Public Prosecutor v Yen May Woen

[1] The accused, a female by the name of Yen May Woen, was charged with the offence of trafficking in a controlled drug specified in Class ‘A’ of the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) (“the Act”) on 8 May 2002 at or about 7.40pm in a taxi bearing registration number SHB 1851Z near a taxi-stand at Blk 179 Toa Payoh Central, Singapore by having in her possession for the purpose of trafficking not less than 30.16 g of diamorphine without any authorisation under the Act or regulations made thereunder. The alleged offence was under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the Act. It is a capital offence. At the time of the alleged offence, the accused was 35 years of age.

[2] On 8 May 2002, officers from the Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) proceeded to Blk 179 Toa Payoh Central to look out for a female Chinese known as Yen May Woen at a taxi stand near Blk 179. They had a photocopy of a photograph of Ms Yen.

[3] At about 7.35pm, a white Mercedes Benz taxi SHB 1851Z (‘the Taxi’) stopped along Toa Payoh Central about 50 m from the taxi stand. A female Chinese was seen alighting from the Taxi and identified by Senior Staff Sergeant (“SSSgt”) Tan Yian Chye (PW 11) as Yen May Woen, the accused. There was no dispute about the identity of the person identified by him.

[4] SSSgt Tan saw the accused place a black briefcase into the boot of the Taxi and close the boot. The black brief case was also described during the trial as a black sling bag and I will henceforth refer to it as “the sling bag”. The accused then walked towards the taxi stand while the Taxi remained where it was with hazard lights on. A short while later, the accused met up with a male Chinese near the taxi stand. The male Chinese and the accused were then arrested.

[5] After the arrest, Woman Sergeant (“W/Sgt”) Tan Poh Hoon handed to SSSgt Tan a packet containing a cyrstallised substance. She told SSSgt Tan that the accused had thrown away the packet during the arrest. W/Sgt Tan also handed to SSSgt Tan various items including cash of $300 and a cash cheque.

[6] The taxi driver Ke Hock Seng was also arrested. SSSgt Tan then escorted the accused to the boot of the Taxi which was opened by Ke. SSSgt Tan saw the sling bag in the boot of the Taxi and posed some questions in Hokkien to the accused. The English version of his questions and answers were:

[7] SSSgt Tan summarised the answers in his pocket book in the morning of the next day ie 9 May 2002 by stating:

[8] SSSgt Tan denied that the accused had said that the sling bag was hers and she had lent it to her friend who had returned it to her. He also denied that the accused had said there was nothing inside the sling bag.

[9] Sergeant (“Sgt”) Ler Puay Soon (PW 12) said he was present when SSSgt Tan posed questions to the accused. His evidence was the same as the evidence of SSSgt Tan (para 6 of Sgt Ler’s statement at PS 13, NE 95 to 97, 99). Sgt Ler had recorded the arrest and what the accused had said in his pocket book the next day ie 9 May 2002 (NE 98 and 99). Although at one stage during cross-examination he agreed that the accused had said that she had lent the bag to a friend who returned it to her (NE 102), he said during re-examination that he had made a mistake and he did not hear the accused say this (NE 105, 106 and 107).

[10] W/Sgt Tan Poh Hoon (PW 13) said she was also present when SSSgt Tan posed questions to the accused. Her evidence was also the same as SSSgt Tan’s evidence (para 6 of her statement at PS 14, NE 111, 116). She had recorded the arrest and what the accused had said in her pocket book at about 11am of the next day ie 9 May 2002 (NE 113). She also said that during the arrest, she spotted the accused throwing a packet of crystallised substance onto the ground (PS 14 para 5). She instructed Corporal (“Cpl”) Mak Weng Chuen (PW 14) to pick it up which he did and handed to her. W/Sgt Tan also seized various items from the accused which she then handed to SSSgt Tan. The items seized included cash of $300 and a cash cheque.

[11] Cpl Mak’s evidence was that he was told by W/Sgt Tan to pick up a packet of crystallised substance on the ground which he did and he handed it to her (PS 15 para 5).

