Case Details
- Citation: [2022] SGHC 199
- Title: Public Prosecutor v Lee Zheng Da Eddie and another
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore (General Division)
- Criminal Case No: Criminal Case No 52 of 2021
- Date of Decision: 24 August 2022
- Judges: Ang Cheng Hock J
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Public Prosecutor
- Defendant/Respondent: (1) Eddie Lee Zheng Da Eddie (“Lee”) (2) Yap Peng Keong, Darren (“Yap”)
- Legal Area: Criminal Law — Statutory offences (Misuse of Drugs Act)
- Statutes Referenced: Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”); Criminal Procedure Code; First Schedule to the MDA
- Key Charges: Trafficking in a Class ‘A’ controlled drug (diamorphine/heroin) under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) and punishable under s 33(1) of the MDA; alternative liability under s 33B of the MDA
- Trial Structure: Joint trial before the High Court
- Hearing Dates: 6, 7, 12, 13, 19–21 October, 1 November 2021; 13 January, 25 April 2022
- Judgment Reserved: Judgment reserved
- Judgment Length: 49 pages; 15,232 words
- Cases Cited: [2015] SGCA 33; [2022] SGHC 199 (as cited within the judgment)
Summary
In Public Prosecutor v Lee Zheng Da Eddie and another [2022] SGHC 199, the High Court (Ang Cheng Hock J) convicted two accused men of trafficking in diamorphine (heroin) in connection with a drug delivery arranged in Singapore on 4 July 2018. The prosecution’s case was that Lee, a known drug trafficker, ordered heroin from a Malaysian supplier and recruited Yap to transport and deliver the drugs. The drugs were delivered to Lee at a hotel room, where the accused were arrested by the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) shortly after the heroin bundles were weighed and handled.
The court’s analysis turned on two linked but distinct questions: first, whether Yap had “knowing possession” and knowledge of the nature of the drugs delivered to Lee, so as to attract the statutory presumptions under the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA); and second, whether Lee had possession of the heroin bundles for the purpose of trafficking, including whether he could rebut the presumption of trafficking under s 17(c) of the MDA. The court assessed the credibility of Lee’s account and found that Yap’s evidence did not support Lee’s defence.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The undisputed background was that Lee was a Singaporean male who was 24 years old at the time of the alleged offence. It was common ground that Lee was a drug trafficker. He purchased controlled drugs (including heroin, methamphetamine and cannabis) from suppliers in Malaysia and sold them to customers in Singapore. Yap, aged 30 at the material time, was a private hire driver with access to a car. It was also not disputed that Lee recruited Yap to transport drugs for him.
On 4 July 2018, Lee checked into the Pan Pacific Singapore hotel and was given room 2613 (“the Room”). He was accompanied by his girlfriend, Nomsutham Passara (“Passara”). Earlier that afternoon, Lee arranged for Yap to be on standby to collect drugs later that evening. At about 5.21pm, Lee sent Yap a Telegram message containing a screenshot of a WhatsApp conversation with “Kelvin Mama Ws”, Lee’s recorded drug supplier in Malaysia. The screenshot included a signboard with an address: “METALL-TREAT INDUSTRIES PTE LTD 28/30 Gul Avenue”. Lee instructed Yap to proceed to 28/30 Gul Avenue to collect drugs, and further Telegram messages indicated that Yap should collect at around 8.30pm.
Before going to the address, Yap and Lee agreed to meet at the hotel. Yap was to collect cash of $16,000 (“the Cash”) from Lee, which Yap was instructed to hand over to the person who would pass him the drugs at 28/30 Gul Avenue. Yap arrived at the hotel at about 7.22pm. Lee met Yap at the hotel lift lobby, and they proceeded to the Room. Lee handed Yap the Cash (sealed in a heat-sealed bag) and a green bag (later marked as exhibit B7) for storing the drugs to be collected. Yap then left the hotel.
