High Court · Decided 30 December 2008

Public Prosecutor v Chijioke Stephen Obioha

Feedback & support

[2008] SGHC 243Case no. CC 5/2008

What happened, in plain English

There is no plain-English summary of this judgment yet.

Ask about this judgment

Grounds of decision

Official text from eLitigation

Introduction
[1] Chijioke Stephen Obioha (“the Accused”) faced four charges under the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2001 Rev Ed) (“the Act”). On the second day of the trial, the Prosecution decided to proceed on one charge (“the present charge”) against the Accused and applied for the remaining three charges to be stood down. The present charge read:
[1] CHARGE
That you, Chijioke Stephen Obioha,
on or about the 9 day of April 2007, at Block 465 Choa Chu Kang Avenue 4 #08-07, Singapore, did traffic in a controlled drug specified in Class “A” of the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act (Chapter 185), to wit, by having in your possession for the purpose of trafficking twelve (12) blocks of vegetable matter, which were analysed and found to contain 2,604.56 grams of cannabis, without any authorisation under the said Act or the regulations made thereunder, and you have thereby committed an offence under section 5(1)(a) read with section 5(2) and punishable under section 33 of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
The trafficking of more than 500 grammes of cannabis attracts the mandatory capital punishment (see s 33 read with the Second Schedule of the Act).
[2] I now set out the facts. The evidence of the Prosecution witnesses and the Accused differed in many respects and where relevant I set out both the Prosecution’s and the Accused’s versions. For ease of reference, an index for the rest of the judgment follows:
The arrest ...........................................................................................................................................
3
The flat ...............................................................................................................................................
5
Search in the master bedroom .............................................................................................................
6
Alleged recording of contemporaneous statements in the master bedroom ............................................
10
The photograph-taking in the living room .............................................................................................
14
The weighing of vegetable matter in the Exhibit Management Room .....................................................
15
Around midnight of 9 April 2007 to the early hours of 10 April 2007 ...................................................
17
The afternoon of 10 April 2007 (P130) ...............................................................................................
19
[11] April 2007 (vegetable matter sent for HSA analysis) .......................................................................
23
[12] April 2007 (P131) .........................................................................................................................
24
[13] April 2007 (P258) .........................................................................................................................
27
[16] April 2007 (amendments and re-numbering) ...................................................................................
35
Background events .............................................................................................................................
35
The rebuttal evidence ..........................................................................................................................
39
The submissions .................................................................................................................................
44
The applicable law ..............................................................................................................................
60
The court’s findings ............................................................................................................................
61
Summary ............................................................................................................................................
79
The arrest
[3] On 9 April 2007, at about 6.00 am, officers of the Intelligence Division (“the ID officers”), Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) attended a briefing to look out for the Accused who was believed to be renting a room at Block 465, Choa Chu Kang Avenue 4 (“Block 465”) #08-07 (“the flat”). At about 6.50 am, the ID officers began to conduct surveillance of Block 465.
[4] At about 10.45 am, the Accused was seen leaving the flat and taking a taxi to Hotel 81 Hollywood along Lorong 8 Geylang. At about 11.10 am, the Accused arrived at Hotel 81 Hollywood and entered the hotel empty-handed. Instructions were then given for his arrest should he leave the hotel carrying any item. At about 11.20 am, the Accused was observed leaving the hotel carrying a black luggage bag. He boarded another taxi (“the taxi”) and left Lorong 8 Geylang. The taxi was tailed by various teams of the ID officers until it reached a car park near Block 465 at about 11.35 am.
[5] The ID officers’ evidence was that, at that point, they moved in to arrest the Accused who was seated in the front of the taxi. Sergeant Leow Yan Sin Alex (“Sgt Leow”) testified that he opened the door of the front passenger seat, told the Accused that he was from CNB and told the Accused not to move (NE 190). According to Sgt Leow, the Accused then stepped out of the taxi by himself and tried to move away (NE 190, 195, 196), whereas Station Inspector Goh Teck Hock (“SI Goh”) testified that he (Goh) took hold of the Accused’s hand to bring him out of the taxi (NE 154). SI M Subramaniam stated that he (Subramaniam) grabbed the Accused’s left hand but the Accused evaded his grasp and forced his way out of the taxi (NE 203, 208). SI Goh testified that he (Goh) handcuffed the Accused’s right hand immediately after the Accused came out from the taxi (NE 155). According to the ID officers, the Accused put up a violent struggle and resisted arrest, whereupon a few of them pinned him to the ground and handcuffed both his hands using standard issue handcuffs (NE 137, 149, 167–168, 199).
[6] The Accused’s evidence was that none of the ID officers had identified himself as being from CNB but when he was brought out of the taxi, one of them had said: “You think Singapore police are stupid?” (NE 936). He testified that he did not put up a violent struggle when he was brought out of the taxi. According to him, one of the officers had grabbed his collar in bringing him out of the taxi and when he was brought out from the taxi, the only movement he was making was moving his neck from side to side as it was difficult for him to breathe (NE 805, 938). He testified that, after the ID officers pinned him to the ground, his hands were fastened to the back using a hand restraint (fashioned out of material resembling black belt straps) (“the black hand restraint”) (NE 806).
[7] At about 11.40 or 11.45 am, a team of Special Task Force (“STF”) officers (“the first team of STF officers”) led by Station Inspector Sea Hoon Cheng (“SI Sea”) arrived at the car park near the flat and took over custody of the Accused. One of the STF officers, Staff Sergeant Tay Chok Chwee (“SSgt Tay”), retrieved a black luggage bag from the boot of the taxi (“the black luggage bag in the taxi”) in the presence of the Accused. This black luggage bag was later found to contain 14 blocks of vegetable matter (“the vegetable matter from the black luggage bag in the taxi”).
[8] At about 11.50 am, the Accused was escorted to the void deck of the block. SI Sea testified that he searched the Accused and took over his personal effects, which included a bunch of nine keys (NE 226); the Accused stated that it was another STF officer, Sergeant Chelliah Vijay (“Sgt Vijay”), who searched him and took his personal effects including the bunch of nine keys (NE 943). The Accused gave a statement, which was recorded by SSgt Tay on pp 13 to 15 of his pocket book but this statement was not tendered in evidence.
The flat
[9] At about 12.30 pm, the first team of STF officers, together with another team of STF officers (“the second team of STF officers”) who had arrived at the void deck around 12.15 pm, escorted the Accused up to the flat. The officers were let into the flat by its owner, Madam Siti Fazillah binte Jasmani (“Mdm Siti”), who informed them that the Accused was renting the master bedroom of the flat (“the master bedroom”).
[10] SI Sea testified that he asked the Accused whether the Accused had a key to the door of the master bedroom and the Accused said he did not (NE 216). According to SI Sea, he (Sea) had at that point of time forgotten that he had seized various keys from the Accused at the void deck (NE 242). SI Sea asked Mdm Siti whether she had a key to the master bedroom and she replied that she did. Mdm Siti testified that she then retrieved that key and opened the door to the master bedroom (NE 285).
[11] According to the Accused, he had in fact told one of the CNB officers (he could not recall who) at the void deck that the keys he had had with him were his and that one of them was for the master bedroom door (NE 944). He testified that when SI Sea had asked him in the flat whether he had a key to the master bedroom door, he had answered no because the key had been seized from him at the void deck (NE 818). He noticed SI Sea using one of the keys from the bunch of nine keys that was taken from him at the void deck in an attempt to open the master bedroom door. However, as it was difficult to open the master bedroom with that key, Mdm Siti had to help SI Sea open the door, still with that key. (NE 819)
Search in the master bedroom
