PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v LIANG SHOON YEE

Facts

Liang Shoon Yee, a 35-year-old Malaysian national, claimed trial in Criminal Case No 8 of 2023 to a single charge of trafficking under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The charge alleged that on 15 October 2019, in room 701 of Equarius Hotel at Resorts World Sentosa, he possessed for the purpose of trafficking 20 packets containing not less than 327.74 grams of methamphetamine.

The accused had been supplying drugs to Tenzin, who on 13 October 2019 ordered 250 grams of methamphetamine for $4,900, subject to sampling its quality. The two checked into Room 701 on 14 October 2019. After smoking a sample, Tenzin rejected the batch, saying it gave him a headache. The next evening Tenzin sold ecstasy and Erimin-5 tablets to an undercover Central Narcotics Bureau officer at Vivocity, and both men were arrested. The 20 packets were found in the accused's black duffel bag in the hotel room.

The accused accepted that he knew he possessed the 20 packets, so the presumption of trafficking under s 17(h) applied and he had to rebut it on a balance of probabilities. He relied on three defences: that he held the two rejected packets only to return them to his supplier; that some packets were for his own consumption; and that others formed his personal collection of methamphetamine crystals. He also argued that a small packet was only a sample for a man known as Bob Smiley.

Issues

1. Whether the accused could rebut the presumption of trafficking for the two packets rejected by Tenzin on the basis that he held them only to return them to his supplier.
2. Whether some of the packets were held for the accused's own consumption.
3. Whether some of the packets were held as part of a personal collection rather than for sale.
4. Whether the small packet given as a sample to Bob Smiley was held for trafficking.

Holding

The High Court found that the accused had rebutted the presumption only for three exhibits, containing 58.64 grams of methamphetamine, which were for his own consumption. It found that 269.1 grams of methamphetamine were in his possession for the purpose of trafficking. Under s 128 of the Criminal Procedure Code it altered the charge to trafficking in fifteen packets containing not less than 269.1 grams of methamphetamine, and framed a new charge of possession under s 8(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act for the 58.64 grams. It ordered that the parties would next be heard on the altered charge, the new charge and the other charges originally brought.

Reasoning

On the bailment argument, the court explained that Ramesh a/l Perumal v Public Prosecutor and another appeal [2019] 1 SLR 1003 protects a person who merely holds drugs to return them to the depositor, and that the key inquiry, per Roshdi bin Abdullah Altway v Public Prosecutor and another matter [2022] 1 SLR 535, is whether the holder knew or intended the arrangement to be part of supply or distribution. The accused had collected the two packets from his supplier to fill Tenzin's order, as he admitted, and only arranged their return after Tenzin rejected them. A frustrated sale did not attract the defence, so those packets, containing 163.1 grams, were held for trafficking.

On consumption, the rate of consumption is the foundation of the defence. The accused's accounts rose about ten-fold after 2020, and his explanation that he had under-reported to qualify for a low-risk rehabilitation programme was rejected. A doctor who examined him three days after arrest found no withdrawal symptoms, which was consistent with use of less than 0.5 gram a day. Although he could afford the drugs, his ready access to supply meant there was no need to stockpile so much. It accepted that two exhibits he had identified as his own early on, and the near-empty remains of a sample, were for consumption. It rejected the claim for a packet he had labelled with its weight and for exhibits he claimed only in 2020.

The collection defence failed: the accused gave scant detail of it, first raised it in June 2021, could not explain what made crystals worth collecting, and had said buyers wanted larger crystals. His lies about ownership of the drugs were not treated as Lucas lies, since he may have lied to distance himself from the drugs altogether, but they damaged his credibility.

On the sample, the accused admitted it was taken from a packet meant for sale and given to Bob Smiley, which was delivery and so trafficking.

From the judgment