District Court of Singapore

Public Prosecutor v Lim Yonghui
[2022] SGDC 288

Criminal Law – Statutory Offences – Misuse of Drugs Act

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing – Sentencing

[LawNet Editorial Note: An appeal to this decision has been filed in MA 9209/2022/01.]

8 December 2022

Senior District Judge Ong Hian Sun:

Introduction

1 The Accused claimed trial to a charge of trafficking in a controlled drug (“trafficking charge” – DAC 935655 of 2019) under the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”) relating to the trafficking of diamorphine :

“You [Accused]…are charged that you, on 3 September 2019, sometime between 8.19pm to 8.21pm, at the carpark of Blk 7 King George’s Avenue, Singapore, did traffic in a Class A Controlled Drug listed in the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed), to wit, by delivering one packet containing not less than 453.73g of granular/powdery substance which was pulverised and homogenised into a powdery substance which was analysed and found to contain not less than 13.65g of diamorphine, to one Tham Siew Wah (“Tham”), without authorisation under the said Act or the Regulations made thereunder, and you have thereby committed an offence under Section 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed), punishable under Section 33(1) of the said Act.

2 At the close of the trial I convicted Accused on the trafficking charge. He then pleaded guilty to two charges which were stood down pending the trial, namely one charge of enhanced consumption of a specified drug (DAC 935656 of 2019) and one charge of enhanced possession of a controlled drug (DAC 935659 of 2019). He consented to have four other remaining charges, three of which related to enhanced possession of a controlled drug (DAC 935657, DAC 935658 & DAC 935660 of 2019) and one of which related to possession of drug-taking utensils (DAC 935661 of 2019), to be taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing.

3 He was sentenced to 23 years 6 months’ imprisonment with 15 strokes of the cane for his trafficking charge, mandatory minimum imprisonment of 3 years for his consumption charge and mandatory minimum imprisonment of 2 years for his possession charge. The sentences for the trafficking charge and the possession charge were ordered to run consecutively, leading to a global sentence of 25 years and 6 months’ imprisonment with 15 strokes of the cane.

4 The Accused has appealed against his conviction on the trafficking charge and the global sentence imposed.

The Key Issue

5 It is undisputed that the Accused and Tham met inside a Honda Stream bearing registration no. SJY4647H (“the Car”) driven by the Accused at the carpark of Blk 7 King George’s Avenue (“the Carpark”) on 3 September 2019, between 8.19pm and 8.21pm.[note: 1]

6 The key issue for this Court’s determination is whether the Accused handed the packet of diamorphine to Tham during this meeting. The Prosecution is relying on the presumption under s 18(2) of the MDA that once this Court find that the Accused handed the packet of diamorphine to Tham during the meeting, then the Accused would have had actual possession of the drugs prior to delivering the drugs to Tham and is presumed to know the nature of the drugs under s 18(2) of the MDA.

The Prosecution’s case

7 The Accused and Tham were friends and they came to know each other sometime in 2017 or 2018.[note: 2] Tham addressed the Accused as “Ah Hui”,[note: 3] and the Accused addressed Tham as “Ah Pui”.[note: 4] Tham saved the Accused’s contact number as “Tom” in his mobile phone.[note: 5] They met up occasionally[note: 6] for meals and to talk about problems in their lives.[note: 7]

8 On 3 September 2019, several calls were exchanged between the Accused[note: 8] and Tham[note: 9] as set out in the table below:[note: 10]

Time	From	To	Duration
17:27:55	Tham	Accused	48 seconds
17:30:25	Accused	Tham	1 minute 18 seconds
18:02:59	Tham	Accused	52 seconds
18:17:09	Accused	Tham	37 seconds
19:55:24	Accused	Tham	13 seconds
20:17:40	Accused	Tham	13 seconds

9 On 3 September 2019, Tham was at his friend, Ah Poh’s house, which was located at Blk 7 King George’s Avenue, #XXX.[note: 11]

10 On the same day, at about 8.17pm, the Accused drove the Car into the Carpark,[note: 12] and parked the Car in one of the parking lots at the Carpark.[note: 13] At the material time, the Car was rented by the Accused.[note: 14]

11 At about 8.19pm, Tham exited the lift at level 1 of Blk 7 King George’s Avenue.[note: 15] He then walked down a flight of staircase towards the Carpark.[note: 16]

12 Sometime between 8.19pm and 8.21pm, Tham boarded the Car at the Carpark. While in the Car, Tham handed cash of $1,000 to the Accused, and the Accused handed cash of $100 to Tham.[note: 17] Thereafter, Tham alighted from the Car.[note: 18] At the time when Tham alighted, he was holding onto a black bundle.[note: 19]

13 At about 8.21pm, Tham walked up the same flight of staircase he came down previously, returned to the level 1 lift lobby of Blk 7 King George’s Avenue, and entered the lift.[note: 20] At the material time, Tham was holding onto a black bundle[note: 21] of diamorphine that he had collected,[note: 22] which was the exhibit “A1A”.[note: 23] The bundle of diamorphine cost S$3,200.[note: 24]

14 At about the same time, the Accused drove the Car and exited the Carpark.[note: 25]

15 After the meeting with the Accused, Tham returned to Ah Poh’s house.[note: 26] While at Ah Poh’s house, Tham repacked the diamorphine that he had collected by doing the following:[note: 27]

(a) He first poured a portion of the contents of “A1A’ into a bowl (ie, “B1”).[note: 28]

(b) He then repacked the diamorphine in “B1” into 10 Ziplock packets (ie, “G1A1” and “G1B1”), leaving some remnants behind in “B1” (ie, “B1A”). [note: 29]

(c) He then placed the remaining contents of “A1A” inside Ah Poh’s cabinet.[note: 30]

16 After repacking the drugs, Tham placed the 10 Ziplock packets of diamorphine he repacked (ie, “G1A1” and “G1B1”) into his black bag (ie, “G1”) and brought them downstairs to pass it to a friend.[note: 31]

17 On the same day, at about 8.40pm, PW2 Senior Staff Sergeant Elyas bin Md Mustasar (“SSSgt Elyas”), an officer from the Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”), arrested Tham at the level 1 staircase of Blk 7 King George’s Avenue.[note: 32] Following the arrest, SSSgt Elyas conducted a search on Tham and recovered the following items:[note: 33]

S/N	Exhibit Marking	Description
1.	G1	One (1) black sling bag[note: 34]
2.	G1A	One (1) piece of tissue[note: 35]
3.	G1A1	Five (5) ziplock packets containing brown granular/powdery substance[note: 36]
4.	G1B	One (1) piece of tissue[note: 37]
5.	G1B1	Five (5) ziplock packets containing brown granular/powdery substance[note: 38]