[12] At about 12.40 pm, SI Sea, Sgt Vijay, Sgt Ee Kah Yeow (“Sgt Ee”), SSgt Choo Thiam Hock (“SSgt Choo”) and SSgt Tay escorted the Accused into the master bedroom. The Accused sat at the centre of the lengthwise edge of a bed in the room (NE 820).
[13] Sgt Ee’s evidence was that he recovered the following items from the following places:
SSgt Choo testified that he found a black Elle bag on the floor of the master bedroom, containing a packet of vegetable matter in its side compartment (NE 310). A black Cosway file folder containing numerous small empty plastic packets (“the small empty plastic packets”) was also recovered from the cupboard in the master bedroom (NE 1016).
[14] I shall refer to all the items recovered from the master bedroom as “the items from the master bedroom” and all the vegetable matter recovered from the master bedroom as “the vegetable matter from the master bedroom”.
[15] Sgt Ee testified that when he recovered the Fila bag, it was not locked. He unzipped it and took out the five blocks of vegetable matter therein one by one. He showed them to the Accused, before placing those blocks of vegetable matter in a plastic exhibit bag. Similarly, Sgt Ee had taken out the UBS Warburg bag (from the Enzer box which he had placed on the floor in the master bedroom), unzipped it and shown four blocks of vegetable matter therein to the Accused one by one before placing them in other exhibit bags. One of these blocks was later found to contain two separate blocks and thus the UBS Warburg bag in fact contained five blocks of vegetable matter (see [13(a)(ii)(1)]). Sgt Ee had also shown each block of vegetable matter recovered from the yellow and light yellow plastic bags to the Accused. Sgt Ee testified that he did not communicate with the Accused while showing him the vegetable matter from the master bedroom. The Accused remained silent while being shown the vegetable matter from the master bedroom. (NE 270 et seq)
[16] SI Sea and Sgt Ee stated that the Accused had not left the master bedroom between the time when he was brought in (ie, about 12.40 pm) until the time he was escorted out to the living room (ie, about 2.30 pm) (NE 238, 305). The Accused had requested water at about 1.25 pm; Sgt Vijay testified that it was he (Sgt Vijay) who went out of the master bedroom and got water from the kitchen for the Accused who had remained in the bedroom with SI Sea, SSgt Tay and Sgt Ee (NE 346).
[17] The Accused testified that the Enzer box was usually kept placed in the top left shelf of the cupboard, with the UBS Warburg bag on top of (not inside) the Enzer box and the Fila bag on top of the UBS Warburg bag (NE 828). His counsel had earlier also said that his instructions were that the two rolls of yellow tape (see para (f) in [13]) were secured together in an unopened plastic packaging and placed in the left hand drawer (NE 240). The defence counsel had also been instructed that the weighing scale (see para (e) in [13]) had all along been kept in the kitchen of the flat (NE 240).
[18] The Accused claimed that, to the best of his knowledge, the UBS Warburg bag had been empty and the Enzer box had contained only styrofoam (NE 877, 979). As for the Fila bag, the Accused claimed that it had been given to him in January 2007 by a Senegalese called “John” (NE 830, 980), who had told him that it contained a small Bible, aftershave, cologne and perfume. John was a friend who had come for football training in Singapore. John had given the Accused the Fila bag in January 2007 because he (John) was going to Selangor, Malaysia, for what the Accused called a “football screening” (NE 980). The Fila bag had been locked with a padlock when John gave it to the Accused and John did not give the Accused the key (NE 830, 980).
[19] The Accused’s version of the events in the master bedroom in his oral testimony was as follows. After he was brought into the master bedroom by several CNB officers and made to sit at the centre of the lengthwise edge of the bed, one of the CNB officers recovered his Briggs & Riley luggage bag from the top right shelf of the cupboard. (NE 820)
[20] The officer emptied the contents of the Briggs & Riley luggage bag, which included his pictures and CDs, onto the bed. While the officer was taking out these items and placing them on the bed, the Accused was made to sit in a foldable chair next to the bed. The officers continued to search the room, and after a short while, the Accused asked for water to drink. One of the officers got him tap water from a toilet in the master bedroom but the Accused said that he did not drink water from the tap and requested water from a fridge belonging to him in the kitchen (there were two fridges in the kitchen; one belonged to the Accused and the other belonged to Mdm Siti). Sgt Vijay, together with one of the officers, then brought him from the master bedroom to the entrance of the kitchen in the flat. The other officer got the water from one of the two fridges (the Accused could not see which) for the Accused. Because he was in restraints, Sgt Vijay and this officer had to feed the water to him. Mdm Siti was in the kitchen at this point of time. The other officer proceeded to look around the service balcony and store room next to the kitchen. Then, the Accused was brought back to the master bedroom. (NE 822–25)
[21] One of the officers that had been doing the searching (whom the Accused later found out was Sgt Ee) was holding the Fila bag when the Accused re-entered the master bedroom. The Accused was made to sit on the same foldable chair as previously and he was shown a smoking apparatus that was from the Briggs & Riley luggage bag. Then, Sgt Ee stood about four feet in front of the Accused and held out the Fila bag to him, asking: “You know what are these?” The Accused could not see what was inside the Fila bag. The Accused told him he did not know. The Accused asked Sgt Ee how the Fila bag came to be open, since the Fila bag had been padlocked. Sgt Ee replied that he (Sgt Ee himself) had opened it. (NE 825–26, 828–30)
[22] The black luggage bag in the taxi had been placed on the floor in front of the foldable chair on which the Accused was then sitting. Sgt Ee also placed the Fila bag, the Enzer box and the UBS Warburg bag in front of the Accused. Then, the CNB officers and the Accused waited for some time before they escorted him out into the living room. (NE 831–33)
Alleged recording of contemporaneous statements in the master bedroom
[23] SSgt Tay testified that, in the master bedroom, he recorded a statement from the Accused at 1.00 pm (I will refer to this as “the first contemporaneous statement”) and another at 1.09 pm (“the second contemporaneous statement”) (NE 451). He recorded the statements on pp 18 to 20 of his pocket book, as follows:
1300
I began recording a further statement from Steph Steven pertaining to the seized Drugs
Q10)
The blocks of ‘weed’ found
The items founds [sic] inside
(Signature 1) (Signature 2)
the ‘Enzer’ box /\ recovered from the top left cupboard inside your room belongs to who?
A10)
Belongs to ‘Florence’
Q11) A11)
What is inside the Bla ‘Enzer’ box ? and the ‘Fila’ bag?
A11)
Weed.
Q12)
What do you intend to do with all these ‘Weed’?
A12)
‘Charles’ will be coming to collect it tomorrow.
The above statement was read back to accused in English
(Signature 3) (Signature 4)
(Signature 5) (Signature 6)
Accused was invited
1307
The above statement was read back to accused and he was invited to make any alteration but he declined to.
[1309] QA13)
I asked him what do he meant by ‘weed’?
A13)
It mean ‘grass’
Q14)
Do you know ‘grass’ is illegal in Singapore?
A15)
Yes.
(Signature 7) (Signature 8)
[24] During the trial, two analysts with the Health Sciences Authority (HSA), Ms Merula Mangudi (“Ms Mangudi”) and Dr Yap Tiong Whei Angeline (“Dr Yap”), stated that according to the literature on drugs that they had to read in the course of their work, “grass” and “weed” are common street names for cannabis. (NE 94, 96, 105, 106).
[25] SSgt Tay testified that during the recording of the two contemporaneous statements, only he and Sgt Vijay remained in the master bedroom with the Accused (NE 449). The Accused chose to give both statements in English. After the first contemporaneous statement, he was invited to make any amendment to his statement and he declined.
[26] SSgt Tay testified that he saw the Accused sign on his pocket book (NE 450). SSgt Tay was standing in front of the Accused while the Accused was sitting on the bed and he had to bend down to let the Accused sign as the Accused’s hands were handcuffed behind his back (NE 475). SSgt Tay testified that Signatures 2, 4 and 6 were the Accused’s (NE 441–42, 447). As for the second contemporaneous statement (found on p 20 of Sgt Tay’s pocket book), SSgt Tay had read it over to the Accused who affirmed it to be true and correct, signing Signature 8 in a similar manner as for the first contemporaneous statement (NE 452, 455). Sgt Tay testified that Signatures 1, 5 and 7 were his own (NE 441, 446, 452). Sgt Tay was not asked about Signature 3, but from the similarity and context it can be concluded that Signature 3 was his as well. The Accused disputed that he had given either of the contemporaneous statements and that Signatures 2, 4, 6 and 8 were his.
[27] The Prosecution requested Dr Yang Chiew Yung (“Dr Yang”), a forensic scientist with the HSA since 2002, to examine the undisputed signatures of the Accused on pp 13 to 15 of SSgt Tay’s pocket book, P130 and P131 (“the undisputed signatures”) and to determine if the writer of the undisputed signatures could have written Signatures 2, 4, 6 and 8 on pp 18 to 20 of SSgt Tay’s pocket book (“the disputed signatures”). Dr Yang testified that, in her expert opinion, “the evidence [was] consistent with the writer of [the undisputed signatures] having written [Signatures 4 and 8]” and “the possibility of the writer of [the undisputed signatures] having written [Signatures 2 and 6] cannot be ruled out” (NE 763-64). She explained that, in her view, these results meant that although there was a possibility that someone else could have signed the disputed signatures, it was more likely than not that the Accused had signed the disputed signatures (NE 772).