[12] His evidence about what the accused had told SSSgt Tan (para 5 of his statement at PS 15, NE 123, 127) was the same as SSSgt Tan’s evidence. Cpl Mak had recorded the events mentioned in his statement in his pocket book at about 9.05pm of the same day ie 8 May 2002 (NE 125).

[13] Station Inspector (“SI”) See Su Khoon also known as Ronnie See (PW 19) arrived at Toa Payoh Central in front of Blk 179 at about 8pm of 8 May 2002. He saw the accused who was handcuffed. The boot of the Taxi was open and he saw the sling bag in it. SSSgt Tan informed him about the accused’s arrest and that during the arrest the accused was seen throwing away a sachet of crystalline substance suspected to be “Ice”. SSSgt Tan also handed over various items seized from the accused including cash of $300 and a POSB cash cheque of $3,700.

[14] SI See then retrieved the sling bag from the boot of the Taxi and handed it to Woman Corporal (“W/Cpl”) Tay Sie Siz. He then instructed Sergeant Nicholas Neo to drive a CNB staff car, with the accused and W/Cpl Tay inside, and follow the Taxi. He then instructed the driver of the Taxi to drive it into a car park at Blk 178 Toa Payoh Central. He sat beside the driver of the Taxi.

[15] In the car park, SI See seized a paper bag from the rear seat of the Taxi. Also, W/Cpl Tay informed him that she had found a red packet containing nine sachets of crystalline substance suspected to be “Ice” and six “Erimin 5” tablets in a black handbag belonging to the accused. W/Cpl Tay handed the items to him.

[16] At the car park, SI See informed the accused that he was going to record a statement from her and asked her what language she would like to use. The accused said Hokkien. The English version of the questions and answers, according to SI See (see NE 302 to 303), were:

[17] At this juncture, SI See opened the sling bag and in the centre compartment, there was a red plastic bag containing what he described as two “envelopes”. The items were actually two paper bags and were brown in colour. He then opened them and counted the items in the presence of the accused. In each of the two paper bags were 30 sachets of heroin (P6, P7 and P8).

[18] In the back compartment inside the sling bag, there were:

[19] In order to count the items, SI See said he stepped out of the car, opened the paper bags and poured the items onto the car seat (NE 176). SI See continued with his questions:

SI See then read the statements and explained them to the accused in the Hokkien dialect and she was invited to make any correction, alteration or amendment but she declined to do so. She was then invited to sign. When the accused was asked to sign on his pocket book, she scribbled on it. W/Cpl Tay then signed on SI See’s pocket book.

[20] Thereafter, SI See left with W/Cpl Tay and the accused in the CNB staff car for CNB headquarters. There he instructed W/Cpl Tay to further search the handbag of the accused. W/Cpl Tay did so and handed to SI See various items:

[21] SI See denied that he had told the accused that the sling bag was hers. He also denied that when the accused was asked whether anything was inside the sling bag, she had said, “Nothing” (NE 180). He also denied that he had opened the sling bag, pointed to the contents inside and asked the accused whether the contents were hers (NE 182). He also disagreed that he took out one item only from the sling bag and stressed that he had counted all the sachets therein in the presence of the accused (NE 184 to 185). He denied that he had asked the accused to sign on his pocket book without explaining to her what he had written and that she was not asked to make any correction, alteration or amendment (NE 185). He further refuted the suggestion that the accused did not tell him that the contents in the sling bag was “peh hoon” which is the Hokkien street jargon for heroin (NE 185 and 173). The literal translation is “white powder”. I would add that “heroin” is the common name by which diamorphine is called. SI See disagreed that the questions recorded in the English transliteration of Hokkien in his pocket book had not been asked or that the answers, as recorded, had not been given (NE 185 and 186).