At 28/30 Gul Avenue, Yap waited in his car for about 30 minutes. An unidentified motorcyclist arrived, Yap passed the Cash, and the motorcyclist threw three bundles of heroin (exhibits A1, A2 and A3) and two blocks of cannabis onto the front passenger seat. Yap placed the drugs into the green bag and drove back to the hotel. Yap arrived at about 9.51pm and sent a Telegram message to Lee saying “I am down”. He parked and placed one block of cannabis under the front passenger seat before going up to the Room with the remaining drugs in the green bag. Lee and Passara were in the Room.
In the Room, Yap removed the newspaper wrapping around each heroin bundle and placed the three bundles on a table together with the remaining block of cannabis. Lee weighed the heroin bundles (and the cannabis) using a weighing scale on the table. Lee handed Yap a black trash bag, which Yap placed on the floor. Yap placed the cannabis on top of the trash bag together with a knife. CNB officers then forcibly entered and arrested Lee, Yap and Passara; Lee was the only one who resisted arrest. CNB seized the three heroin bundles and the remaining cannabis block, and found drug-related paraphernalia including weighing scales, empty sachets, gloves, improvised glass apparatus and tubes, fire starters, heat sealers, a glue gun, a money counter, and spoons. Forensic analysis showed that spoons were stained with diamorphine and methamphetamine, and weighing scales were stained with diamorphine. Additional small packets of controlled drugs and nimetazepam tablets were also found. Yap’s car was searched and the other cannabis block was discovered under the front passenger seat, along with a zippered pouch containing small packets of methamphetamine, cannabis and an ecstasy tablet, and a white envelope labelled “$5,000” containing $800 in cash. Multiple handphones and a tablet were seized from Lee and Yap.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The first major issue concerned Yap’s mental element and whether he could rebut the statutory presumptions that arise from possession and delivery in drug trafficking contexts. The prosecution relied on presumptions in the MDA: in particular, s 18(1)(a) (that a person in possession is presumed to have knowing possession) and s 18(2) (that such a person is presumed to know the nature of the drugs). The prosecution argued that Yap could not rebut both presumptions on a balance of probabilities.
The second major issue concerned Lee’s liability for trafficking by possession for the purpose of trafficking. The prosecution’s case was that Lee had ordered heroin, received the heroin bundles delivered by Yap, and possessed them for trafficking purposes. The court therefore had to consider whether Lee could rebut the presumption of trafficking under s 17(c) of the MDA, which applies where a person is found in possession of controlled drugs in circumstances that attract the presumption that the drugs are for trafficking rather than for personal consumption.
Finally, the court had to evaluate the evidential value of the defences advanced by Lee and Yap, including whether Yap’s evidence supported Lee’s account and whether Lee’s explanation for his involvement was credible in light of the surrounding circumstances, including the weighing of the heroin bundles and the presence of drug-processing paraphernalia.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
On Yap’s case, the court approached the matter through the statutory framework of presumptions under the MDA. The prosecution’s position was that Yap had delivered the three heroin bundles to Lee at the hotel room, and that this delivery, coupled with Yap’s possession of the drugs during the collection and transport phase, triggered the presumptions of knowing possession and knowledge of the nature of the drugs. The court accepted that the heroin bundles were forensically analysed and contained not less than 24.21g of diamorphine in aggregate, and that the bundles were the subject matter of the trafficking charge against both accused.
The analysis then focused on whether Yap had rebutted the presumptions on a balance of probabilities. In drug cases, rebutting statutory presumptions typically requires more than bare assertions; the accused must adduce credible evidence capable of raising a reasonable doubt as to the presumed mental element or otherwise persuading the court that the presumption should not be applied. The court examined Yap’s explanation for his role and whether it was consistent with the operational details of the transaction, including the cash handover, the exchange with the motorcyclist, the placement of drugs into the green bag, and the subsequent handling of the drugs in the Room.