18 SSSgt Elyas subsequently escorted Tham to Ah Poh’s house and conducted a search in the unit. During the search, SSSgt Elyas recovered the following items, among others:[note: 39]

S/N	Location Recovered	Exhibit Marking	Description
6.	In the bedroom, right-most 4-tier wardrobe, lowest compartment	A1	One (1) red plastic bag[note: 40]
7.		A1A	One (1) taped bundle containing one (1) plastic packet[note: 41]
8.		A1A1	One (1) paper bag with tapes[note: 42]
9.		A1A1A	One (1) plastic bag[note: 43]
10.		A1A1A1	One (1) packet of brown granular/powdery substance[note: 44]
11.	In the left wardrobe, bottom drawer	B1	One (1) black bowl[note: 45]
12.		B1A	Loose granular/powdery substance[note: 46]

19 Separately, on 3 September 2019, at about 8.21pm, after the Accused drove the Car and exited the Carpark, a party of CNB officers tailed the Accused,[note: 47] and eventually arrested him at about 8.35pm at Lorong 34 Geylang.[note: 48]

20 Following the Accused’s arrest, PW6 Station Inspector Wong Kah Hung, Alwin drove the Car to a multistorey carpark located at Blk 56A Cassia Crescent,[note: 49] while PW19 Sergeant Mohammad Nasrulhaq Bin Mohd Zainuddin escorted the Accused in the Car.[note: 50] Upon arriving at the multistorey carpark, a search was conducted on the Accused and in the Car.[note: 51] Thereafter, the CNB officers escorted the Accused to his house at Blk 282 Toh Guan Road, #XXX, and conducted a search at the unit.[note: 52] A backscatter search and a K9 search were also conducted on the Car.[note: 53]

21 It was not challenged that there was an unbroken chain of custody in relation to the exhibits marked “A1A1A1”, “B1A”, “G1A1” and “G1B1”, from the point of their recovery to the point of analysis by the Health Sciences Authority (“HSA”):

(a) Upon recovery of each exhibit, SSSgt Elyas placed the exhibits in a sealed tamper-proof polymer bag and placed them into his ops bag.[note: 54] He then held onto the ops bag at all times, until he handed it over to PW3 Senior Staff Sergeant Ben Cheng Boon Keong (“SSSgt Cheng”) for the recording of Tham’s contemporaneous statement at Ah Poh’s house.[note: 55]

(b) After SSSgt Cheng finished recording Tham’s contemporaneous statement, he handed the exhibits back to SSSgt Elyas.[note: 56]

(c) Thereafter, SSSgt Elyas brought the exhibits back to CNB headquarters and handed them to SSSgt Cheng.[note: 57]

(d) SSSgt Cheng then handed the exhibits to the investigation officer, PW17 Assistant Superintendent Chua Xing Ting, Hazel (“IO Hazel”), for processing.[note: 58]

(e) Sometime on 4 September 2019, IO Hazel[note: 59] was assisted by PW4 Muhamad Nizam bin Abudol Ramin[note: 60], PW7 Woong Si Xuan[note: 61] and PW8 Teo Jin Sin Genevieve,[note: 62] in the exhibit processing.

(f) After exhibit processing, IO Hazel handed the exhibits to PW9 Senior Staff Sergeant Chang Tat Yien (“SSSgt Chang”),[note: 63] who then kept them inside a locked cabinet in the Exhibit Management Team room.[note: 64]

(g) On the same day, PW10 Staff Sergeant Kovalan s/o Gopala Krishna retrieved the exhibits from the cabinet with SSSgt Chang’s assistance.[note: 65] At about 4.04pm, he submitted the exhibits marked “A1A1A1”, “B1A”, “G1A1” and “G1B1” to PW1 Mr Lim Kheng Aik (“Mr Lim”), an analyst with the HSA Illicit Drugs Laboratory (“IDL”) for analysis.[note: 66]

22 Mr Lim subsequently analysed the said exhibits and issued four certificates dated 27 November 2019 under s 16 of the MDA in respect of the analysis conducted. The four exhibits were found to to be a total of twelve packets containing not less than 453.73 grams of granular/powdery substance, which was analysed and found to contain a total of not less than 13.65g of diamorphine.[note: 67]

23 Tham had earlier prior to this trial pleaded guilty to the following reduced charge proceeded by the Prosecution against Tham: that you (“Tham”), on 3 September 2019, at about 8.40 pm, at Blk 7 King George’s Avenue S(201007), in Singapore, did traffic in a Class A Controlled Drug listed in the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”), to wit, by having in your possession for the purpose of trafficking twelve packets containing not less than 453.73 grams of granular/powdery substance which was analysed and found to contain not less than 9.99 grams of diamorphine, without authorization 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) of the MDA, punishable under Section 33(1) of the said Act.[note: 68]

24 In his Statement of Facts, Tham admitted that on 3 September 2019 he called the Accused at about 4:00 pm to ask if Accused had any “bai fen” (i.e. diamorphine) for sale. A while later, Accused called Tham to ask for repayment of $1000 which he had lent to Tham previously. Later, on 3 September 2019, between 8.19 pm to 8.21 pm, Tham met the Accused in Accused’s vehicle bearing registration number SJY4647H at the Carpark below Blk 7 King George’s Avenue. In the vehicle, Tham handed Accused $1000. As Tham told Accused that he was short of cash, Accused gave Tham $100 in return. Accused then handed the black bundle (marked “A1A”) Thereafter, Tham left Accused’s vehicle with the black bundle (“A1A”) which Tham admitted was the diamorphine which he brought back to Ah Poh’s house for repacking.

25 However, in court, Tham gave a different version exonerating the Accused. He alleged that he collected the black bundle of diamorphine from one “Anneh” before he met the Accused in the Car at the Carpark on 3 September 2019, between 8.19 pm and 8.21 pm.

26 The Prosecution sought to impeach and contradict Tham’s oral evidence on this material aspect that he collected the black bundle of diamorphine from Anneh and not from the Accused which is inconsistent with his previous statements he had given voluntarily to IO Hazel Chua dated 23 December 2019 (exhibit “P34”) and 10 March 2020 (exhibit “P35” and “P36”).

27 The Prosecution sought to admit Tham’s statements (P34 and P35) where Tham implicated Accused as the person who handed him the black bundle containing the diamorphine while they were inside Accused’s Car at the Carpark.