[22] W/Cpl Tay was seated beside the accused in the CNB staff car when it was driven to the car park of Blk 178 Toa Payoh Central and when SI See joined them in the car, at the car park. Her evidence as to what she had found in the accused’s black handbag and the questions and answers between SI See and the accused (see her statement at PS 21 and NE 200 to 202) were the same as SI See’s. W/Cpl Tay also signed on the pocket book of SI See but did not read it before signing it. Her evidence on the questions and answers were based on her memory (see NE 201 to 202 again). She also said that SI See had taken bundles out of the sling bag and poured out the sachets therein onto the car seat and counted them in the presence of the accused (NE 204 to 205, 208).

[23] Woman Assistant Superintendent (“W/ASP”) Neo Ling Sim (PW 25) said she posed questions to the accused at about 10.10pm of 8 May 2002. At that time W/ASP Neo was holding the rank of Inspector. She had asked the accused whether she understood English and she nodded. The questions and answers which she recorded in her field book were:

Thereafter, the questions and answers were read back to the accused in English and the accused confirmed they were true and correct. The accused also signed beneath the questions and answers and wrote down her identity card number.

[24] At about 3.40am on the next day, W/ASP Neo read a type-written charge under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the Act in English to the accused. This was interpreted in Hokkien by an interpreter Mr Wu Nan Yong. The accused then signed at the bottom of this charge.

[25] W/ASP Neo then wrote the same charge on a piece of paper and read it to the accused in English. Again Mr Wu interpreted it in Hokkien to the accused. The accused signed below this charge.

[26] Thereafter W/ASP Neo wrote out the Notice of Warning under s 122(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code. She read it in English and Mr Wu interpreted it in Hokkien to the accused. The accused signed below the Notice of Warning.

[27] At about 4am, W/ASP Neo served the duplicate copy of the hand-written charge and Notice of Warning to the accused. At about 4.02am, the accused volunteered a statement in Hokkien. Mr Wu interpreted it into English and ASP Neo recorded it. The accused’s statement was:

[28] Mr Wu corroborated W/ASP Neo’s evidence regarding his presence and interpretation.

[29] W/ASP Neo also explained that she caused various items to be marked and photographed. The 120 sachets were marked as:

Both the brown paper bags were found in a red plastic bag marked as B.

[30] Dr Lui Chi Pang (PW 17) analysed the contents of B1A, B2A, C1 and D1A, in addition to other items. His findings were:

The aggregate weight of the granular substance from the 120 sachets was therefore 883.8 g. The aggregate diamorphine content was not less than 30.16 g which was the subject of the charge.

[31] The accused was the only witness for the defence.

[32] In her oral testimony, she said she was working part time as a hairdresser and part-time as a receptionist before her arrest. Initially she said that she earned less than $1,000 a month and then she said she earned between $1,200 to $1,500 per month. She said she did not complete secondary one education but then said she did complete secondary one but not secondary two.

[33] She said that on 8 May 2002, a person by the name of “Ah Chwee” (or spelt “Ah Chui”) had telephoned her. Ah Chwee is also known as “Jack”. She was asleep and said she would call him back. When she awoke, she called him and he said that he wanted to borrow $4,000. She hesitated but decided to lend him the money. Before the conversation ended, she reminded him to return the sling bag she had lent him. This was the sling bag in which drugs was found. However in cross-examination, she said she had left the sling bag behind at a Nasi Lemak stall in Lorong Ah Soo when she was with Ah Chwee and a group of friends in late April 2002. She then telephoned Ah Chwee to ask him to keep the bag for her. When the inconsistency was pointed out to her, she said that thereafter, he had asked and she had agreed to lend the sling bag to him.

[34] The accused claimed that she was asked by Ah Chwee on 8 May 2002 to go to Thomson Plaza to hand him the money he wanted to borrow. When she reached there, she could not see him and went to look for him. Thereafter, she saw him in a car with a male passenger beside him. She opened the rear left door and handed the cash to him. She noticed the sling bag at the back of the car and took it.

[35] She claimed that all along she did not know there were drugs inside the sling bag. When she took it, she did not pay attention whether it felt heavy or not.

