. In any event, even if I accept Officer Yee’s evidence that the “arresting officer”, which in the circumstances must have been a reference to SI Tay, cross-checked the exhibits against the police report before passing all the exhibits to ASP Yang, her evidence still does not undermine ASP Yang’s evidence, as ASP Yang did not claim that he was the only one who cross-checked the exhibits against the police report filed by Sgt Fauzi. In fact, Officer Yee’s evidence is compatible with Sgt Fauzi’s evidence that it would be the Investigation Officer “and the official [who] hand over the items to the [Investigation Officer]” who would do the cross-checking. Hence, it is plausible that both the “arresting officer” and ASP Yang cross-checked the exhibits against the police report. In any event, it is sufficient for ASP Yang alone to have cross-checked the exhibits against the police report.

111. [52]

     [52] Lastly, the Defence urges this court to infer that Officer Yee did not adhere to protocol and, as a result, to exclude exhibit D7B from the Charge, on the basis that her DNA was found on the exterior of exhibit D7B. I reject the Defence’s submissions on this point. On 21 November 2018 at about 4.09am, Officer Yee was at the Exhibit Management Room swabbing the exterior of various exhibits, including exhibits D7A1, D7B1, D7C1 and D7D1, under the directions of ASP Yang. She testified that she was wearing gloves throughout the swabbing process. As noted by the expert witness, Ms Tang Sheau Wei June, there are a few plausible explanations for why Officer Yee’s DNA was found on the exterior of exhibit D7B: (a) she had come into direct contact with exhibit D7B, (b) she had talked, coughed or sneezed nearby, or (c) she had previously touched another person’s hand and that person transferred her DNA onto exhibit D7B. It would be a leap of logic to infer that Officer Yee did not follow protocol just from the mere presence of her DNA on the exterior of exhibit D7B. It is also hard to see how the presence of Officer Yee’s DNA on the exterior of exhibit D7B could be said to have “contaminated” the Drugs. Lastly, as the Prosecution has observed, the allegation that Officer Yee deviated from protocol in the Exhibit Management Room was not put to her during the trial, and it is also not the Defence’s case that Officer Yee had tampered with exhibit D7B. The presence of Officer Yee’s DNA on the exterior of exhibit D7B is therefore neither here nor there.

112. Accuracy of the accused’s statements

113. [53]

     [53] It is claimed, by the Defence in its submissions and at trial, that various parts of the accused’s statements were recorded and/or interpreted inaccurately:

114. (a) Contemporaneous Statement (the “Disputed Portions of the Contemporaneous Statement”):

115. (i) The accused was shown five black packets and was asked at Q3 why these were with him. The accused’s answer at A3 reads: “Alan asked me to keep. He will ask me to pass it to others”. The accused claims that what he said (in Mandarin) was: “Alan asked me to keep for him first. Within a month, he would ask his man to take them from me”.

116. (ii) In response to Q17, which asked the accused how much he would earn for “doing such things”, the accused’s answer at A17 reads: “When I need money, I will ask from Alan. Each time he will give me $200 – $300”. The accused claims that what he said (in Mandarin) was: “No, I did not. I was just helping out” and “If I needed money, I would ask from him, and I would ask about 2, 3 hundred dollars. A few days later, I would return him the money”.

117. (b) At paragraph 12 of the 1st Long Statement, the accused was recorded as having said: “Since then, I have been receiving ‘drugs’ on ‘Alan’ behalf [sic]”. The accused claims that what he said (in Mandarin) was: “Since then, I have been keeping grass and red wine for Alan”, as well as “ice” and “k”.

118. (c) At paragraph 31 of the 3rd Long Statement, the accused was recorded as having said: “I will use the notebooks to note down what ‘drugs’ I helped ‘Alan’ to send on his behalf”. The accused claims that what he said (in Mandarin) was: “…noted down the things that Alan asked me to keep for him”.

119. (d) At paragraph 34 of the 3rd Long Statement, the accused was recorded as having said: “This was done for easier reference if ‘Alan’ asked me whether I had made the delivery according to his instructions”. The Defence claimed at trial that what the accused had said (in Mandarin) was: “I asked Alan for the names at times because Alan will ask who came to take, so I would be able to answer him. He asked me to place at a location to tell him, he said his man will come to take”.