28 According to the evidence led by the Prosecution, Tham was empty-handed immediately before boarding the Car and meeting the Accused on 3 September 2019, at about 8.19pm. The Police camera (“POLCAM”) footage showing the level 1 lift lobby of Blk 7 King George’s Avenue on 3 September 2019, showed that when Tham first exited the lift at about 8.19pm, he was empty-handed.[note: 69]

29 PW21 Inspector Eng Chien Loong Eugene (“Insp Eng”), one of the CNB officers involved in the operation at Blk 7 King George’s Avenue on 3 September 2019, testified that after Tham emerged from the direction of the level 1 lift lobby,[note: 70] he walked straight down a flight of staircase towards the Carpark,[note: 71] and boarded the front passenger seat of the Car.[note: 72] Tham did not walk anywhere else before going down the staircase and boarding the Car.[note: 73] At that time when Tham was walking down the staircase, Tham was empty-handed.[note: 74]

30 Insp Eng further testified that when Tham alighted from the Car and walked back up the flight of staircase towards the lift lobby,[note: 75] he was holding onto something, which was around the size of a palm,[note: 76] in his hand.[note: 77]

31 According to the POLCAM footage showing the level 1 lift lobby of Blk 7 King George’s Avenue on 3 September 2019, when Tham entered the lift at about 8.21pm, he was holding onto a black bundle.[note: 78] This occurred after Tham had alighted from Accused’s Car and following his meeting with the Accused inside the Car.

32 In his evidence-in-chief, Tham testified that the black bundle, as seen in the POLCAM footage at about 8.21 pm, contained diamorphine (ie, “A1A”). As set out above at [15], it is an undisputed fact that Tham repacked a portion of the diamorphine by pouring them into a bowl (ie, “B1”), packing them into 10 Ziplock packets (ie, “G1A1” and “G1B1”), and leaving some remnants in the bowl (ie, “B1A”). Tham then kept the remaining diamorphine (ie, “A1A”) in Ah Poh’s house. Tham’s evidence in this regard was not challenged by the Defence during cross-examination.

33 Relying on the objective evidence of the POLCAM footage and Insp Eng’s observation on Tham’s meeting with the Accused as well as the prior statements of Tham implicating the Accused, the Prosecution urge this Court to accept that Tham’s prior version in his statements implicating the Accused as the person who handed him the black bundle of diamorphine as the true version of what transpired between them during the meeting inside Accused’s Car

The Defence

34 The main crux of Accused defence was that he denied handling any drugs to Tham at the meeting inside his Car. The purpose of the meeting was for Accused to retrieve monies he had lent to Tham.

35 The Defence submitted that Tham had given inconsistent statements to IO Hazel Chua and was not a reliable and truthful witness whose evidence as an accomplice ought to be treated with caution and should not be accepted by this Court.

The Court’s Decision on the trafficking charge

36 The key issue to be decided by this Court is whether the Accused did hand over the black bundle of drugs containing the diamorphine to Tham inside the Car on 3 September 2019. The Accused denied doing so.

37 What is clear and undisputed in the trial is that according to the Police camera (“POLCAM”) footage showing the level 1 lift lobby of Blk 7 King George’s Avenue on 3 September 2019, when Tham first exited the lift at about 8.19 pm, he was empty-handed[note: 79] prior to meeting the Accused. According to the POLCAM footage showing the level 1 lift lobby of Blk 7 King George’s Avenue on 3 September 2019, when Tham entered the lift at about 8.21pm after his meeting with the Accused, he was holding onto a black bundle.[note: 80]

38 I accept the evidence of PW21 Insp Eng at [29] and [30] that when he observed Tham walking towards the Carpark after Tham emerged from the direction of the lift lobby, Tham was empty-handed and he did not walk anywhere else prior to boarding the Car. And when he observed Tham alighted the Car and walked back up towards the lift lobby, Tham was holding onto something, which was around the size of a palm, in his hand. In my view, Insp Eng maintained his observation under cross- examination and I have no reason to suspect that his vision and line of sight was in any way impaired. His observation of Tham holding something in his hand after exiting Accused’s car was supported and corroborated by the POLCAM footage.

39 It is also not in dispute that Tham’s evidence-in-chief that the black bundle as seen in the POLCAM footage contained diamorphine ( “A1A”) which Tham repacked a portion of the diamorphine by pouring them into a bowl (ie, “B1”), packing them into 10 Ziplock packets (ie, “G1A1” and “G1B1”), and leaving some remnants in the bowl (ie, “B1A”). Tham then kept the remaining diamorphine (“A1A”) in Ah Poh’s house. Tham’s evidence in this regard was not challenged by the Defence during cross-examination.

40 The four exhibits marked “A1A1A1”, “B1A”, “G1A1”, and “G1B1” were found to be a total of twelve packets containing not less than 453.73 grams of granular/powdery substance, which was analysed and found to contain not less than 13.65 grams of diamorphine.

41 I accept the Prosecution’s submission in light of the observation of Insp Eng and the objective evidence presented by the POLCAM footage that there is sufficient circumstantial evidence for this court to draw the irresistible inference that the black bundle of diamorphine that Tham was seen holding immediately after he had met the Accused was in fact delivered to him by the Accused and could not have been obtained by Tham from another source prior to Tham meeting the Accused in the car. It is also pertinent to note that in his Defence the Accused did not allege seeing Tham entering his Car with a black bundle.

42 By virtue of the presumption under s18(2) of the MDA, the Accused is presumed to know the nature of drugs found in his possession prior to the delivery of the drugs to Tham inside the Car.

43 In addition to the above circumstantial evidence, the Prosecution also sought to rely on the previous statements of Tham as mentioned above at [26]. As a friend of the Accused, it is unsurprising to this Court that Tham turned hostile while giving oral evidence in this Court, even though he had previously pleaded guilty to a reduced charge which implicated Accused as the person who handled him the black bundle of drugs on the day in question.

44 As far as Tham’s oral evidence is concerned regarding the black bundle of drugs which he was seen by the CCTV footage to be carrying in his hand after his return from his meeting with the Accused, he admitted that he repacked the drugs which was subsequently seized and analysed at [21] and [22]. This portion of Tham’s evidence was not disputed and challenged at the hearing by Defence Counsel for the Accused.

45 It is not in dispute that as a witness, Tham’s statements are relevant and admissible under s 147(3) of the Evidence Act 1893, which states as follows:

Cross-examination as to previous statements in writing

147.— (3) Where in any proceedings a previous inconsistent or contradictory statement made by a person called as a witness in those proceedings is proved by virtue of this section, that statement is by virtue of this subsection admissible as evidence of any fact stated therein of which direct oral evidence by the person would be admissible.

46 What was clearly in dispute at the hearing is whether the Accused did pass the drugs to Tham as indicated in Tham’s voluntary statements to IO Hazel or that Accused did not pass the drugs to Tham in the Car and that Tham had obtained the drugs before meeting the Accused in the Car as alleged by Tham in his oral evidence at the trial.