[28] It appears that Sgt Ee and SI Sea returned to the master bedroom after the recording of the contemporaneous statements and together with SSgt Tay and Sgt Vijay waited with the Accused for more CNB officers to arrive (NE 300). At about 1.56 pm, Special Investigation Team (“SIT”) officers from the CNB led by Assistant Superintendant Soh Choon Hock (“ASP Soh”) arrived at the flat. At about 2.28 pm, officers from the Forensic Management Branch (“FMB”), Criminal Investigation Department, arrived at the flat. The evidence of the four officers who had stayed in the master bedroom with the Accused was that at about 2.30 pm the Accused was escorted to the living room together with the items from the master bedroom. According to the Accused, no contemporaneous statements were recorded from him.
The photograph-taking in the living room
[29] According to ASP Soh’s conditioned statement, he had directed SI Yeo See Leang from FMB to take photographs of the items from the master bedroom at about 3.13 pm. SSgt Lim Wan Hsing (“SSgt Lim”) stated that he (SSgt Lim) had assisted in the photograph-taking by removing the various wrappings from around the vegetable matter from the master bedroom and arranging the items from the master bedroom on the floor of the living room (NE 370). SSgt Lim said that the items were arranged and photographed in the centre of the living room. He was unable to be certain where the Accused sat as this was going on, although he stated that it was about one or two metres from the photograph-taking, and somewhere near a dining table in the corner of the living room (NE 370–71).
[30] The Accused said that he had been brought to the living room and made to sit on a chair at the dining room table such that he was not directly facing the photograph-taking. Rather, the photograph-taking took place somewhere on his left (he could not say exactly where in the living room). The Accused stated that Sgt Vijay was standing on his left-hand side (NE 834). The Accused said that he was aware of flashes of light from cameras and movement in the living room but could not tell what exactly was going on because there were a lot of people where the photograph-taking was going on. At first he seemed reluctant to say that these people blocked his view but later stated that they did (NE 1051-53). The Accused testified that ASP Soh did not speak to him in the living room that day (NE 1197).
[31] At about 7.00 pm, the taking of photographs ended. SI Sea handed the items from the master bedroom to ASP Soh.
The weighing of vegetable matter in the Exhibit Management Room
[32] SI Sea, Sgt Vijay, SSgt Tay and Sgt Ee said that they escorted the Accused to the CNB headquarters in Police Cantonment Complex (“PCC”) at around 7.00 pm (although the Accused could not be sure this was the time) (NE 1043). There, the Accused was brought to the Exhibit Management Room. ASP Soh stated that in the Exhibit Management Room, he told the Accused that the vegetable matter from the master bedroom was going to be weighed first (NE 631). After this was done, he then said they would proceed to weigh the vegetable matter found in a “Cellini” luggage bag. I will elaborate later on this “Cellini” luggage bag (see [98]). According to ASP Soh, there were two other officers helping out with the weighing process: Sgt Yap Tain Cheng (“Sgt Yap”) and SSS Shadikin Abdullah. The actual weighing of the vegetable matter from the master bedroom was done by Sgt Yap. Then, ASP Soh told the Accused that the officers would proceed to weigh the vegetable matter from the black luggage bag in the taxi (NE 631). ASP Soh stated that the Accused was able to see the weighing of all the vegetable matter (NE 631-32) and remained quiet throughout the weighing process (NE 631-32).
[33] According to the Accused, there were two officers in the Exhibit Management Room but he could not be sure whether one of them was ASP Soh (NE 1066). In the room, one of the officers told him that there would be weighing of vegetable matter but he was not told where the vegetable matter was from. He saw a carton box next to a weighing scale on a table. However, he did not see any vegetable matter being brought into the room with him nor did he see any vegetable matter in the room (NE 1071–75). The Accused said he could not see exactly what the officers were weighing and how they were weighing it. He stated that he did not try to see what was being weighed as he thought they were weighing the vegetable matter from the black luggage bag in the taxi (NE 1076).
[34] The weighing of all the vegetable matter ended at about 8.16 pm. ASP Soh kept all the vegetable matter in a safe in his office and locked the safe. At about 9.53 pm to 9.59 pm, SI Sea handed over the personal property of the Accused to ASP Soh in ASP Soh’s office.
[35] The Accused’s urine samples were taken, marked and sealed in his presence. Then, he was escorted to his pre-statement medical examination, which was carried out by Dr Chong Seik Ein (“Dr Chong”). He was taken back to PCC and referred to ASP Soh in his office just before midnight of 9 April 2007.
Around midnight of 9 April 2007 to the early hours of 10 April 2007
[36] ASP Soh’s evidence was that in the early hours of 10 April 2007 (ie, just past midnight), he recorded a cautioned statement from the Accused. Later, in his rebuttal evidence, ASP Soh clarified that this cautioned statement was given in respect of a typewritten trafficking charge regarding the vegetable matter from the black luggage bag in the taxi (“the typewritten taxi trafficking charge”) (NE 1279–80). The typewritten taxi trafficking charge was subsequently tendered in evidence as P265. It stated:
The Accused then went for his post-statement medical examination with Dr Chong.
[37] The Accused denied ASP Soh’s version and testified that ASP Soh did not record any statement from him before he (the Accused) went for his post-statement medical examination (NE 1207). In any event this alleged cautioned statement was not tendered in evidence.
[38] According to the Accused, when he met ASP Soh in ASP Soh’s office around midnight of 9 April 2007, ASP Soh had identified himself to the Accused as being the second in command of the police. Seeing an injury on the Accused’s left cheek, ASP Soh had asked the Accused what had happened to his left cheek and the Accused told him that he had been manhandled by the other CNB officers. ASP Soh then told the Accused that he (Soh) was a religious man and would be treating the Accused differently (NE 839).
[39] According to the Accused, ASP Soh went through the Accused’s personal effects which were contained in an exhibit bag. He took out the Accused’s wallet in which there were photographs of the Accused’s girlfriend, Oh Chiew Ghim (also known as Samantha), and the Accused’s mother. ASP Soh asked the Accused about his mother and the Accused started crying. ASP Soh then gave the Accused a sheet of paper to write on and the Accused wrote on the paper, stating how his mother had died of cardiac arrest when his younger brother had been brutally injured in school. ASP Soh took this sheet out of the office (NE 839–40).
[40] ASP Soh came back after some time and told the Accused that he (Soh) had shown that sheet of paper to his (Soh’s) boss. ASP Soh then asked if the Accused had anything else to say. The Accused then wrote on another sheet of paper, pleading to whosoever that is in charge that: “I don’t know what is in the bag till the police opened it, and I ask to be understood and forgiven.” (NE 674). ASP Soh then walked out a second time with the second sheet of paper (NE 840).
[41] The Accused said that when ASP Soh returned to the office, he asked the Accused to sign the second sheet of paper, which the Accused did. ASP Soh then told the Accused that he would be brought for a post-statement medical examination. ASP Soh told the Accused not to mention the manhandling by the CNB officers during the medical examination (NE 841).
[42] The Accused underwent his post-statement medical examination around 12.26 am on 10 April 2007, after which he was brought back to the PCC lock-up.
[43] ASP Soh stated he had opened the exhibit bag containing the Accused’s personal belongings on 12 April 2007 and not 10 April 2007 (NE 671). He said that it was also on 12 April 2007 that the Accused had cried when ASP Soh mentioned his mother (NE 672). This contradicted his earlier evidence that the Accused broke down and cried when giving a statement (admitted and marked as P130) on the afternoon of 10 April 2007, as recorded in P130 itself. He further stated that the note that the Accused had claimed he had written on the first sheet of paper (pertaining to the Accused’s mother’s cardiac arrest) was actually written by the Accused on 11 April 2007 in the lock-up (NE 673). ASP Soh stated that he had not given any sheet of paper to the Accused to write on on 10 April 2007 (NE 673-74), although he did record a statement (P130) from the Accused later on 10 April 2007. I will now come to that statement.
The afternoon of 10 April 2007 (P130)
[44] At the trial, the Prosecution tendered a 4-page typewritten long statement allegedly recorded from the Accused on 10 April 2007 at 2.47 pm. This was the statement marked as P130 and I shall refer to it as such. Paragraphs 9 to 17 of P130 were material and I set them out below:
[45] At this point, it is relevant to note that the two HSA analysts, Ms Mangudi and Dr Yap, also gave evidence during the trial that “marijuana” is a common street name for cannabis (based on the literature they had read in the course of their work) (NE 94, 96, 105, 106).