120. (e) At paragraph 62 of the 3rd Long Statement, the accused was recorded as having said: “but I have yet to place it at a location for delivery as I was arrested”. The accused claims that what he said (in Mandarin) was: “I yet to have time to place the packet at a location, the CNB officers already came after me” [sic].

121. [54]

     [54] I will refer to the paragraphs listed at (b) to (e) above as the “Disputed Portions of the Long Statements”.

122. [55]

     [55] The Contemporaneous Statement was recorded by SI Eugene. The Long Statements were recorded by ASP Yang. In my judgment, the Defence has failed to show that the Disputed Portions of the Contemporaneous Statement and the Disputed Portions of the Long Statements were inaccurately recorded.

123. [56]

     [56] I reject the Defence’s allegation that the accused’s answers at A3 and A17 of the Contemporaneous Statement were inaccurately recorded. It is undisputed between parties that the Contemporaneous Statement was recorded in a question-and-answer format. SI Eugene asked the accused questions in Mandarin. The accused answered in Mandarin. SI Eugene then recorded the questions and answers in writing in English.

124. [57]

     [57] In relation to A3, SI Eugene disagreed that the accused said the following in Mandarin: “Alan asked me to keep for him first. Within a month, he would ask his man to take them from me”. SI Eugene testified that he would try to write down the accused person’s answers “as exact as possible”. He was able to repeat in court what the accused had said to him in Mandarin, and when this was translated into English by the court interpreter, the translated version matched what was recorded at A3. Further, the accused accepted that after the Contemporaneous Statement was recorded, SI Eugene read the Contemporaneous Statement back to him in Mandarin, and he affirmed that the Contemporaneous Statement, as read back by SI Eugene in Mandarin, was true and correct.

125. [58]

     [58] In a bid to cast doubt on the accuracy of what was recorded at A3, the Defence points to Q4 and Q12 of the Contemporaneous Statement. At Q4, the accused was asked what else Alan had asked him to keep. The Defence claims that Q4 supports the accused’s version because it referred to the action of keeping without mentioning the action of passing things to another person. This claim was put to SI Eugene, who disagreed. Clearly, what was put to the accused at Q4 is an equivocal piece of evidence in so far as determining what the accused said at A3 is concerned. It is equally plausible that SI Eugene chose to focus only on what Alan had asked the accused to “keep”, notwithstanding that the accused’s previous response also mentioned that Alan would ask him to “pass” things to others. Indeed, even on the version advocated for by the Defence, SI Eugene could have focused only on the action of keeping in Q4 even though the accused had earlier mentioned that Alan’s men would “take [the things] from [him]”.

126. [59]

     [59] Next, at Q12 of the Contemporaneous Statement, SI Eugene asked the accused whether he knew who would “come and collect”. Latching onto SI Eugene’s use of the word “collect” in Q12, the Defence put to SI Eugene that the accused must have used the word “collect” in his response at A3 (thus implying that A3, as reflected in the Contemporaneous Statement, was wrongly recorded). SI Eugene disagreed. Indeed, the use of the word “collect” in Q12 does not suggest that the accused must have used the word “collect” in A3. The accused’s answers at A10 and A11 (which were unchallenged) claimed that Alan had asked him to place things at the “6th and 7th floor staircase” and that he proceeded to place different plastic bags at the said location. It was thus natural for SI Eugene to follow-up with the question as recorded at Q12. Nothing in the Contemporaneous Statement indicates that the accused must have said what he now claims he said. On the face of the Contemporaneous Statement, there is also no indication that the accused could not have said what is recorded at A3. In these circumstances, there is no reason to doubt that SI Eugene had accurately recorded the accused’s answer at A3 of the Contemporaneous Statement.

127. [60]