47 It was not the case for the Defence that Tham was seen by the Accused entering Accused’s Car with a black bundle. It was suggested as a possibility that Tham could have taken some black plastic bags from Accused’s Car when he exited the Car. I accepted the evidence of the CNB officers who were involved in conducting searches on the Accused’s Car and at the Accused’s residence that no black plastic bags were recovered at all.

48 Tham’s account in court differed extensively from his account in his statements. The various inconsistencies are set out by the Prosecution in the table below:

S/N	Area	Account in Court	Account in Statements
1.	Calls before Tham went downstairs on 3 September 2019 at about 8.19pm	Tham testified that “Ah Kow”[note: 81] called him two to three minutes before he went down at 8.19pm.[note: 82] After Tham hung up the call with “Ah Kow”, he took a puff and then received a call from the Accused while he was on his way downstairs.[note: 83]	In “P34”, Tham did not mention anything about receiving calls from “Ah Kow”. The only mention of calls was of the Accused calling Tham at about 4pm – 5pm.
2.	Contents of the calls	Tham testified that during the phone call with “Ah Kow”, “Ah Kow” told Tham to go downstairs and that someone would pass the drugs to him.[note: 84]
3.	Places that Tham went to while at level 1 of Blk 7 King George’s Avenue	Tham testified that while downstairs, he walked past three to four shop fronts,[note: 85] went down a flight of staircase,[note: 86] crossed a slip road and headed towards a provision shop, before he met “Anneh”.[note: 87] It took him about one minute to walk this distance from the lift lobby to where he met “Anneh”.[note: 88] After spending about two to four seconds with “Anneh”,[note: 89]Tham proceeded to meet the Accused[note: 90] at a parking lot in the Carpark.[note: 91] It took Tham approximately 30 seconds to walk from where he met “Anneh” to where the Car was parked.[note: 92] For the meeting with the Accused, Tham boarded the car that the Accused was driving.[note: 93] Thereafter, it took Tham less than one minute to walk from the Car back to the lift lobby.[note: 94]	At [27] of “P34”, Tham stated that he collected the packet of diamorphine while inside a car, not at a slip road.[note: 95] There was no mention of meeting anyone at the slip road.
4.	Number of people Tham met while at level 1 of Blk 7 King George’s Avenue	Tham testified that he met two people.[note: 96]	At [27] of “P34”, Tham stated that he only met the Accused in the Car at the Carpark.
5.	Events that happened while inside the Car	While inside the Car, Tham did not take anything else apart from $100 from the Accused.[note: 97]The Accused also did not pass Tham anything else apart from the $100.[note: 98]	At [27] of “P34”, Tham stated that the Accused passed him the black bundle of diamorphine.
6.	Who informed Tham of the price of the packet of diamorphine?	Tham testified that he knew that the bundle of diamorphine cost S$3,200 because “Ah Kow” told him so[note: 99] during a call at around 3pm – 4pm on 3 September 2019.[note: 100]	At [29] of “P34” and in “P35”, Tham stated that it was the Accused who informed him of the price of the diamorphine.[note: 101]

49 I accept the Prosecution’s submission that Tham’s evidence in court in respect of the calls he received before he went downstairs at about 8.19pm is inconsistent with the objective evidence of the call records. Despite his claim that “Ah Kow” called him at about 8.16pm – 8.17pm (ie, two to three minutes before 8.19pm), the call records[note: 102] show that the latest incoming call to Tham’s mobile phone before 8.19pm was a call from the Accused at 8.17pm. Prior to that, the other incoming call that was closest in time to 8.17pm was at 8.06pm[note: 103] from XXX, a contact number which Tham could not recognise at trial.[note: 104] The call records clearly show that there were no calls apart from the Accused, made to Tham at around 8.16pm – 8.17pm, contrary to Tham’s claim. It was only on being cross-examined by the Accused’s Counsel that Tham attempted to explain this inconsistency away by belatedly claiming that he received a call from “Ah Kow” at 7.42pm instead.[note: 105]

50 In his evidence-in-chief, Tham claimed that when “Ah Kow” called him, “Ah Kow” told him to head downstairs and that someone would pass him the drugs. However, on cross-examination by the Accused’s Counsel, Tham changed his account and claimed instead that during the call, “Ah Kow” told him the price of the drugs (ie, S$3,200) and that someone would call him and Tham should then go downstairs to collect it.[note: 106] Subsequently, before Tham headed downstairs, it was not “Ah Kow” but someone else whom Tham did not know who called Tham and asked him to go downstairs.[note: 107]

51 I agreed with the Prosecution that the alleged account of the conversation with “Ah Kow” was a fabrication. Firstly, when it was pointed out to Tham that he had changed his story in respect of the contents of the call,[note: 108] he could not provide any explanation for this. Secondly, all the numbers that contacted Tham between 7.42pm and 8.17pm were saved under a contact name in Tham’s mobile phone. This objective evidence refuted Tham’s claim that someone whom he did not know subsequently called him to ask him to go downstairs. [note: 109]

52 Tham claimed at trial that he went to the slip road to meet “Anneh” before going to the Carpark to meet the Accused. However, this is not supported by Insp Eng’s evidence that he did not see Tham walk anywhere else after emerging from the level 1 lift lobby before going down the staircase and boarding the Car.[note: 110] Insp Eng’s evidence in this aspect was not challenged by the Defence and this Court has no reason to doubt Insp Eng’s credibility as a witness as he was clearly focused on observing the action of Tham and the Accused’s Car at the material time in question.

53 Tham claimed at trial that he met a total of two people while he was at level 1 of Blk 7 King George’s Avenue on 3 September 2019, between 8.19pm and 8.21pm. This claim was clearly an afterthought by Tham to absolve the Accused when he made no mention of “Anneh” in any of his previous statements.[note: 111]

54 In addition, I accept the Prosecution’s submission that from a close examination of the POLCAM footage, Tham only spent a total of approximately 92 seconds on level 1. Adding up the time that Tham claimed he took (a) to walk from the lift lobby to the slip road to meet “Anneh”; (b) to meet “Anneh” to collect the drugs; (c) to walk from the slip road to the Car at the Carpark; (d) to meet the Accused in the Car; and (e) to walk from the Car back to the lift lobby, the total duration would add up to be more than two minutes. Considering further Tham’s self-reported “weak legs”,[note: 112] Tham could not have met two people in a short span of 92 seconds.[note: 113] I am of the view that Tham’s claim that he met two different people for two different purposes at two different locations between 8.19pm and 8.21pm defies credibility.