[46] ASP Soh gave evidence on the recording of P130. He said that he recorded P130 from the Accused on 10 April 2007 in his office. The recording started at 2.47 pm and ended at 4.45 pm. During the recording, only he and the Accused were in the office. Once it was completed, the Accused read through P130. ASP Soh invited him to make any necessary amendments (NE 585–88). As the Accused read through P130, the Accused made or caused to be made three amendments. First, he disagreed with the designation of his nationality under the particulars on the front page as “Singaporean”. ASP Soh thus cancelled that word and wrote “Ghanaian” next to it because on 9 April 2007, the Accused had told him that the Accused was Ghanaian. When ASP Soh made that amendment however, the Accused told him that the Accused wanted to be known as Nigerian as well because his late mother was Nigerian. So ASP Soh put “& Nigerian” below the word “Ghanaian” and the Accused signed above the amendment (NE 651–53). The Accused made two other minor amendments on the first and second pages of P130 respectively and signed next to those amendments. Then, he was asked one more time whether he wished to make any further amendment and he declined. After he declined to make any further amendment, he wrote his name and signed each page of the statement. ASP Soh wrote on the last page: “The statement was recorded in English. He confirmed it to be true and correct. There was no threat, inducement or promise made in the recording of the statement. (‘the P130 handwritten confirmation’)”. The Accused wrote his name and signed at the bottom of this. ASP Soh then wrote below: “Statement finished recording at about 1645 hours. (‘the P130 statement of timing’)” and wrote his name and signed to the right of it (NE 655).
[47] The Accused’s version of the events of the afternoon of 10 April 2007 was as follows. The Accused was brought before ASP Soh in his office. ASP Soh showed him a table setting out the sentences for offences involving various quantities of cannabis. Next to the quantity 500 grammes and above, ASP Soh wrote the word “death”. ASP Soh explained to the Accused that he faced two charges, one a trafficking charge and the second, a possession charge. He told the Accused that the transportation of the black luggage bag in the taxi which had been found to contain controlled drugs from Hotel 81 Hollywood to Block 465 constituted trafficking, while possession meant possession of the drugs at the point of arrest (NE 847). ASP Soh gave the Accused a trafficking charge in respect of the vegetable matter from the black luggage bag in the taxi in handwritten form and told the Accused that he would bring a typed copy of the taxi trafficking charge later on. He also said that he would give the Accused the second charge (for possession) later. The Accused gave no cautioned statement for the handwritten taxi trafficking charge (NE 1186).
[48] ASP Soh then had a discussion with the Accused, in the course of which ASP Soh talked about his (Soh’s) own family, his (Soh’s) interest in football and the fact that he (Soh) would be going for a course in May 2007. ASP Soh and the Accused talked about Nigeria and Ghana; the Accused told him that the Accused’s father was Nigerian and the Accused’s mother was Ghanaian. By the end of the discussion, ASP Soh had typed out six sheets (“the 10 April 2007 statement”), which he printed out and handed to the Accused to read. The Accused pointed out that ASP Soh had made references to Ghana on the front page although the Accused had actually mentioned Nigeria, but ASP Soh told him not to worry about it. The Accused testified that apart from that, the rest of the 10 April 2007 statement was accurate (NE 850–51). However, no signing took place on 10 April 2007. On that day, ASP Soh had taken the 10 April 2007 statement back and the Accused was then brought to the lock-up (NE 852–54). As is set out below (at [53]), the Accused said that it was only on 12 April 2007 that ASP Soh asked him to sign six sheets of paper which ASP Soh told him was the 10 April 2007 statement. The Accused could not say whether P130 was part of these six sheets he signed on 12 April 2007 but accepted that the signatures on P130 which were supposed to be his were in fact his signatures. The Accused stated that the contents of the 10 April 2007 statement were “absolutely different” from P130 (NE 1079).
[49] ASP Soh stated that he had shown a typewritten schedule of punishment for offences involving controlled drugs but denied that he had written the word “death” next to the quantity 500 grammes and above. His evidence was that the word “death” was already typewritten in the schedule (NE 658). ASP Soh also stated that he had explained to the Accused what trafficking and possession of drugs meant (NE 658). He had told the Accused that, apart from transporting drugs from one place to another, selling controlled drugs and keeping massive amounts of drugs also constituted trafficking (NE 659). However, he denied that he had recorded a six-page 10 April 2007 statement from the Accused or that it was signed on 12 April 2007. According to ASP Soh, the only statement that was recorded on 10 April 2007 was P130 and that was signed by the Accused on 10 April 2007 itself (NE 647).
11 April 2007 (vegetable matter sent for HSA analysis)
[50] On 11 April 2007, ASP Soh retrieved the vegetable matter from the master bedroom from his safe. He sealed and marked the blocks of vegetable matter from the master bedroom as follows: “A1A1”, “A1B1”, “A1C1”, “A1D1”, “A1E1”, “A2A1A1”, “A2A1B1”, “A2A2A1”, “A2A3A1A”, “A2A4A1”, “A2B1A” and “A2B2A1” (“the exhibits”), and handed them over to Dr Yap. Dr Yap subsequently handed the exhibits over to Ms Mangudi on 12 April 2007 for analysis. The Prosecution tendered HSA lab certificates signed by Dr Yap and Ms Mangudi showing that the exhibits contained the following amounts of cannabis:
Exhibit No
Amount of cannabis
A1A1
190.70 g
A1B1
86.95 g
A1C1
53.19 g
A1D1
2.01 g
A1E1
2.09 g
A2B1A
94.42 g
A2B2A1
197.80 g
A2A1A1
392.50 g
A2A1B1
415.70 g
A2A2A1
417.30 g
A2A3A1A
365.70 g
A2A4A1
386.20 g ____________ 2,604.56 g ____________
12 April 2007 (P131)
[51] At the trial, the Prosecution also tendered a four-page typewritten long statement allegedly recorded from the Accused on 12 April 2007 at 2.41 pm. This was admitted and marked as P131. The material paragraphs of P131 are as follows:
[52] ASP Soh’s evidence on the recording of P131 was as follows. He recorded P131 from the Accused on 12 April 2007 in his office. Before ASP Soh recorded P131, ASP Soh gave P130 to the Accused to read one more time. After the Accused read P130, he told ASP Soh that P130 was true and correct and he did not wish to make any amendment. ASP Soh started recording P131 at 2.41 pm and completed the recording at 6.00 pm. Throughout this recording, only ASP Soh and the Accused were in the office. After the recording of the statement, the Accused read through P131. As he read, ASP Soh noticed that some of the paragraph numbers were wrong. ASP Soh therefore cancelled the wrong paragraph numbers and wrote the correct numbers, after which the Accused signed next to each of the amendments. The Accused was then invited again to make any further amendment. He declined. The Accused went on to write his name and signed at the bottom of each page of the statement. On the last page, the Accused wrote: “I read my statements”. The Accused wrote his name directly below that sentence and signed to the right of his name. ASP Soh then wrote below the Accused’s written name and signature: “I invited the accused to make any amendments, correction or deletion to his report but he declined. There is no threat, inducement or promise made in the recording of this statement. [‘the P131 handwritten confirmation’]” The Accused signed and wrote his name at the bottom left corner of the last page. ASP Soh wrote “Statement finished recording at about 1800 hrs. [‘the P131 statement of timing’]” and signed at the bottom right corner. The Accused was brought back to the lock-up at about 6.00 pm and he was not brought up again on that day (NE 592–97, 650–51).
[53] The Accused’s version of the events on 12 April 2007 was as follows. On that afternoon, ASP Soh had asked the Accused to sign six sheets of paper, which ASP Soh had told the Accused was the 10 April 2007 statement. The Accused did not read the six sheets because ASP Soh had told him that there was no need to do so as the Accused had already read it on 10 April 2007. The Accused then signed at the bottom of all six sheets. (NE 855) The P130 handwritten confirmation was not present when the Accused signed the six sheets (which he believed to be the 10 April 2007 statement) on 12 April 2007. The Accused could not say whether the four-page P130 was part of the six sheets he signed on 12 April 2007 but accepted that the signatures on P130 which were supposed to be his were in fact his signatures (NE 1113–15).
[54] ASP Soh then went on to record a second statement from the Accused on 12 April 2007, which also consisted of six sheets (“the 12 April 2007 statement”). The Accused was told to read the 12 April 2007 statement and he confirmed it to be correct. The Accused was first brought back to the lock-up (at first the Accused could not be sure what time he was brought back but later he gave the time as 5.00 pm). He was then brought out from the lock-up again to see ASP Soh. The Accused could not be sure what time he was brought up. ASP Soh then gave the Accused six sheets of paper which ASP Soh told the Accused was the 12 April 2007 statement he had given earlier that day. ASP Soh reminded the Accused that he had read the 12 April 2007 statement earlier and asked if the Accused wanted to make any amendment to the six sheets. The Accused relied on the fact that he had read the 12 April 2007 statement earlier and did not make any amendment. He wrote his name and it was then that he signed at the bottom of each page of the six sheets. On the last sheet, he wrote the words “I read my statements.” He was then brought back to the lock-up. The Accused could not say whether the four-page P131 was part of the six sheets that he had signed but accepted that the signatures on P131 which were supposed to be his were in fact his signatures (NE 1114). The Accused stated that the contents of the 12 April 2007 statement were different from P131.