     [60] I am similarly unconvinced that SI Eugene had not accurately recorded what the accused said at A17 of the Contemporaneous Statement. It is undisputed that after the Contemporaneous Statement was recorded, SI Eugene read the Contemporaneous Statement back to the accused in Mandarin, and the accused affirmed that the Contemporaneous Statement, as read back by SI Eugene in Mandarin, was true and correct. It is also undisputed that SI Eugene invited the accused to make any alterations to the Contemporaneous Statement but he declined. When given an opportunity to explain why he did not flag out to SI Eugene that his answer at A17 as recorded in the Contemporaneous Statement was different from what he told SI Eugene, the accused said that he was feeling uncomfortable and nervous, and did not know what was written as his answer because he answered the question in Mandarin. In my view, these are mere excuses which must be rejected. The accused claimed that he felt nervous because “many people rushed into [his] room suddenly and [he] did not know what had happened”. However, when the Prosecution pointed out to the accused during cross-examination that the Contemporaneous Statement was recorded at 11.05pm, which was nearly three hours after CNB officers gained entry into his home, the accused shifted his stance and claimed that he was nervous because between the time the CNB officers entered his room and the time his Contemporaneous Statement was recorded, “many things had happened”. The accused’s claim that he did not know what was written as his answer is also baseless. The accused knew what was recorded in the Contemporaneous Statement because SI Eugene read the Contemporaneous Statement back to the accused in Mandarin, and the accused affirmed that the Contemporaneous Statement, as read back by SI Eugene to the accused in Mandarin, was true and correct. There is no allegation (nor evidence to support such an allegation) that SI Eugene had deliberately repeated what the accused had said to him in Mandarin but had written down something different in English.

128. [61]

     [61] I now turn to consider whether the Disputed Portions of the Long Statements were accurately recorded. LE Wong was the Mandarin interpreter for the recording of the Long Statements. For all the Long Statements, ASP Yang asked the accused questions in English, and LE Wong interpreted the same to the accused in Mandarin. The accused answered in Mandarin, and LE Wong interpreted the same to ASP Yang in English.

129. [62]

     [62] LE Wong disagreed that the accused said what he claims to have said at [53(b)]–[53(e)] above. He testified that his practice was to interpret “according to what the person told me or said”. It also bears emphasising that for all the Long Statements, the accused accepts that LE Wong had interpreted and read back the statements to him in Mandarin. During this process, several amendments and corrections to typographical errors were made. Each amendment was explained to the accused in Mandarin, and when he was invited to make further amendments to his statements, he declined. The accused then signed at the bottom of each page of the Long Statements, and against each amendment. Despite having the opportunity to raise all the inaccuracies listed at [53(b)]–[53(e)] above, the accused did not. The belated nature of these claims coupled with LE Wong’s evidence render the accused’s challenges meritless.

130. Elements of the Charge

131. [63]

     [63] As it is undisputed that the accused had possession of the Drugs within the meaning of s 5 of the MDA, and there is also ample evidence in this regard, there are only two issues which fall to be determined: (a) whether the accused knew the nature of the Drugs (“Issue 1”), and (b) whether the accused was in possession of the Drugs for the purpose of trafficking (“Issue 2”).

132. [64]

     [64] Given that much of the evidential analysis for the latter two issues turns on the accused’s evidence, both in his statements and his oral testimony, I will begin by setting out the accused’s evidence from these two sources before delving into the analysis proper.

133. Accused’s evidence

134. Contents of the accused’s statements

135. [65]

     [65] After the Charge was read out to the accused, all he said in his Cautioned Statement was that he had already said what he wanted to say in his Contemporaneous Statement and had nothing more to add. I therefore focus this section on the contents of the accused’s Contemporaneous Statement and Long Statements.

136. (1) Contemporaneous Statement

137. [66]

     [66] In the Contemporaneous Statement, the accused disavowed knowledge of the contents of exhibits D5 to D9, and claimed that they belonged to Alan. When asked why they were with him, the accused responded: “Alan asked me to keep. He will ask me to pass it to others” [emphasis added].

138. [67]

     [67] The accused said that Alan passed him these items two weeks ago on two occasions, through a male Chinese known as “Ah Han” and another person. Ah Han and this other person passed him the items by leaving them at the staircase outside the accused’s house. Upon being informed by Alan or Ah Han through a phone call about the location of these items, the accused collected them and brought them back to his house.

139. [68]

     [68] The accused also said Alan asked him to keep “Ice, Red Wine, [G]rass, ‘K’ and some red tablet[s]”. When he was asked what red wine, grass and the red tablets were, he identified red wine as “5” and the red tablets as “WY”. However, he did not know what “grass” was.

140. [69]

     [69] In the afternoon of 20 November 2018, the day the accused was arrested, the accused collected a white plastic bag containing grass and a red plastic bag containing “5” at the staircase outside his house after Alan informed him that “the things are there”. Later that same day, Alan told the accused to place “the things” at “the 6th and 7th floor staircase”. The accused then placed the white plastic bag containing grass and the red plastic bag containing “5” at the said location, and called Alan to inform him of the same.