55 Tham’s claim that he did not take and the Accused did not pass him anything else apart from $100 when they met in the Car is inconsistent with the the statement he gave at [27] of P34 where Tham stated that the Accused passed him the black bundle of diamorphine. Insp Eng’s evidence that (a) Tham was empty-handed before the meeting with the Accused; and (b) Tham was seen carrying something after the meeting. Insp Eng stood firm by his evidence under cross-examination by the Accused’s Counsel and there is no reason for this Court to doubt Insp Eng’s credibility. In contrast, Tham’s attempt to assist the case for the Defence at the trial is riddled with inconsistencies. Tham could not stick to a consistent account at trial. When Tham was recalled before the close of the Prosecution’s case, Tham suddenly made an about-turn and claimed that he in fact removed one black resealable plastic bag from the Car.[note: 114] That was the first time Tham mentioned any black plastic bags, having failed to make any mention of this in his statements and in court in his earlier evidence. This is clearly an afterthought in Tham’s attempt in assisting the Defence to raise doubt in the observation of Insp Eng when he observed Tham exiting Accused’s Car while carrying something in his hand.

56 In contrast to his evidence in court, I accept the Prosecution’s submission that the account in Tham’s statement “P34”, should be believed as it is corroborated by external objective evidence. For instance, what Tham stated at [27] of “P34” (ie, that the Accused called him at about 4pm to 5pm on 3 September 2019) is consistent with the call records.[note: 115]

57 On the other hand, Tham provided two reasons for allegedly falsely implicating the Accused,[note: 116] which lack credibility.

58 Firstly, Tham claimed that he was angry at the Accused for pressing him for repayment of the money that he had borrowed,[note: 117] despite initially telling him to take his time with the repayment.[note: 118] As such, Tham falsely implicated the Accused as being the one who delivered the diamorphine to him. This explanation is unsubstantiated for the following reasons:

(a) In the course of investigations, Tham gave several long statements, including (i) a statement on 9 September 2019 which was admitted by the Defence as “D4” and “D7”; (ii) a statement on 10 September 2019 which was admitted by the Defence as “D8”; (iii) a statement on 5 November 2019 which was admitted by the Defence as “D5”; (iv) a statement on 23 December 2019 which was admitted by the Prosecution as “P34” and by the Defence as “D6” and “D9”; and (v) a statement on 10 March 2022 which was admitted by the Prosecution as “P35” and “P36”. In the first two statements given by Tham on 9 and 10 September 2019, Tham, on his own admission,[note: 119] made up an imaginary figure whom he named “Ah Tuck” and claimed that it was “Ah Tuck” who delivered the diamorphine to him. I accept the Prosecution’s contention that if Tham was indeed angry at the Accused for chasing him for repayment, there was no reason for Tham to come up with an imaginary figure instead of falsely incriminating the Accused right from the outset. Tham was unable to offer any explanation as to why he would allegedly let his anger get the better of him and lead him to falsely implicate the Accused only in the third statement recorded on 23 December 2019, more than three months after his arrest.

(b) Contrary to Tham’s claim that it was “convenient” for him to falsely pin the blame on the Accused, what Tham did was the exact opposite.[note: 120] Instead of blaming the Accused for both the diamorphine and the ‘ice’ found in Ah Poh’s house, Tham was selective in his incrimination, choosing to implicate the Accused only for the diamorphine but not the ‘ice’ in “P36”, the statement that Tham gave on 10 March 2022, more than six months after his arrest. [note: 121]

59 Secondly, Tham claimed that he falsely implicated the Accused in “P34” because he had taken diamorphine and ‘ice’ at that time and was not able to think straight. However, the evidence clearly show that when Tham gave his first two statements on 9 and 10 September 2019, Tham was clear-headed enough to admit his own drug activities,[note: 122] to state the truth about the $1,000 that he had borrowed from the Accused,[note: 123] and also to identify the phone that the Accused used to contact him.[note: 124] He was also clear-headed enough to request that amendments be made to his statements.[note: 125] According to IO Hazel, Tham was sent for a drug withdrawal assessment prior to 9 September 2019 and he was found not to be suffering from any drug withdrawal symptoms.[note: 126] By the time “P34” was recorded from Tham on 23 December 2019 (ie, three months later), there is no reasonable basis to believe that Tham was under any influence of drugs.

60 I agree with the Prosecution’s submission that Tham never hesitated in admitting to his own drug activities[note: 127] in his statements. However, when it came to the Accused’s involvement in drugs, Tham was initially unwilling to implicate the Accused and hence he came up with “Ah Tuck”.[note: 128] It was only when Tham was confronted by IO Hazel (ie, the statement recorder) in the subsequent statements that Tham decided to tell the truth about the Accused’s involvement and eventually pleaded guilty to a reduced charge whereby in the Statement of Facts, Tham implicated the Accused for passing the said drugs to him in the Car.

61 Accordingly this Court is of the view that Tham’s evidence in court that Accused did not pass him the drugs should be disbelieved and substituted with his account in “P34”, “P35” and “P36” pursuant to s 147(3) of the Evidence Act 1893 whereby Tham implicated the Accused as the person who passed him the drugs inside the Car.

62 In my view, the Prosecution had clearly established that the Accused had passed the drugs to Tham at the meeting in the Car at [41]. This is further fortified by Tham’s voluntary sttements to IO Hazel implicating the Accused as the person who handed Tham the drugs inside the Car.

63 I disbelieved Accused’s defence of not passing any drugs to Tham at the Car. The defence has failed to raise any doubt in the case for the Prosecution in light of the evidence adduced by the Prosecution.

64 In the circumstances, I found that Accused had the said drugs in his possession prior to passing it to Tham in the Car and the Accused had failed to rebut the presumption under s 18 MDA and accordingly I convicted the Accused on the trafficking charge.

Gulty Plea for Other Charges

65 After the Accused’s conviction, he pleaded guilty to the following two charges:

(a) [DAC-935656-2019] On or before 3 September 2019, one count of consumption of a specified drug, to wit, methamphetamine under s8(b)(ii) punishable under (p/u) s33(4) of MDA (enhanced);

(b) [DAC-935659-2019] On 3 September 2019, one count of possession of not less than 19.65g of methamphetamine under s8(a) p/u s33(1) of MDA (enhanced);

66 The Accused consented to have 4 charges taken into consideration for purpose of sentencing:

(a) [DAC-935657-2019] On 3 September 2019, one count of possession of 3.63g of ketamine under s8(a) p/u s33(1) of MDA (enhanced);

(b) [DAC-935658-2019] On 3 September 2019, one count of possession of not less than 16.77g of methamphetamine under s8(a) p/u s33(1) of MDA (enhanced);

(c) [DAC-935660-2019] On 3 September 2019, one count of possession of not less than 0.81g MDMA under s8(a) p/u s33(1) of MDA (enhanced);

(d) [DAC-935661-2019] On 3 September 2019, one count of possession of utensils intended for the consumption of a controlled drug under s9 p/u s33(1) of MDA.