13 April 2007 (P258)
[55] The Prosecution tendered a typewritten charge (“the typewritten charge”), which stated:
[56] ASP Soh’s evidence was that at 6.18 pm on 13 April 2007, he served the typewritten charge on the Accused. ASP Soh’s evidence was that the typewritten charge had referred to 14 blocks of vegetable matter because 14 blocks of vegetable had been recovered from the master bedroom. These were the 12 blocks [referred to at 13(a)], one small block [referred to at 13(c)] and the loose vegetable matter which was an even smaller block [referred to at 13(g)] (see Sgt Ee’s evidence at NE 251–68). However, when these 14 blocks of vegetable matter were sent to HSA for analysis (see [50]), the results released in August 2007 showed that the two smaller blocks only contained cannabis mixture. Thus, according to the Prosecution, it decided to charge the Accused in respect of the remaining 12 blocks in the present charge before me (“the cannabis in the master bedroom”) (NE 600–02, 627).
[57] ASP Soh stated that the signatures next to the name of the Accused on the typewritten charge were the Accused’s. (NE 600) He stated that the signature next to the handwritten lines at the top right hand of the typewritten charge was also the Accused’s (NE 602).
[58] The Prosecution also tendered a handwritten notice of warning (“the handwritten notice”). The handwritten notice began with a handwritten charge (“the handwritten charge”):
[59] ASP Soh stated that he had written out the handwritten charge after the Accused signed the typewritten charge. At first, he had written “between 11.10 am to 11.40 am” but upon realising that the typewritten charge stated “in the master bedroom of Blk 465 Choa Chu Kang Ave 4”, he cancelled the former words and wrote “in the master Bedroom of Blk 465 Choa Chu Kang Ave 4” above that. ASP Soh stated that the Accused signed twice next to the amendment. The Accused signed and wrote his name below the main body of the handwritten charge. ASP Soh then wrote the paragraph beginning “The nature of the charge…” and the Accused signed below. ASP Soh then wrote: “I acknowledge a copy of the receipt of the charge” for the Accused to sign to acknowledge receipt. However, it appeared that the Accused did not sign below the acknowledgment. ASP Soh stated that he served a copy of the handwritten charge on the Accused (NE 602–05).
[60] The handwritten notice itself read:
[61] ASP Soh stated that he had written the text of the handwritten notice and that the signatures next to the Accused’s name were the Accused’s. He had read out the text of the handwritten notice and served a copy thereof on the Accused (although he forgot to fill in the time the copy of the notice was served on the Accused). The signature below the line “I acknowledge a receipt of a copy of my statement” was the Accused’s (NE 605).
[62] The Prosecution tendered a handwritten statement that was made in answer to the handwritten charge and handwritten notice (“the cautioned statement”):
[63] ASP Soh stated that throughout the recording of the cautioned statement, he and the Accused were the only ones in his office (NE 599). The signature next to the Accused’s name was the Accused’s. The signature next to the lines “Statement finished recording, etc” at the bottom was also the Accused’s (NE 608–09).
[64] The typewritten charge, the handwritten notice (including the handwritten charge) and the cautioned statement were collectively tendered by the Prosecution and admitted as P258.
[65] The Accused’s evidence pertaining to the events of 13 April 2007 was as follows. On that day, ASP Soh told the Accused that he (Soh) would be giving the Accused the second charge which was a possession charge (as ASP Soh had mentioned on 10 April 2007 (see [47])). ASP Soh then handed the handwritten charge (which was part of P258), sans the amendment “in the master Bedroom of Blk 465 Choa Chu Kang Ave 4”, to the Accused. Because ASP Soh had on 10 April 2007 told the Accused that the transportation of the black luggage bag in the taxi which had been found to contain controlled drugs from Hotel 81 Hollywood to Block 465 constituted trafficking, while possession meant possession of the drugs at the point of arrest, the Accused understood this unamended handwritten charge to be a possession charge in respect of the 14 blocks of vegetable matter from the black luggage bag in the taxi (NE 1146). The Accused wrote his name and signed below the main body of the handwritten charge, and another time at the bottom right corner of the page. He said that ASP Soh’s signatures, the paragraph beginning “The nature of the charge…” and the line “I acknowledge a copy of the receipt of the charge” were not present when he signed (NE 856–59).
[66] The Accused stated that he had signed below the first paragraph of the handwritten notice but when he signed, ASP Soh’s signatures, the paragraph beginning “The above notice…” and the line “I acknowledge a receipt of a copy of my statement” were not there (NE 858).
[67] The Accused handed back both the handwritten charge and the handwritten notice to ASP Soh, who typed and printed out what ASP Soh called the statement for the second charge and then left the office (NE 861). After ASP Soh came back, he told the Accused that he had made a mistake in the handwritten charge. That was when ASP Soh cancelled the phrase “between 11.10 am to 11.40 am”, without adding the phrase “in the master Bedroom of Blk 465 Choa Chu Kang Ave 4”, and asked the Accused to sign near the cancellation, which the Accused did. ASP Soh then asked the Accused to sign at the bottom corner of the handwritten charge. He also asked the Accused to sign a second time on the handwritten notice further down on the page, “for reference”. ASP Soh’s signatures, the paragraph beginning “The above notice…” and the line “I acknowledge a receipt etc” were still not there (NE 863–64, 866).
[68] ASP Soh then gave the typewritten charge (which was also part of P258) to the Accused with the handwritten words “Charge was served…” at the top right hand corner. ASP Soh told the Accused that the typewritten charge was a transcript of the earlier handwritten charge. He then cancelled “1805”, wrote “1818” and asked the Accused to sign next to the amendment, which the Accused did. ASP Soh also asked the Accused to sign below the typewritten charge and once more further down, which the Accused did without reading the typewritten charge. The paragraph beginning “The nature of the charge…” was not there when the Accused signed both signatures (NE 864–66).
[69] Finally, ASP Soh gave the Accused a plain sheet of paper and invited him to write a statement on it. ASP Soh told the Accused that he wanted to show it to his boss and that the Accused might be pardoned. The Accused thus wrote the main text of his cautioned statement, ie, beginning with “I wish to plea” and ending “God” (see [62]) on the plain sheet. ASP Soh told him to sign and write his name below the text but to leave a space between his statement and his signature in case the Accused had other sentences to add in later. ASP Soh also told the Accused to sign further down the page for reference (NE 867–69).
[70] According to the Accused, he was never served a copy of the typewritten charge, the handwritten charge, the handwritten notice or the cautioned statement in P258. The first time he saw the following:
was when his former counsel showed him the PI bundle (ie, the bundle for the preliminary inquiry) one week before the PI, which was held on 6 December 2007 (ie, he was shown the PI bundle in late November 2007) (NE 869–70). The Accused stated that that meeting with his former counsel was the first time that he read through P130, P131, P258, as well as pp 18 to 20 of SSgt Tay’s pocket book (NE 871, 1080–81, 1023–24). That was also the first time he saw (in photos in the PI bundle) the vegetable matter from the master bedroom, the yellow plastic bag and the light yellow plastic bag (NE 999).
[71] The Accused stated that when he read through pp 18 to 20 of SSgt Tay’s pocket book, the only meaning of “weed” that he knew was the one he had used in agricultural science, to refer to plants that disturb the growth of crops (NE 1026). He was confused as to what the “weed” and “grass” in pp 18 to 20 of SSgt Tay’s pocket book referred to (NE 1029–31).
16 April 2007 (amendments and re-numbering)
[72] According to the Accused, ASP Soh next met the Accused on 16 April 2007. ASP Soh had a bundle of papers with him. The Accused was shown two sheets from this bundle which he understood to be part of the 10 April 2007 statement (but turned out to be part of P130). On one of these sheets, the particulars of the Accused were set out and under the heading “Nationality”, the Accused saw that the word “Singapore” was cancelled and the word “Ghanaian” was already written there. He then informed ASP Soh that he was not Ghanaian but Nigerian. ASP Soh told him to write the word “Nigerian” and the Accused did so (the Accused did not cancel the word “Ghanaian”, thinking that ASP Soh would do so). Two other minor amendments were made by ASP Soh and the Accused signed next to the amendments (NE 873–74).
[73] According to the Accused, ASP Soh also re-numbered the paragraph numbers on sheets of paper which he understood to be part of the 12 April 2007 statement (but turned out to be part of P131), and got the Accused to sign next to these amendments. According to the Accused, ASP Soh told the Accused to sign “for reference” further down on the last page of these sheets of paper, which the Accused did. There were no handwritten words on the last page of these sheets when the Accused signed on 16 April 2007 (NE 874–76).
Background events
[74] I now turn to the evidence as to how the Accused came to Singapore and how he came to rent the flat. Except where otherwise specified, the evidence is from his oral testimony.