[36] The accused’s evidence was that after she was arrested, a man took the sling bag from the boot of the Taxi and asked her whether the sling bag was hers. The accused said she replied it was and had told the man that a friend had borrowed it from her and returned it to her. The man then asked the accused whether there was anything in the sling bag and she said, “Nothing”. Subsequently, she was asked to get into a car with a girl and sent to a car park. At the car park, a male officer came into the car. He took the sling bag and asked her whether it belonged to her. She said ,“Yes”. He then asked her whether anything was inside and she said, “Nothing”. The officer then opened the sling bag and took out a packet and she saw that it contained heroin. The officer also asked her whether the packet belonged to her and she said, “No”. He then put the packet back (into the sling bag). She said she was asked to sign something. She did so but no explanation was given to her.

[37] Unfortunately for the accused, her testimony that she did not know what was inside the sling bag was inconsistent with what she had told various CNB officers including her statement after she was charged (see paras 6,16, 19, 23 and 27 above).

[38] Moreover, it was also inconsistent with a long statement she had given on five separate occasions between 10 May 2002 and 21 August 2002 (Exhibit P80A to E) during investigations. I set out below those parts of her long statement which contradicted her oral testimony:

[39] When the accused was asked to explain the contradictions, the accused said that when she was arrested, she truly did not know the sling bag contained heroin. When she realised there was so much heroin, she was very frightened and at a loss. If she said the heroin did not belong to her, she would not be believed. As she had given a loan of $4,000 to Ah Chwee she admitted that 20 to 30 sachets out of the 120 sachets belonged to her. She thought that by admitting to these sachets, she would escape the death penalty. She never expected the accusation that the 120 sachets belonged to her. She also claimed that another reason for her untrue assertions was because the interpreter, Mr Wu, had been passing snide remarks at her although she did not make any such allegation about the Investigating Officer, W/ASP Neo. The accused claimed that she only came to know there were so many sachets in the sling bag when she arrived at the CNB office at Cantonment Road.

[40] She also said that as she had not been taking heroin for the few days before her arrest, she felt lousy.

[41] As for the cash of $12,570 (comprising the $300 and $12,270 referred to in paras 13 and 20 above) found in the accused’s possession, she said that she would ask for money from her mother from time to time. She thought it was not safe to leave money in the rented flat where she was staying with a friend. She did not want to put it in a bank as she was afraid that her mother or younger brother would check her bank account. Most of her bank accounts were joint accounts. When asked why she was carrying so much money around, she said she was intending to buy a car.

[42] Ms Goh Siok Leng, Counsel for the defence, accepted that there was a presumption, under s 17 of the Act, that the accused was in possession of the drugs for the purpose of trafficking. She submitted that this presumption could be rebutted on a balance of probabilities, citing Lu Lai Heng v PP [1994] 2 SLR 251.

[43] She submitted that as the accused was merely collecting the sling bag from Ah Chwee, there was no reason for her to suspect that there may be drugs in it. She relied on the accused’s evidence that the accused had said nothing was in the sling bag when she was questioned. When a packet from the sling bag was shown to the accused and she was asked whether it was hers, the accused had replied it was not. As for the accused’ scribble of a signature in the pocket book of SI See, the accused had said the contents were not explained to her. W/Cpl Tay Sie Siz also did not read the pocket book of SI See when she signed it. Accordingly, her testimony could not be relied upon regarding whether the statement recorded by SI See was accurate.

[44] As for the statements made by the accused to W/ASP Neo Ling Sim at CNB’s office at Cantonment Road, the accused had said certain things in a mixture of English and Hokkien and did not understand English well.

[45] Ms Goh summarised the accused’s evidence as follows:

Ms Goh submitted that it was not put to the accused that such evidence was untrue.

[46] As for the accused’s cautioned statements and her long statement given over five occasions, Ms Goh relied on the accused’s explanation as to how she was frightened and thought that she would not be believed if she asserted that all the drugs did not belong to her.