67 The Statement of Facts relating to his plea of guilt on the two charges can be found in ANNEX A.

Sentence

Prosecution’s Submission on Sentence

68 In the present case, the Accused is traced for drug offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”) as follow:

(a) In 2004, he was convicted of two counts of drug trafficking (ketamine). He was sentenced to an imprisonment term of 3 years and 3 strokes of the cane for each of the trafficking charge (concurrent). One further count of drug trafficking (ketamine) under the MDA was taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing; and

(b) In 2018, he was convicted of one count of drug consumption of methamphetamine under s8(b) of MDA, for which he was sentenced to 9 months’ imprisonment; one count of possession of nimetazepam for which he was sentenced to 3 months’ imprisonment; and one count of possession of drug-taking utensils for which he was sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment. There were four other charges of possession of controlled drug being taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing.

69 The Prosecution submitted that a global sentence of 28 years’ imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane should be imposed, consisting of the following individual sentences:

S/N	Charge No.	Offence	Sentence Sought
1.	DAC-935655-2019	Trafficking in of a controlled drug s 5(1)(a) punishable under s 33(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”) not less than 13.65g of diamorphine	26 years’ imprisonment & 15 strokes (consecutive)
2.	DAC-935656-2019	Enhanced consumption of a specified drug s 8(b)(ii) punishable under s 33(4) of the MDA methamphetamine	3 years’ imprisonment (concurrent)
3.	DAC-935659-2019	Enhanced possession of a controlled drug s 8(a) punishable under s 33(1) of the MDA not less than 19.65g of methamphetamine	2 years’ imprisonment (consecutive)

70 In respect of the trafficking charge under s 5(1)(a) of the MDA, the Prosecution relied on the case of Vasentha d/o Joseph v PP [2015] SGHC 197; [2015] 5 SLR 122 at [47] and PP v Tan Lye Heng [2017] 5 SLR 564 at [125], in submitting that the indicative starting point for trafficking in not less than 13.65g of diamorphine is around 26 years’ imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane. As the Accused claimed trial, he should not be entitled to any sentencing discount that would have been accorded to him had he pleaded guilty. The Prosecution further submitted that there are no other significant sentencing factors that warrant a departure from the indicative starting point of 26 years’ imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane.

71 In respect of the enhanced consumption charge under s 8(b)(ii) of the MDA and enhanced possession charge under s 8(a) of the MDA, the Prosecution was not seeking anything beyond the mandatory minimum of three years’ imprisonment and two years’ imprisonment respectively.

72 In accordance with s 307(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010, the sentences for at least two of the offences must be ordered to run consecutively. In the present case, the Prosecution urged this Court to have the sentences for the trafficking charge and enhanced possession charge to run consecutively yielding a global sentence of 28 years’ imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane.

Mitigation

73 Defence Counsel submitted that the Accused’s drug trafficking related antecedents date back to 2004 and should not be given much weight. As Accused is not a drug kingpin and his culpability falls within the lower category, the Defence urged this court to impose a sentence lower than the indicative starting sentence of 26 years’ imprisonment with 15 strokes of the cane for the trafficking charge (consecutive); mandatory minimum sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment for the enhanced drug consumption charge (concurrent); and mandatory minimum sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment for the enhanced drug possession charge (consecutive) yielding a total sentence lower than the 28 years imprisonment with 15 strokes of the cane asked by the Prosecution.

The Court’s Decision on Sentence

74 In determining what should be an appropriate sentence to be imposed for this trafficking charge, it is accepted by both parties that the indicative starting point for not less than 13.65g of diamorphine is around 26 years’ imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane. After identifying the indicative starting range based on the weight of the drugs trafficked, the next step is for this Court to decide whether to adjust the indicative starting sentence upward or downward based on the offender’s culpability and the presence of aggravating and mitigating factors (Suventher Shanmugam v PP [2017] 2 SLR 115 at [29] and [30]).

75 It is pertinent to point out in this case that the Defence did not contend that the parity principle was offended, as Tham, the buyer of the drugs, had pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of trafficking in not less than 9.99g of diamorphine, at the exercise of the prosecutorial discretion against Tham.

76 As far as Accused’s culpability on the trafficking charge is concerned, I accept that it falls within the lower category as there is no evidence to suggest that Accused performed a directing role and/or recruited others in the operation. I note that it was Tham who initiated the purchase of the drugs from the Accused according to Tham’s statements to IO Hazel. I also note that Accused had claimed trial to the trafficking charge and was not entitled to discount on the sentence if he had pleaded guilty. However, some weight should also be accorded to the Accused’s decision to take a certain course with respect to his remaining charges, thus saving judicial resources.

77 Taking into account the overall circumstances of this case that the transaction was not initiated by the Accused and the totality principle, I accordingly imposed a global sentence of 25 years and 6 months’ imprisonment with 15 strokes of the cane comprising the following: 23 years and 6 months imprisonment with 15 strokes of the cane for the trafficking charge [DAC-935655-2019] to run consecutively with the mandatory minimum of 2 years’ imprisonment for the drug possession charge [DAC-935659-2019] with the mandatory minimum of 3 years’ imprisonment for the drug consumption charge [DAC-935656-2019] to run concurrently.

78 The Accused is now serving sentence pending his appeal.

________________________________

ANNEX A

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

DAC-935656 & DAC-935659 of 2019

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v LIM YONGHUI

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1 The accused is Lim Yonghui, male, a Singapore Citizen.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

ARREST, SEARCH AND SEIZURE

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2. On 3 September 2019, at about 8.35pm, a party of Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) officers arrested the accused along Lorong 34 Geylang Singapore after he was observed to have alighted from a Singapore-registered motorcar bearing registration number SJY4647H (“Car”). A search was conducted on the accused and the following items were recovered and seized as case exhibits:

S/N	Location	Marking	Description
1.	Inside the Car	F1	One (1) blue packet
2.		F1A	One (1) packet containing white powdery substance
3.	On the accused	H1	Cash amounting to S$900
4.		H2	One (1) brown Gucci pouch
5.		H2A	Five (5) packets containing crystalline substance

3. The accused was subsequently escorted to his house at Blk 282 Toh Guan Road, #XXX, Singapore. A search was conducted in the master bedroom of the unit and the following items were recovered and seized as case exhibits:

S/N	Location	Marking	Description
1.	On a shelf beside the toilet door	J1	One (1) white plastic envelope
2.		J1A	One (1) packet containing crystalline substance
3.		J2	One (1) digital weighing scale
4.		J3	One (1) packet
5.		J3A	One (1) plastic spoon
6.	In the toilet, on top of the	K1	One (1) packet containing crystalline substance
7.		K2	One (1) glass utensil, one (1) glass pipe and one (1) orange straw
8.	sink	K3	One (1) lighter
9.		K4	One (1) packet
10.		K4A	One (1) packet containing one (1) yellow tablet
11.		K5	One (1) red plastic bag
12.		K5A	One (1) packet containing numerous big Ziplock bags
13.		K5B	One (1) packet containing numerous small Ziplock bags
14.	Behind the bed frame	L1	One (1) ‘Crabtree and Evelyn’ box
15.		L1A	One (1) Ziplock bag containing blue powdery substance
16.		L1B	One (1) packet containing powdery substance

4. The accused was subsequently escorted to Central Police Divisional Headquarters, CNB office for further investigations.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

FACTS PERTAINING TO THE 2 ND CHARGE (DAC-935656-2019) – enhanced consumption of a specified drug

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

5. On 3 September 2019, at the said CNB office, the accused provided two bottles of his urine samples which were respectively marked “C-SA-19-93316-1 LIM YONGHUI SXXX” and “C-SA-19-93316-2 LIM YONGHUI SXXX” and each sealed “CENTRAL NARCOTICS BUREAU” in his presence. The accused deposited one bottle of the urine sample in each of two locked security boxes, which were subsequently delivered to the Health Sciences Authority (“HSA”), Singapore on 4 September 2019 for analysis.

6. The HSA analysts who had conduct of the analysis of the accused’s specimens subsequently issued the following two certificates under s 16 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) in relation to the said analysis:

Urine Sample Marking	“C-SA-19-93316-1 LIM YONGHUI SXXX”	“C-SA-19-93316-2 LIM YONGHUI SXXX”
Certificate Lab No.	AT-1933-07851-001-03	AT-1933-07851-002-03
Date Issued	5 September 2019	5 September 2019
Issuing Analyst	Ng Chee Ann	Maggie Tiong Su Su
Drug Found in Sample	Methamphetamine

7. Methamphetamine is a Specified Drug listed in the Fourth Schedule to the MDA.

8. The accused admitted that he smoked ‘ice’ (street name for methamphetamine) prior to his arrest on 3 September 2019. The accused smoked ‘ice’ by placing some ‘ice’ in a glass bottle, heating the bottom of the utensil with a lighter and inhaling the emitted fumes using a straw. Accordingly, the presence of methamphetamine in the accused’s urine samples is the result of the accused’s consumption of methamphetamine.

9. The accused was not authorised under the MDA or the regulations made thereunder to consume methamphetamine. He has thereby committed an offence under s 8(b)(ii) of the MDA.

10. Prior to the commission of the present offence, the accused was on 12 January 2018, in District Court No. 16, vide DAC909552/2017, convicted of an offence of consumption of a Specified Drug, to wit, methamphetamine, under s 8(b)(ii) and sentenced under s 33(1) of the MDA to nine months’ imprisonment. The conviction and sentence have not been set aside to date and the accused is now liable to be punished under s 33(4) of the MDA.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

FACTS PERTAINING TO THE 5 TH CHARGE (DAC-935659-2019) – enhanced possession of a controlled drug

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

11. The exhibits marked “J1A” and “K1” were subsequently sealed in a tamper-proof bag and sent to the HSA for analysis on 4 September 2019.

12. Lim Kheng Aik, an analyst with the Illicit Drugs Laboratory of the HAS, analysed the exhibits and issued the following certificates under s 16 of the MDA dated 27 November 2019 respect of the analysis:

Exhibit	Lab No.	Gross Weight	Result
J1A	ID-1932- 01944-013	One packet containing not less than 25.21g of crystalline substance	Not less than 17.07g of methamphetamine
K1	ID-1932- 01944-016	One packet containing not less than 3.84g of crystalline substance	Not less than 2.58g of methamphetamine
Total		Two packets containing not less than 29.05g of crystalline substance	Not less than 19.65g of methamphetamine

13. Methamphetamine is a Class A Controlled Drug listed in the First Schedule to the MDA.

14. The exhibits marked “J1A” and “K1” were in the accused’s possession for his own consumption.

15. The accused was not authorised under the MDA or the regulations made thereunder to possess methamphetamine. He has thereby committed an offence under s 8(a) of the MDA.

16. Prior to the commission of the present offence, the accused was on 12 January 2018, in District Court No. 16, vide DAC909553/2017, convicted of an offence of possession of a Controlled Drug, to wit, nimetazepam, under s 8(a) of the MDA and sentenced under s 33(1) of the MDA to three months’ imprisonment. The conviction and sentence have not been set aside to date and the accused is now liable to be punished with enhanced punishment under s 33(1) of the MDA.

Jia Min Kwang (Attorney-General’s Chambers) for the Public Prosecutor; Tan Yanghao, Marcus (Chen Yanghao) from Solitaire LLP for the Accused.

_______________________________________________[Context] [Hide Context]

^{[note: 1]}Statement of Agreed Facts marked “SOAF” at [9].

^{[note: 2]}Notes of Evidence (“NEs”), Day 5, Page 9 Line 32 – Page 10 Line 1.

^{[note: 3]}NEs, Day 5, Page 9, Lines 14 – 31.

^{[note: 4]}NEs, Day 5, Page 10, Lines 4 – 8.

^{[note: 5]}NEs, Day 5, Page 10, Lines 12 – 24.

^{[note: 6]}NEs, Day 5, Page 10, Lines 25 – 30.

^{[note: 7]}NEs, Day 5, Page 10, Lines 29 – 30; NEs, Day 5, Page 11, Line 7.

^{[note: 8]}The Accused was using service number 8419 5148 under M1 at the material time; SOAF at [4].

^{[note: 9]}Tham was using service number 8356 2464 under Singtel at the material time; SOAF at [3].

^{[note: 10]}SOAF at [5]; Letter from M1 Limited dated 5 October 2020 marked “P1”; Call records for 8419 5148 from 1 August 2019 to 3 September 2019 marked “P2”; Call records for 8356 2464 from 1 August 2019 to 4 September 2019 marked “P3”.

^{[note: 11]}NEs, Day 5, Page 4 Line 23 – Page 5 Line 10.

^{[note: 12]}SOAF at [7]; Carpark gantry records of the Carpark from 1 July 2019 to 5 September 2019 marked “P25”.

^{[note: 13]}NEs, Day 9, Page 37, Lines 1 – 13.