[75] The Accused first testified that he had graduated with a second class (upper) Bachelor of Science degree from the medical science department of the University of Benin in 2003. However, he later gave evidence that his course of study in the University of Benin was industrial chemistry (NE 901). After graduating from university, the Accused served national service until 2004 (NE 786). From 2004 to 2005, he helped out with his elder brother’s electronics business in Alaba International Market, Lagos, Nigeria (NE 789). In 2005, the Accused saw an internet advertisement for the football club “Sporting Afrique” in Singapore. He flew to Singapore in November 2005 to try out for the football club (NE 785). The screening started in January 2006. The Accused did not get a place and he joined the fan club instead.
[76] In May 2006, the Accused contacted his elder brother (“Toochukwu Colinus Obioha”) with a business suggestion, which was for Toochukwu Colinus Obioha to send the Accused money to purchase second-hand electronic goods in Singapore which the Accused would then send back to Nigeria (NE 791). The Accused also earned commission by acting as a middleman between traders from all over the world who came to Singapore to buy second-hand electronic goods and businesses in Singapore who sold such goods. Money was in fact sent from the Accused to Toochukwu Colinus Obioha and vice versa on various occasions (NE 794).
[77] The Accused’s immigration pass expired in January 2007, so from then until his arrest on 9 April 2007, he was illegally overstaying in Singapore (NE 794).
[78] Prior to February 2007, the Accused had been staying in a flat near the Yew Tee MRT station (NE 797). In February 2007, the Accused began looking for new accommodation. The Accused stated that on 20 March 2007, he and Oh Chiew Ghim viewed the flat together with their housing agent. They were given the choice of two rooms by Mdm Siti and her husband, one of which was the master bedroom. The Accused told the housing agent that he was interested in renting the master bedroom (NE 905).
[79] On 21 March 2007, the housing agent contacted Oh Chiew Ghim and informed her that the signing of the rental agreement for the flat was to take place that evening. The Accused testified that he had planned to rent the master bedroom together with a Cameroonian who played football for Home United. The plan had been for the Cameroonian to present his employment pass and sign the rental agreement as the Accused, being an illegal overstayer, had no valid documentation. However, the Cameroonian was unable to be present at the proposed signing. Eventually, Oh Chiew Ghim signed the rental agreement on behalf of the Accused instead (NE 906–08).
[80] The Accused shifted his belongings, including a refrigerator, a bed and the Enzer box containing a home theatre set, into the flat on 26 March 2007. Mdm Siti gave him three keys on 26 March 2007: for the metal grille door; the wooden front door and the master bedroom of the flat. After placing some of his belongings into the master bedroom, he locked the master bedroom door (NE 923). He himself did not move in until 29 March 2007 (NE 880).
[81] Apart from the Accused, Mdm Siti, her husband, her son and two Bangladeshis stayed in the flat. Oh Chiew Ghim’s evidence was that she had only visited the Accused on three or four previous occasions and each time only stayed in the master bedroom for a short while before leaving the flat. She had never stayed overnight in the master bedroom nor had she had a key to the master bedroom. In other words, Oh Chiew Ghim was not occupying the master bedroom. (PS46, statement of Oh Chiew Ghim, at [5]). The Accused met the two Bangladeshis in the flat on 30 March 2007 and they told him that they were staying in one of the rooms. He claimed that even after 30 March 2007, he saw them from time to time, usually in the evenings, in the flat. The last day he saw one of them was 8 April 2007 in the afternoon (NE 881–82).
[82] According to Mdm Siti, she knew the Accused as “Mr Wilson”. The Accused testified that he had given a copy of an NUS student pass for one Anosike Wilson to Mdm Siti on 5 or 6 April 2007 (NE 913) (though later he stated that he gave it to her husband (NE 914)). He claimed that he had come into possession of a copy of the NUS student pass on 3 April 2007 in Boon Wah Hotel at Upper Weld Road. The Accused had gone there to meet a Nigerian trader. In the hotel room occupied by the Nigerian trader, he saw a copy of the NUS student pass together with an Ameertech Remittance and Exchange receipt bearing the name “Anosike Wilson” on a table and the Nigerian trader had told him that he (the Nigerian trader) had found the copy of the pass in the table drawer. The Accused testified that he had kept the copy of the pass because he was curious to find out who this Nigerian, who was studying at NUS, was. He went to an African restaurant near to Mustafa Centre (a shopping centre in Little India) to enquire if anyone knew Anosike Wilson but no one did (NE 910–13). The Accused originally stated that this African restaurant was the only place he went to find out about Anosike Wilson, but later he stated that he had also gone to 6A Verdun Road (the address stated on the NUS student pass) to inquire about Anosike Wilson (NE 918).
[83] The Accused stated that Mdm Siti and her husband had never asked him for any documentation. However, he made another copy of the copy of Anosike Wilson’s student pass and gave it to either Mdm Siti or her husband, in order to “replace the gap of having valid documents” but it was not to make them think that he was Anosike Wilson (NE 914).
[84] The Accused’s evidence was that he did not know how the vegetable matter came to be in the master bedroom. He stated that he did not know that vegetable matter, apart from the vegetable matter from the black luggage bag in the taxi, had been recovered from the master bedroom until November 2007. The Accused stated that he did not know what cannabis was prior to his arrest (NE 940). He had only heard of “cannabis ativa” from his studies. He explained it was a plant that grows in swampy areas (NE 1158). At the time of his arrest, he also did not know that cannabis is also known as “marijuana”, “grass” or “weed” (NE 1026, 1170).
The rebuttal evidence
[85] After the Defence closed its case, the Prosecution applied to adduce rebuttal evidence on the following issues:
[86] The Prosecution originally sought to call two chemists from the HSA for the purpose of giving evidence on the first issue:
The Prosecution also sought to tender two HSA certificates, showing that a chemical compound, 11-Nor-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol-9-carboxylic acid (“the chemical compound”), had been found in urine samples of the Accused taken on 9 April 2007 (see [35]) and submitted to the HSA for analysis on 10 April 2007. Ms Moy Hooi Yan had signed the certificate Lab No N2-2007-06554-002 and Ms Lim Cheng Min had signed Lab No N2-2007-06554-007. After the Prosecution had made its submissions on rebuttal evidence, however, Ms Moy and Ms Lim consulted with their supervisor and informed the Prosecution that they might not be the best people to comment on the existence of “cannabis ativa” which was relevant to the first issue. Thus, the Prosecution also applied for Ms Mangudi (see [24]) to give rebuttal evidence on the first issue.
[87] The Prosecution sought to recall ASP Soh to give evidence on the second issue.
[88] The Defence objected to the Prosecution’s application for several reasons. In respect of the rebuttal evidence on the first issue, Dr Yap and Ms Mangudi had already testified on the meaning of and common street names for cannabis in court and calling further witnesses from the HSA would not assist the court any further. Furthermore, the existence of the chemical compound in the Accused’s urine could not help the Prosecution prove the Accused’s knowledge of cannabis beyond reasonable doubt. According to the Defence, it was a great leap to conclude from the evidence pertaining to the urine samples that the Accused knew what cannabis is. Thirdly, the Accused had in his evidence stated that he did not know of cannabis, but only knew of “cannabis sativa”. Fourthly, the evidence was similar fact evidence and its probative value did not outweigh its prejudicial effect.
[89] In respect of rebuttal evidence on the second issue, the Defence submitted that the Prosecution should not be allowed to call ASP Soh for several reasons. First, ASP Soh had been present for part of the time when the Accused gave his evidence in court. Secondly, the Accused had given detailed testimony in his evidence and on cross-examination and the Prosecution could not claim any element of surprise. Thirdly, it was foreseeable to expect that the Accused’s version would be different from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Fourthly, evidence in rebuttal is not allowed to merely confirm the Prosecution’s case. The rebuttal evidence from ASP Soh would at most merely prove that he had showed and adequately explained the distinction between the two sets of vegetable matter to the Accused.
[90] I allowed the rebuttal evidence to be adduced. The key principle is that generally, leave will be granted to adduce rebuttal evidence where the adducing party has been taken by surprise: see Zainal bin Kuning & Ors v Chan Sin Mian [1996] 3 SLR 121 (“Zainal bin Kuning”), affirmed in PP v Bridges Christopher [1998] 1 SLR 162. This has also been framed as the principle that such evidence will be allowed only in the case of a matter arising ex improviso, ie one which the prosecution could not reasonably have foreseen: see PP v Bridges Christopher at [51].