[47] Ms Goh cited Somwang Phattanasaeng v PP [1992] 1 SLR 850 for the proposition that:

[48] Ms Goh also cited PP v Hla Win [1995] 2 SLR 424 for the proposition that:

[49] Ms Goh further submitted that there was a break in the chain of evidence relying on various cases. I quote from her written submissions:

[50] Mr Benjamin Yim for the prosecution relied on Warner v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969] 2 AC 256 for the proposition that ignorance simpliciter was not enough. In that case, the charge was under the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse Act) Act 1964 and the House of Lords had to consider the meaning of “possession” under that legislation. At p 305 to 306, Lord Parker said:

[51] Mr Yim submitted that the accused knew about the drugs in the sling bag because:

[52] As for apportionment, Mr Yim submitted that since the accused was not taking the position that some of the heroin was for her own consumption, there was no need to engage in an exercise to identify which part of the heroin was for the accused’s consumption and which was not.

[53] As regards the self-confessed lies of the accused in a long statement, Mr Yim submitted that they amounted to corroboration of her guilt citing PP v Yeo Choon Poh [1994] 2 SLR 867 which adopted the criteria in R v Lucas (Ruth) [1981] QB 720, namely:

[54] Mr Yim also relied on the failure of the Defence to put various matters to the prosecution witnesses, relying on Browne v Dunn [1894] 6R 67. He also relied on Browne v Dunn in response to Ms Goh’s submission about a break in the chain of evidence meaning that at no time did Ms Goh make any suggestion to any of the witnesses for the prosecution about the sling bag or that the drugs which were analysed were not in fact the drugs seized from the accused.

[55] The presumption under s 17 of the Act arose only if the prosecution had established that the accused was in possession of the heroin that was analysed. If there was a doubt as to whether the heroin analysed was the same as the drugs that were seized from the accused, then the prosecution would not have proved its case.

[56] In Teoh Hoe Chye v PP [1987] 1 MLJ 220, the Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court of Penang and concluded that there was a serious break in the chain of evidence relating to the identity of the exhibits. In doing so, the Supreme Court posed various questions as reflected in Ms Goh’s submission. It then cited the decision of the Federal Court in Su Ah Ping v PP [1980] 1 MLJ 75 to state that the law is clear in that “it is unnecessary to call evidence to ensure there is no break in the chain of evidence”. However, it went on to say that where a doubt as to the identity of an exhibit arose, a failure to adduce evidence to provide the necessary link in the chain of evidence would be fatal to the prosecution case.

[57] In Abdul Rashid v PP [1994] 1 SLR 119, Chief Justice Yong Pung How, delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal said (at p 127 of the report) that the prosecution bore the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the package seized by CNB officers from the first appellant’s car was the substance eventually analysed. He also said that where there was a break in the chain of possession and a doubt arose as to the identity of the exhibits, then the prosecution had not discharged its burden, citing Su’s case and Teoh’s case.

[58] However, in Lai Kam Loy & Others v PP [1994] 1 SLR 787, Yong CJ elaborated (at p 796 of the report):

[59] In Satli bin Masot v PP [1999] 2 SLR 637, Yong CJ, again delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal, said:

[60] I would add that the principle that there must be a doubt as to the identity of the exhibit refers to a reasonable doubt. This is consistent with the burden on the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. As was demonstrated in Satli’s case, the mere fact that questions may be posed unanswered does not necessarily mean that a reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case has arisen.

[61] Coming now to Ms Goh’s submission on a break in the chain of evidence, I did not agree that no evidence had been adduced to show what W/Cpl Tay Sie Siz did with the sling bag after it was handed over to her by SI See. In my view, Ms Goh had referred to para 4 of W/Cpl Tay’s statement in isolation. I will now refer to that para 4 and other evidence on this point.

[62] Paragraph 4 of W/Cpl Tay’s statement stated that at about 8pm (of 8 May 2002), W/Cpl Tay was instructed to take over custody of the accused. SI See then handed over to W/Cpl Tay the sling bag and instructed her to escort the accused into the CNB staff car, SCV 7312C.

[63] Paragraph 5 stated that at about 8.15pm, Sgt Nicholas Neo drove the CNB staff car, with the accused and W/Cpl Tay inside, to a car park at Blk 178 Toa Payoh Central.