On Lee’s case, the court treated the trafficking charge as turning on possession for the purpose of trafficking. The court considered the presumption in s 17(c) of the MDA and asked whether Lee had rebutted it. Lee’s defence, as reflected in the judgment’s structure, involved an attempt to explain his involvement—particularly whether he had ordered heroin and whether he had a different role than that of a trafficker. The court’s reasoning indicates that Lee’s account included a claim that he had called “Kelvin” (the Malaysian supplier) or otherwise communicated with him to inform him about an oversupply of heroin, suggesting that Lee’s conduct might not have been consistent with trafficking as charged.
The court’s assessment of Lee’s evidence was critical. It found that Lee lacked credibility. The court scrutinised the internal consistency of Lee’s narrative and its coherence with the objective facts of the transaction. In particular, the court placed weight on Lee’s conduct in the Room: Lee weighed the heroin bundles, handled the drugs in a manner consistent with preparation for further distribution, and the Room contained numerous drug-processing items. The court also considered the evidential gap between Lee’s asserted explanation and the practical realities of the operation, including the structured delivery arrangement, the use of Telegram messages, and the presence of paraphernalia associated with drug preparation.
Further, the court considered whether Yap’s evidence supported Lee’s defence. The judgment indicates that Yap’s evidence did not support Lee’s defence. This is legally significant because, in cases involving multiple accused, the court will evaluate whether one accused’s account corroborates another’s attempt to rebut presumptions. Where the defence narratives diverge or fail to align with the physical and forensic evidence, the court is likely to reject the defence and apply the statutory presumptions.
The court also addressed the “price of the drugs” as part of its overall assessment. In trafficking cases, evidence of pricing and payment arrangements can be relevant to inferring purpose. The structured cash exchange, the amount of cash involved, and the manner in which the drugs were collected and delivered were treated as consistent with a commercial trafficking operation rather than a personal-use scenario. Taken together, the court concluded that Lee had not rebutted the presumption of trafficking under s 17(c) of the MDA.
What Was the Outcome?
Having analysed the evidence and the statutory presumptions, the High Court convicted both accused of trafficking offences relating to the three heroin bundles. The court found that Yap did not rebut the presumptions of knowing possession and knowledge of the nature of the drugs, and that Lee failed to rebut the presumption of trafficking under s 17(c) of the MDA.
Practically, the outcome meant that both accused faced the consequences prescribed by the MDA for trafficking in a Class ‘A’ controlled drug, with the charges framed under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) and punishable under s 33(1), and with the judgment noting the alternative liability under s 33B of the MDA.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This decision is important for practitioners because it illustrates how Singapore courts apply the MDA’s statutory presumptions in trafficking cases and how credibility assessments can be decisive. The court’s approach demonstrates that rebutting presumptions requires credible, coherent evidence that aligns with the objective facts, including the accused’s conduct and the forensic and contextual evidence found at the scene.
For defence counsel, the case underscores the risk of relying on explanations that are not supported by corroborative evidence or that are inconsistent with the operational details of the drug transaction. The court’s finding that Lee lacked credibility and that Yap’s evidence did not support Lee’s defence highlights the evidential value of consistency across accused persons and the importance of aligning defence narratives with the documentary and communications evidence (such as Telegram messages) and physical evidence (such as weighing scales and drug-processing paraphernalia).
For prosecutors, the case confirms that where the prosecution establishes the foundational facts for presumptions—such as delivery, possession, and the nature/quantity of the controlled drug—courts will expect the accused to do more than offer speculative or self-serving explanations. The decision also reflects the court’s willingness to infer trafficking purpose from conduct (weighing, preparation, and handling) and from commercial indicators such as pricing and cash arrangements.
Legislation Referenced
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed), including:
- First Schedule (Class ‘A’ controlled drugs; diamorphine/heroin)
- s 5(1)(a) and s 5(2) (trafficking offence framework)
- s 17(c) (presumption of trafficking in certain possession circumstances)
- s 18(1)(a) (presumption of knowing possession)
- s 18(2) (presumption of knowledge of nature of drugs)
- s 33(1) (punishment for trafficking)
- s 33B (alternative liability provision noted in the charges)
Cases Cited
- [2015] SGCA 33
- [2022] SGHC 199
Source Documents
This article analyses [2022] SGHC 199 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.