[91] I accepted the Prosecution’s submissions that it had not been put to any of the prosecution witnesses that the Accused had no knowledge of the drug cannabis prior to his arrest. This position was only made clear by the Accused in his cross-examination and thus could not have been reasonably foreseen by the Prosecution. Although the Accused’s knowledge of cannabis would not of itself establish the charge against him, it was not immaterial to his credibility. Also, although the defence counsel had cross-examined ASP Soh about the addition of the words “in the master Bedroom of Blk 465 Choa Chu Kang Ave 4”, it had not been explicitly put to the prosecution witnesses (in particular ASP Soh) that the Accused had thought that the 14 blocks of vegetable matter referred to in the handwritten charge were the 14 blocks of vegetable matter from the black luggage bag in the taxi (which were the subject matter of the typewritten taxi trafficking charge).
[92] The Defence’s submissions in respect of the rebuttal evidence on the first issue could not stand. The Prosecution did not intend to call the rebuttal witnesses to testify on the meaning of and common street names for cannabis. Rather, evidence was to be given on the Accused’s urine samples and such evidence was clearly relevant to the question of whether the Accused knew what cannabis is. Another purpose of the rebuttal evidence was precisely to show that there is no such plant as “cannabis ativa”, contrary to the Accused’s claim. If such rebuttal evidence was upheld it would have a bearing on the Accused’s credibility. The evidence from the HSA chemists was being adduced to establish the Accused’s knowledge of cannabis and not directly prove his guilt for the trafficking offence and thus was not similar fact evidence at all.
[93] The Defence’s submissions in respect of rebuttal evidence on the second issue also could not stand. ASP Soh had left the court by the time the Accused gave his evidence on whether and why he thought that the handwritten charge pertained to the vegetable matter from the black luggage bag in the taxi. In any case, even if ASP Soh had remained in the courtroom when the relevant evidence was being given, that was not necessarily a ground for refusing to allow his evidence as the point that the Accused had thought that the handwritten charge pertained to the vegetable matter from the black luggage bag in the taxi was a new one. It was up to me to decide what weight to place on ASP Soh’s rebuttal evidence: see Mohamed Nor v Public Prosecutor [1939] 1 MLJ 305.
[94] Accordingly, I allowed the Prosecution’s application and the witnesses listed in [86] and [87] gave their evidence.
[95] Ms Moy had been working in HSA for six and a half years at the time of trial while Ms Lim had worked in the HSA since June 2003. They described their scope of work as supervising the analysis of controlled substances in urine. Both analysts stated that the detection of the chemical compound in urine was consistent with the consumption of cannabis. Ms Moy testified that the cannabis plant, which is cannabis sativa L., contains tetrahydrocannabinol (“THC”) and that consumption of cannabis sativa L. will give rise to the metabolite of THC, which is the chemical compound, in the urine. Ms Moy stated that THC is unique to cannabis sativa L. but there is also a synthetic form of THC known as “Marinol” which if consumed would also give rise to the chemical compound. However, she stated that Marinol is not available in Singapore (NE 1250).
[96] Ms Mangudi had a masters degree in analytical chemistry and had been working in HSA since 2000. She testified that cannabis sativa L. is the only species in the genus cannabis. She relied on a book, Terminology and Information on Drugs, published by the United Nations. (NE 1270) She had never heard of the term “cannabis ativa” (NE 1271).
[97] ASP Soh testified that when the photo-taking in the living room took place on the afternoon of 9 April 2007 (see [29]–[31]), he had told the Accused that photographs of the vegetable matter from the master bedroom would be taken first followed by the vegetable matter from the black luggage bag in the taxi (NE 1278). Both the vegetable matter from the master bedroom and the vegetable matter from the black luggage bag in the taxi were photographed and the Accused could see the photographs of all those blocks of vegetable matter being taken. (NE 1277)
[98] ASP Soh further stated that in the Exhibit Management Room, he had told the Accused that he (Soh) would start weighing the vegetable matter from the master bedroom, followed by the vegetable matter in the black luggage bag from the taxi. ASP Soh stated that he had used the brand name of the black luggage bag from the taxi, “Cellini”, when he told the Accused this (NE 1278-79).
[99] ASP Soh also stated that on 10 April 2007, he had explained the typewritten taxi trafficking charge to the Accused and recorded a cautioned statement from the Accused for that charge (NE 1281).
[100] He also stated that on 12 April 2007 he had shown the Accused printouts of digital photographs of the vegetable matter from the master bedroom and physical exhibits such as the UBS Warburg bag while recording P131 (NE 1282–84, 1286–90). The fact that he had shown these items to the Accused was recorded in P131 itself.
[101] Finally, he testified that when he recorded the cautioned statement on 13 April 2007, he had shown the Accused printouts of photographs of the vegetable matter from the master bedroom and explained to the Accused that the cautioned statement pertained to the vegetable matter found in the master bedroom (NE 1284–85).
The submissions
[102] The Defence submitted that there were material inconsistencies in the evidence from the CNB officers giving rise to reasonable doubt about the Prosecution’s case. First, none of the prosecution witnesses were able to state clearly or even approximately how many officers were deployed to arrest the Accused.
[103] Secondly, in relation to the arrest, one of the ID officers, Yeo Shuan Chew, had stated that the Accused was walking away at the time of the arrest (contradicting the evidence of other ID officers that he was seated in the taxi). Furthermore, SI Sea had stated that he saw the Accused resisting arrest when in fact at the time of his arrival at the carpark of Block 465 (see [7]), the Accused must already have been arrested and handcuffed. The Accused’s position was that in actual fact, he had not resisted arrest but was forcibly hauled out of the taxi and pushed to the ground resulting in a bruised left cheek.
[104] Thirdly, the CNB officers were unable to confirm whether handcuffs were used on both hands and feet, or only the hands of the Accused.
[105] The Defence submitted that the evidence of SI Sea and the other officers who had escorted the Accused to the flat, that the Accused had said (in response to SI Sea’s question) that he (the Accused) did not have the key to the master bedroom created the false impression that the Accused was refusing to cooperate with the CNB officers. The Defence stated that the reason why the Accused said then that he did not have the key to the master bedroom was because it had already been seized from him at the void deck of the flat and not because he was refusing to cooperate with the CNB officers.
[106] The Accused’s position was that Mdm Siti had in fact used one of the nine keys seized from the Accused to open the master bedroom.
[107] The Defence pointed out that Sgt Ee had not included his evidence that he had shown the vegetable matter from the master bedroom one block at a time to the Accused in his conditioned statement, although he had himself agreed during cross-examination that it was an important enough event to be included in his conditioned statement.
[108] The Defence submitted that when the Accused was escorted out to the kitchen by Sgt Vijay after the Accused had asked for water, Sgt Ee tampered with some of the evidence, namely, by breaking the lock on the Fila bag. It reiterated the Accused’s position that the Enzer box had been empty and that the UBS Warburg bag was kept on top of the Enzer box, and the Fila bag on top of the UBS Warburg bag.
[109] The Defence submitted that the lack of response from the Accused when he was shown the vegetable matter from the master bedroom was only because the blocks of vegetable matter were never in fact shown to him one block at a time. It further submitted that the Accused was not expected to make any response even if they had been shown to him.
[110] The Defence submitted that the small empty plastic packets, the yellow-coloured utensil, the weighing scale and the two rolls of yellow tape (see [13]) were circumstantial evidence that did not show the Accused’s involvement in drug trafficking. It maintained that, before such evidence could be relied upon, the Prosecution had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Accused was in possession of the paraphernalia.
[111] The Defence submitted that the evidence of SSgt Tay, ASP Soh and Sgt Yap as to the location where the Accused sat and the site of the photo-taking in the living room on 9 April 2007 was conflicting. In their respective markings (which they had made in court) on copies of a sketch plan of the living room, the three witnesses had indicated different positions of the Accused at or near a table in the living room and of the site where the items were placed for photo-taking. Furthermore, the Defence pointed out that none of the prosecution witnesses had stated that they had actually seen the Accused observing the photo-taking from where he had been seated in the living room.
[112] The Defence submitted that there was reasonable doubt as to whether the Accused knew what the contents of the blocks of vegetable matter from the master bedroom were even if they had been recovered from the master bedroom. It relied on SSgt Lim’s evidence that the vegetable matter had been double-wrapped with brown tape and plastic and SSgt Lim was not able to tell what was inside just by looking at the items.
[113] As for the recording of the Accused’s contemporaneous statements allegedly recorded by SSgt Tay in the master bedroom, the Defence submitted that there was reasonable doubt as to whether the recording of the contemporaneous statements had in fact taken place. The Accused’s position was that Signatures 2, 4, 6 and 8 on pp 18 to 20 of SSgt Tay’s pocket book were not his.