[64] Paragraph 6 stated that when they reached the car park, SI See came into the staff car and instructed W/Cpl Tay to search through the accused’s handbag and upon doing so, W/Cpl Tay found some other drugs which she handed to SI See.

[65] Coming now to SI See’s statement, para 10 thereof stated clearly that at about 8.20pm at the car park he was inside the CNB staff car and after asking the accused some questions, he opened the sling bag and counted the sachet of drugs in the presence of the accused.

[66] Therefore, all W/Cpl Tay was saying in her para 4 was that she received the sling bag from SI See before she and the accused were driven to the car park at Blk 178. It is clear from the statement and oral evidence of SI See, and also from the oral evidence of W/Cpl Tay as well, that when W/Cpl Tay and the accused were in the CNB staff car at the car park, SI See came into the CNB staff car, asked questions of the accused, opened the sling bag, opened various bags found inside the sling bag, poured out the sachets inside and counted them in the presence of the accused.

[67] On another point, paras 39 and 40 of Ms Goh’s submission asserted that when the accused said that, “They then took away my belonging, including my handbag and the black bag” this meant that the sling bag (which was black in colour) was taken away from the CNB staff car. To me, this was a quantum leap. Just because the sling bag was taken away from the accused did not mean that it was no longer in the CNB staff car and no longer in the possession of SI See or W/Cpl Tay.

[68] From para 11 of SI See’s statement and para 7 of W/Cpl Tay’s statement, it is clear that SI See, W/Cpl Tay and the accused left the car park together in the CNB staff car and arrived at CNB headquarters (at Cantonment Road). While it is true that there was no specific mention as to who was holding the sling bag then, or whether it was in the boot of the car, this did not, in my view, raise any reasonable doubt as to the identity of the drugs analysed.

[69] Furthermore, although it is true that SI See did not specifically say in his statement or oral evidence that he handed the sling bag to W/ASP Neo Ling Sim upon arrival at CNB’s office and she also did not specifically say so, SI See did identify the sling bag which was exhibit P44 as the one he was referring to in his statement (NE 165). Likewise, SSSgt Tan Yian Chye identified P44 as the sling bag which he saw in the boot of the Taxi (NE 71 and 72). Neither of these witnesses were challenged on this aspect of their evidence.

[70] In addition, the accused herself identified P44 as the sling bag she had purportedly lent to Ah Chwee and took back from him, and P4 as the photo of the sling bag (NE 355).

[71] It seemed to me that it was not so much the identification of the sling bag which was in question but rather whether the break in the chain of evidence regarding the sling bag affected the identification of the drugs which were eventually analysed. Indeed, that is how Ms Goh summarised her argument in her oral closing submission (NE 436). In other words, was there a break in the chain of evidence which would raise a reasonable doubt as to whether the drugs analysed were the same as the drugs seized from the sling bag?

[72] On this point, I have to refer again to SI See’s statement in some detail.

[73] Paragraph 4 of SI See’s statement stated that SSSgt Tan had informed him that during the arrest the accused was seen throwing (away) a sachet of crystalline substance suspected to be ‘ICE’. It implied that this was handed to SI See as the rest of para 4 said “SSSgt Tan also handed over to me 6 items which were listed in the said paragraph 4”. [Emphasis added]

[74] Paragraph 9 of his statement stated that W/Cpl Tay had informed him that she had found a red packet containing nine sachets of crystalline substance suspected to be “ICE” and six “Erimin 5” tablets in the accused’s handbag and handed them to him.

[75] Paragraph 10 mentioned how SI See opened the sling bag and counted 120 sachets containing a yellow granular substance suspected to be heroin in the presence of the accused.

[76] Paragraph 12 stated that SI See instructed W/Cpl Tay to further search the accused’s handbag and W/Cpl Tay found and handed to SI See the following:

[77] Paragraph 13 of his statement stated:

At about 10.05 pm I briefed the Investigating Officer, Woman Assistant (W/ASP) Neo Ling Sim about the case and handed the drug exhibits over to her …. [Emphasis added]

[78] Paragraph 14 stated that at about 11.15pm, W/ASP Neo directed photographs of the Taxi and the drug exhibits to be taken in the presence of the accused. During the photographing, the sling bag was found to contain seven other exhibits.