141. [70]

     [70] In response to a question asking how long the accused had been helping Alan “keep and send the [sic] drugs”, the accused replied “[a]bout half a year”. When asked how much he would earn for doing such things, the accused said that he would ask Alan for money when he was in need of money, and that Alan would give him $200 to $300 each time.

142. (2) Long Statements

143. (A) The accused’s relationship with Alan

144. [71]

     [71] The accused claimed that he had known Alan for about six months prior to his arrest. The accused got to know Alan through a mutual friend, who gave him Alan’s contact number and told him to call Alan to arrange for a meeting. The accused called Alan and told Alan to meet him at a playground near the Block. Alan and the accused then met at that playground. This was the only time the accused met Alan in-person.

145. [72]

     [72] During that meeting at the playground, Alan told the accused that “if [he] need[ed] anything, he [ie, Alan] [would] be able to find someone to deliver it over”. The accused claimed that he understood “anything” to be a reference to illegal things such as drugs.

146. [73]

     [73] Some time after their meeting at the playground, Alan called the accused to tell him that there were things coming in from “JB” and told the accused to receive them on his behalf. The accused alleged that he did not know what those things were at that time, and only found out that they were drugs after he had received Alan’s things and “opened up the things to see”. He recognised that they were drugs because he had seen drugs on television before.

147. [74]

     [74] The accused claimed that since then, he had been receiving drugs on Alan’s behalf, and that Alan had only contacted him for drug-related matters. Apart from their meeting at the playground, the accused and Alan only communicated through phone, with Alan using a Malaysian phone number. According to the accused, he had received “ice”, “gor kia”, “grass” and “k” on Alan’s behalf. He could not remember how many times he had received drugs on behalf of Alan. When he helped Alan receive drugs, he did not receive any form of fixed payment in return. Whenever he needed money, he would ask Alan for about $200 to $300. Alan allegedly did not tell the accused why he needed the accused to receive drugs on his behalf.

148. [75]

     [75] In his 1st Long Statement, the accused said that he had never seen who placed the drugs at the pick-up location when he was tasked to pick up the drugs. Neither had he seen who collected the drugs after he placed them at the pick-up location. In the accused’s own words, “[i]t will always be contacted through ‘Alan’ [sic]”. In a similar vein, the accused said in his 3rd Long Statement that he “sen[t] the ‘drugs’ to the locations according to ‘Alan’ instructions” and “had never collect[ed] anything from anyone to pass to ‘Alan’”. Alan “had only asked [him] to deliver the ‘drugs’ to one person face to face for a few times” [emphasis added], and that person was one “Ah Poh”. For “the rest of the times, ‘Alan’ asked [him] to place it at a location where the recipient [would] collect without [his] presence”.

149. [76]

     [76] The last time the accused met Ah Poh was one week before his arrest. During that meeting, he “passed ‘Ah Poh’ one packet of ‘hot one’” in accordance with Alan’s instructions. After he passed a packet of “hot one” to Ah Poh on the aforementioned occasion, he received cash from Ah Poh. The accused proceeded to deposit the cash into a Singapore POSB account. The account number was provided by Alan even though that account did not belong to Alan.

150. [77]

     [77] The accused was also shown photographs of two notebooks (the “Notebooks”) during the recording of his 3rd Long Statement. He explained that these Notebooks belonged to him and that he used them to “note down what ‘drugs’ [he] helped ‘Alan’ to send on his behalf” [emphasis added]. Other than that, the accused also “roughly take down the name of whom [he was] supposed to send them to” [emphasis added]. The accused said that the names of the recipients were provided by Alan, because the accused would ask Alan who the drugs were meant for when he placed them at a location for collection. The accused explained that this was done “for easier reference if ‘Alan’ asked [him] whether [he] had made the delivery according to his instructions” [emphasis added]. In his 5th Long Statement, the accused maintained that the Notebooks contained “the names of the recipients whom [he] delivered ‘drugs’ to by placing them at the location” and “the ‘drugs’ which [he had] placed at the location for the recipient”.

151. (B) Events on 20 November 2018 prior to the accused’s arrest

152. [78]

     [78] In the 1st Long Statement, the accused explained the events on 20 November 2018 prior to his arrest as follows. On that day, the accused was woken up by a call from Alan. Alan told him that there were “grass” and “red wine” to be collected at the 11th floor staircase of the Block. The accused then collected the “grass” and “red wine” and went back home.