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

Public Prosecutor v Chijioke Stephen Obioha

Grounds of decision

Introduction

3

5

6

10

14

15

17

19

23

24

27

35

35

39

44

60

61

79

The arrest

The flat

Search in the master bedroom

Alleged recording of contemporaneous statements in the master bedroom

1300

I began recording a further statement from Steph Steven pertaining to the seized Drugs

Q10)

The blocks of ‘weed’ found

The items founds [sic] inside

(Signature 1) (Signature 2)

A10)

Belongs to ‘Florence’

Q11) A11)

What is inside the Bla ‘Enzer’ box ? and the ‘Fila’ bag?

A11)

Q12)

What do you intend to do with all these ‘Weed’?

A12)

The above statement was read back to accused in English

(Signature 3) (Signature 4)

(Signature 5) (Signature 6)

Accused was invited

1307

I asked him what do he meant by ‘weed’?

A13)

It mean ‘grass’

Q14)

Do you know ‘grass’ is illegal in Singapore?

A15)

(Signature 7) (Signature 8)

The photograph-taking in the living room

The weighing of vegetable matter in the Exhibit Management Room

Around midnight of 9 April 2007 to the early hours of 10 April 2007

The afternoon of 10 April 2007 (P130)

11 April 2007 (vegetable matter sent for HSA analysis)

Exhibit No

Amount of cannabis

A1A1

190.70 g

A1B1

86.95 g

A1C1

53.19 g

A1D1

2.01 g

A1E1

2.09 g

A2B1A

94.42 g

A2B2A1

197.80 g

A2A1A1

392.50 g

A2A1B1

415.70 g

A2A2A1

417.30 g

A2A3A1A

365.70 g

386.20 g 2,604.56 g