[79] Paragraph 15 stated that on 9 May 2002 at about 1.10am, together with W/Cpl Tay, SI See “handed over the rest of the exhibits to W/ASP Neo Ling Sim”.

[80] It was clear to me that para 15 was not referring to the drug exhibits because the handing over of drug exhibits by SI See to W/ASP Neo was already stated in para 13. It was also clear to me that the “drug exhibits” mentioned in para 13 were those already mentioned in all the earlier paragraphs i.e paras 4, 9, 10 and 12 of SI See’s statement. The words “drug exhibits” were not confined only to the drug exhibits stated in para 12 of SI See’s statement. The use of the words “drug exhibits” was to obviate the need to itemise the drugs mentioned in the earlier four paragraphs all over again in para 13 although, with the benefit of hind-sight, they should have been itemised all over again in that paragraph. Also, this was not a situation where the prosecution had failed to call a witness. SI See was a witness. So was W/ASP Neo. At no time did Ms Goh suggest to SI See or W/ASP Neo that the drugs analysed were different from those found in the sling bag.

[81] In summary, while SI See omitted to mention specifically that he had handed over the sling bag to W/ASP Neo, he did not omit to mention that he had handed the drugs to her and, in stating this, he meant all the drugs mentioned in his statement.

[82] Paragraph 3 of W/ASP Neo’s statement stated that at about 10.05pm (of 8 May 2002), SI See briefed her on the facts of the case and handed over the drug exhibits to her. Although she too did not itemise the drug exhibits in her para 3, she corroborated SI See’s statement that he did hand over drugs to her at about 10.05pm. As I have said, I was satisfied that “drug exhibits” in his para 13 included the 120 sachets found in the sling bag.

[83] I noted also that in para 5 of W/ASP Neo’s statement, she said that she directed a photographer to take a photo of the sling bag marked as “A” and she took out the contents of “A” and marked them. From the sling bag:

[84] I have already said that when SI See handed “the drug exhibits” to W/ASP Neo, “the drug exhibits” included the 120 sachets in the sling bag. In my view, the 120 sachets were handed over by SI See to W/ASP Neo in the sling bag, although there was some doubt as to whether the sling bag, with the 120 sachets, was with SI See or W/Cpl Tay, or in the boot of the CNB staff car, as they brought the accused to the CNB office at Cantonment Road.

[85] As there was no suggestion of any further breaks in the chain of evidence at any other time, I had no reasonable doubt that the drugs from the 120 sachets analysed by Dr Lui Chi Pang were those found in the sling bag.

[86] Coming now to the accused’s oral testimony that she did not know there was heroin in the sling bag, it was obvious that portions of her long statement contradicted her oral testimony. I did not accept the accused’s evidence that those portions were untrue in the sense that she was truly ignorant of the existence of the heroin in the sling bag. In my view, they were untrue in a different sense i.e that she knew both about the existence of the heroin and the quantity thereof. If she was truly ignorant of the existence of the heroin, she would have expressed alarm as soon as she learned about its existence. She never did. Instead she claimed in her long statement that she had ordered only 20 to 30 sachets of heroin. I accept that this was a calculated move by her in an attempt to avoid the death penalty but not for the reason she had given i.e that she thought she would not be believed if she had said she was ignorant about the contents in the sling bag.

[87] I did not accept the accused’s evidence that she made the long statement while she was tired, because she had not taken heroin for a few days before her arrest, as a sufficient explanation for the contradiction. Even if she was tired, she had the presence of mind to throw away a sachet of drugs when she was arrested. Besides, the five occasions when she gave her long statement was on 10 May 2002, 17 May 2002 (twice), 20 May 2002 and 21 August 2002. By 21 August 2002, when she said that Mat Din was not aware that she had gone to collect the heroin from Jack (Ah Chwee), she would not have been still suffering tiredness from not taking drugs.

