Public Prosecutor v Tang Hai Liang

Chan Seng Onn J:

[1] The accused, Tang Hai Liang, was charged that he:

[2] The facts surrounding the arrest of the accused, which were not challenged, were summarised in the Prosecution’s Closing Submissions:

[3] All 136 packets of white granular substance seized during the operation were sent to the Health Sciences Authority for analysis. Analyst Ms Lim Jong Lee Wendy (“Ms Lim”) testified that these, in total, were found to contain no less than 89.55 grams of diamorphine, ie, the amount disclosed in the charge. The breakdown was also set out in the Prosecution’s Closing Submissions:

[4] Further, during testing carried out at the Health Sciences Authority, several of the exhibits were found to contain the accused’s DNA. These included, in particular, the Ziploc bag containing Exhibit P162 (ie, the 20 packets found in the vacuum cleaner), the cooker hood grill that hid Exhibit P164 (ie, the 10 packets obtained from the cooker hood) and the paper bag which contained Exhibits P77 and P78 found in the air-conditioner. During trial, Dr Christopher K C Syn, a Senior Forensic Scientist with the Health Sciences Authority, also confirmed that the lack of DNA on the other exhibits was not conclusive that the accused had not been in contact with them.

[5] The accused elected not to give evidence. He did not call any witnesses. As mentioned, no serious challenge to the Prosecution’s evidence was mounted. At the close of the trial, there was hardly anything substantive by way of a defence stated by counsel for the accused in his closing submissions. I was given to understand that the manner in which counsel conducted the defence was limited by the accused’s instructions.

[6] At the conclusion of the trial, I was satisfied that the charge had been made out. I accordingly convicted the accused. I now give my reasons.

[7] The MDA provides:

[8] The drugs seized were analysed and found to contain not less than 85.99 grams of diamorphine, which is a Class A drug. The accuracy of Ms Lim’s findings was not challenged. The packets containing these drugs were found in the Flat. The keys to the Flat were found on the accused’s person. The accused had acknowledged that the drugs seized were his. His DNA was found on a number of the exhibits seized. In fact, when he was questioned by the CNB officers, he was able to direct them to the cooker hood where some of the packets of drugs were hidden. He had even estimated with accuracy the number of packets of drugs in the house before these were discovered, seized and counted by the CNB officers. There was no question that the accused was in possession of the packets of drugs seized. Pursuant to s 18(2) of the MDA, the presumption therefore arose that he knew the nature of the drug. In any event, the accused clearly knew the nature of the controlled drug he was in possession of. The accused had admitted that the packets contained heroin when questioned by the CNB officers.

[9] As the packets seized were found to contain far more than 2 grams of diamorphine, the presumption under s 17(c) of the MDA would also arise that the accused had the drug in his possession for the purposes of trafficking, which is defined in s 2 of the same Act:

Even in the absence of the presumption, I would find that the accused was trafficking in diamorphine within the meaning of s 2 of the MDA. In his cautioned statement, he admitted that he had been caught at the void deck together with his buyer. In his first long statement, he admitted that he had turned to selling heroin to support himself. In his first and second long statements he had admitted that the drugs found in the air-conditioner, cooker hood and vacuum cleaner were meant for sale. He had even given a detailed explanation as to how these served different functions in his drug supply chain and that he had some regular customers. The diamorphine seized that formed the charge was clearly meant for sale and not for the accused’s personal consumption or other purposes.

[10] As mentioned, the defence counsel did not raise any arguments in his closing submissions in relation to the merits of the charge. Nonetheless, two legal issues were alluded to in the course of proceedings that, for completeness and given the gravity of the charge, I ought to address.

[11] First, counsel for the accused made the suggestion that Insp Eugene Tan was not empowered to record the contemporaneous statement taken from the accused because CNB officers are not empowered to record statements. However, pursuant to s 32 of the MDA, in any case relating to the commission of an offence under the MDA, a CNB officer has all the powers of a police officer under the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) (“CPC”) in relation to an investigation into a seizable offence. This includes taking statements from the accused pursuant to s 121 of the CPC.

[12] Second, counsel for the accused suggested during the course of cross-examining Insp Aaron Tang that it was crucial that Insp Aaron Tang did not include in his own conditioned statement the weights of the exhibits that he recorded in his investigation diary. However, counsel did not go on to explain the significance. Insp Aaron Tang’s explanation that he had not included these weights because they were not as accurate as those put up in the Health Sciences Authority’s report was reasonable. In any event, during cross-examination, he provided the weights of the various exhibits that he had recorded in his investigation diary. Counsel did not highlight any particular aspect of Insp Aaron Tang’s evidence that ought to be given less weight as a result of his omission.

[13] On the evidence, I found that the Prosecution had proved the charge against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. I therefore convicted the accused and sentenced him to death in accordance with s 33 of the MDA read with the Second Schedule.