153. [79]

     [79] Later on the same day, Alan called him again and told him that “someone” was going to take “something” from him. Alan allegedly told him it was “meant for the same person” but instructed the accused to place the “grass” and “red wine” at separate locations. The accused, on his own accord, decided to place the “grass” and “red wine” at “the 6th and 7th floor staircase” of the Block respectively. He then “placed a white colour plastic bag which contains many black packets of item” which he thought was “grass” at the 6th floor and a red plastic bag containing a black zip lock bag with “red wine” at the 7th floor. According to the accused, the “grass” and “red wine” were “already in that state when [he] received them”, and he only separated them by placing them into two plastic bags.

154. [80]

     [80] After he returned home, he contacted Alan to tell the latter the exact locations where the “grass” and “red wine” were placed. Shortly thereafter, he was arrested by CNB officers in his home.

155. (C) The accused’s knowledge of the drugs found in his possession

156. [81]

     [81] When the accused’s 2nd and 3rd Long Statements were recorded, he was shown photographs of various exhibits. He was able to identify “red wine”, “ice” and “k” in a number of those exhibits and explained that those drugs were “meant for somebody else” and that he will wait for Alan to tell him where to place them. In particular, he was able to identify exhibits G1A1A, G1A2A and SHJ-A2 as containing the “red wine” which he collected from the staircase at the 11th floor on 20 November 2018. He was also able to identify exhibit SHJ-A1A as containing the “grass” which he collected from the staircase at the 11th floor on 20 November 2018. The accused explained that he was able to identify them as such because Alan told him so.

157. [82]

     [82] However, when he was shown photographs depicting exhibit D4 and its contents during the recording of his 2nd Long Statement, he claimed that he could only recognise exhibit D4. He did not know what the brown substances in exhibits D4A1, D4C1, D4C2, D4B1A, D4B2A and D4C2A were. He explained that when he received exhibit D4, he did not open it up to see what was inside. He received exhibit D4 and its contents from Alan but did not ask Alan what was inside exhibit D4. When asked in his 3rd Long Statement why he did not ask Alan about the contents of exhibit D4, the accused explained that it did not cross his mind to ask Alan what was inside even though he knew that it was something illegal.

158. [83]

     [83] In relation to exhibits D5 to D9, the accused claimed that they came from Alan. He only recognised exhibits D5 to D9 and not the other exhibits found within them because he did not open exhibits D5 to D9 to check their contents. As far as the other exhibits found within D5 to D9 were concerned, the accused “[did] not recogni[s]e them”, had “never seen them before” and had “never touched them before”. He also did not ask Alan what exhibits D5 to D9 contained, even though he knew that it was something illegal.

159. (D) The accused’s history of drug consumption and knowledge of drugs in general

160. [84]

     [84] In his 3rd Long Statement, the accused explained that when Alan told the accused to deliver “hot one” to Ah Poh, he understood Alan as referring to a black packet of things which looked like exhibits D5 to D9. The accused, however, disclaimed any knowledge of what Alan meant by “hot one”. He suspected that “hot one” was something illegal, but never asked Alan what was “hot one”. He explained that there was no need for him to ask Alan what exactly “hot one” meant because he was not trying to study it and did not have to know what it was exactly.

161. [85]

     [85] In his 5th Long Statement, the accused was asked to explain the meaning of various terms written in one of his Notebooks, and his replies were as follows:

162. [86]

     [86] Of note is the fact that when the accused was asked whether he knew or used any other names to refer to “grass”, he answered that he referred to “grass” as Gu”. He did not mention that he referred to “grass” as “hot one”. The accused was also asked whether he knew or used other names to refer to “hot one”, and he replied that he also referred to “hot one” using the term “hot”.

163. [87]

     [87] As for the accused’s history of drug consumption, the accused said that he smoked “ice” on a daily basis since early 2018.

164. (E) The accused’s financial situation

165. [88]

     [88] The accused claimed that he was unemployed at the time his 1st Long Statement was recorded. He stopped helping out at his father’s coffeeshop two years ago and since then, he would receive allowances from his parents as and when he needed money and had no sources of income.

166. [89]

     [89] The accused had pawned various items, some of which belonged to his parents. He explained that he wanted to use the money for his daily expenses and online casino betting, and mentioned that he was losing money from his bets.

167. Accused’s evidence at trial

168. (1) The accused’s interactions with Alan prior to receiving the drugs in exhibits D4 to D9

The judgment continues past this page. Read the rest at eLitigation.