88. I was also of the view that the accused’s reference to snide remarks having been made by the interpreter was untrue and a red herring. She was not able to explain how the snide remarks had caused her to make untrue statements.

[89] The long statement of the accused also corroborated what she had told officers like SSSgt Tan Yian Chye and SI See (see paras 6 and 16 above) in that she knew there was heroin in the sling bag. Their evidence was corroborated by other CNB officers and I accept their evidence. All these statements of the accused belied her oral testimony.

[90] In any event, the case before me was not one where, apart from the positive assertions in the statements of the accused, there was no evidence to contradict the accused’s allegation of ignorance.

[91] First, if only the sling bag was being returned to the accused, then it should have been empty. When she took the sling bag she could not have failed to note that it was not empty. According to Dr Lui’s findings, the weight of the granular substance from the 120 sachets totalled 883.8 g which is about 31 pounds. This was also not a case where the accused had thought that the contents of the sling bag were something else.

[92] Secondly, surely Ah Chwee must have known that the accused was taking the sling bag from his car on that fateful day. If she was not supposed to take the drugs, he would have stopped her or at least have told her that there were drugs inside the sling bag and told her what to do with them or ask for their return. In other words, Ah Chwee would not have remained silent.

[93] Thirdly, the accused never expressed any surprise at the existence of drugs in the sling bag when she purportedly learned about the existence thereof. Her purported surprise when she gave a statement after she was charged was directed at the quantity of heroin in the sling bag and not at the very presence of heroin.

[94] Fourthly, she also could not explain why, if she was ignorant of the drugs in the sling bag, she did not mention Ah Chwee’s name or his telephone number to any of the CNB officers at the material time except to say that she was in a daze and sleepy. Up till the time of her oral evidence during the trial, she still had not provided his telephone number, even though she had claimed that she had called him back on 8 May 2002 after she awoke from her sleep.

[95] Fifthly, I did not accept the accused’s evidence as to how she used to get money from her mother. She failed to call her mother to testify on her behalf. I also did not accept that the cash of $12,570 found on her was entirely her own money and that she had carried it around partly because she was afraid to leave it in a flat she rented, partly because she did not want to put it in a bank account because of inquiries by her mother and younger brother and partly because she was thinking of buying a car. The money could have easily been kept in a bank in her sole name without disclosing it to her mother and younger brother, who, in any event, did not give evidence on her behalf. The reason about buying a car came later and did not adequately explain why she should walk around with such a large sum of money when she had not even actually decided to buy a car. In my view, most, if not all, the cash was drug money to purchase heroin and/or was from the sale of heroin.

[96] I was also satisfied that although the prosecution should have put its case to the accused in a more comprehensive manner, without being verbose, it had nevertheless put the crux of its case to the accused which was that at all material times on 8 May 2002, the accused knew the sling bag contained 120 sachets of heroin and these were for the purpose of trafficking.

[97] In the circumstances, I was of the view that the accused had failed to discharge the presumption under s 17.

[98] As regards the point whether an accused’s previous statements should be restricted to impeaching his credit alone, this point is not relevant to the facts before me. If, as I have found, the oral testimony of the accused before me was not credible, whether because of her statements and/or other evidence, then she would have failed to discharge the presumption against her. There was no need to go on and consider whether her statements or her lies from her oral testimony would also corroborate other evidence to establish that she was in fact trafficking in drugs.

[99] However, as Ms Goh had relied on a passage from the case of Somwang for the proposition that an accused’s previous statements should be restricted to impeaching his credit alone, and not as substantive evidence of the content thereof, I should mention that in Ukthunthod v PP [1994] 1 SLR 225, L P Thean JA said that that passage from Somwang was orbiter dictum and, secondly, that s 147(3) of the Evidence Act was not cited to and considered in Somwang. Section 147(3) states:

[100] As the accused had failed to discharge the presumption, I found her guilty, convicted her and sentenced her according to the law.