^{[note: 14]}NEs, Day 8, Page 13, Lines 26 – 31.

^{[note: 15]}SOAF at [8]; CD-ROM marked “P31”, “PolCam at Lobby”, 20:18:58 – 20:19:40; NEs, Day 5, Page 3 Line 23 – Page 4 Line 22.

^{[note: 16]}NEs, Day 9, Page 36, Lines 16 – 19.

^{[note: 17]}SOAF at [9]; NEs, Day 5, Page 19, Lines 12 – 14.

^{[note: 18]}SOAF at [9]; NEs, Day 9, Page 36, Lines 20 – 22.

^{[note: 19]}SOAF at [9]; NEs, Day 9, Page 40, Lines 3 – 8.

^{[note: 20]}SOAF at [10]; “P31”, “PolCam at Lobby”, 20:20:58 – 20:21:17; NEs, Day 5, Page 6, Lines 1 – 11.

^{[note: 21]}NEs, Day 8, Page 21, Lines 1 – 2.

^{[note: 22]}NEs, Day 5, Page 6, Lines 12 – 13.

^{[note: 23]}NEs, Day 5, Page 6, Lines 14 – 23.

^{[note: 24]}NEs, Day 5, Page 20 Line 31 – Page 21 Line 3.

^{[note: 25]}SOAF at [10]; “P25”.

^{[note: 26]}NEs, Day 5, Page 6, Lines 24 – 20.

^{[note: 27]}NEs, Day 5, Page 7, Lines 1 – 2.

^{[note: 28]}NEs, Day 5, Page 7, Lines 3 – 17.

^{[note: 29]}NEs, Day 5, Page 7 Line 21 – Page 8 Line 10.

^{[note: 30]}NEs, Day 5, Page 8, Lines 10 – 14.

^{[note: 31]}NEs, Day 5, Page 8 Line 20 – Page 9 Line 3.

^{[note: 32]}SOAF at [12]; Police Report (NP299) No. A/20190904/2034 lodged by Elyas bin Md Mustasar on 4 September 2019, 4.15am marked “P5”; NEs, Day 1, Page 33, Lines 2 – 26.

^{[note: 33]}SOAF at [12]; “P5” at p 2; NEs, Day 1, Page 34 Line 6 – Page 37 Line 11.

^{[note: 34]}“P15”.

^{[note: 35]}“P16”.

^{[note: 36]}“P17”.

^{[note: 37]}“P18”.

^{[note: 38]}“P19”.

^{[note: 39]}SOAF at [12]; “P5” at p 2; Police Report (NP299) No. A/20190904/2038 lodged by Elyas bin Md Mustasar on 4 September 2019, 6.47am marked “P7”; NEs, Day 1 Page 37 Line 23 – Page 38 Line 6; NEs, Day 1, Page 39 Line 23 – Page 43 Line 22.

^{[note: 40]}“P8”.

^{[note: 41]}“P9”.

^{[note: 42]}“P10”.

^{[note: 43]}“P11”.

^{[note: 44]}“P12”.

^{[note: 45]}“P13”.

^{[note: 46]}“P14”.

^{[note: 47]}NEs, Day 2, Page 27, Lines 5 – 8.

^{[note: 48]}SOAF at [11]; Police Report (NP299) No. A/20190904/2022 lodged by Wong Kah Hung, Alwin on 4 September 2019, 1.48am marked “P4”; NEs, Day 2, Page 27, Lines 9 – 23.

^{[note: 49]}NEs, Day 2, Page 27, Lines 24 – 27.

^{[note: 50]}NEs, Day 9, Page 14, Lines 15 – 19.

^{[note: 51]}NEs, Day 2, Page 27, Lines 28 – 30.

^{[note: 52]}NEs, Day 2, Page 27 Line 31 – Page 28 Line 2.

^{[note: 53]}NEs, Day 9, Page 6, Lines 2 – 10.

^{[note: 54]}NEs, Day 1, Page 37, Lines 12 – 23; NEs, Day 1, Page 43, Lines 23 – 32.

^{[note: 55]}NEs, Day 1, Page 37 Line 31 – Page 38 Line 3; NEs, Day 1, Page 46, Lines 9 – 28; NEs, Day 1, Page 77 Line 19 – Page 80 Line 13.

^{[note: 56]}Nes, Day 1, Page 46 Line 29 – Page 47 Line 2; Nes, Day 1, Page 80, Lines 14 – 18.

^{[note: 57]}NEs, Day 1, Page 47, Lines 5 – 27; NEs, Day 1, Page 80, Lines 19 – 31.

^{[note: 58]}NEs, Day 1, Page 80 Line 32 – Page 81 Line 2; NEs, Day 8, Page 25, Lines 2 – 15.

^{[note: 59]}NEs, Day 8, Page 25 Line 20 – Page 26 Line 6.

^{[note: 60]}NEs, Day 1, Page 93 Line 8 – Page 101 Line 4.

^{[note: 61]}NEs, Day 2, Page 45 Line 10 – Page 52 Line 16.

^{[note: 62]}NEs, Day 2, Page 53 Line 10 – Page 55 Line 16.

^{[note: 63]}NEs, Day 2, Page 59 Line 5 – Page 60 Line 4; NEs, Day 8, Page 26, Lines 25 – 31.

^{[note: 64]}NEs, Day 2, Page 60, Lines 5 – 11.

^{[note: 65]}NEs, Day 2, Page 63 Line 30 – Page 64 Line 15.

^{[note: 66]}SOAF at [13]; NEs, Day 1, Page 18, Lines 7 – 10; NEs, Day 2, Page 64, Lines 16 – 25.

^{[note: 67]}SOAF at [22]; HSA certificate bearing lab. no. ID-1932-01944-001 in respect of the exhibit marked “A1A1A1” marked “P27”; HSA certificate bearing lab. no. ID-1932-01944-002 in respect of the exhibit marked “B1A” marked “P28”; HSA certificate bearing lab. no. ID-1932-01944-010 in respect of the exhibit marked “G1A1” marked “P29”; and HSA certificate bearing lab. no. ID-1932-01944-011 in respect of the exhibit marked “G1B1” marked “P30”.

^{[note: 68]}PG papers of Tham Siew Wah at exhibit P33

^{[note: 69]}“P31”, “PolCam at Lobby”, 20:19:20 – 20:19:44; NEs, Day 8, Page 19, Lines 7 – 27.

^{[note: 70]}NEs, Day 9, Page 36, Lines 16 – 17.

^{[note: 71]}NEs, Day 9, Page 36, Lines 17 – 19; NEs, Day 9, Page 38, Lines 19 – 24.

^{[note: 72]}NEs, Day 9, Page 36, Lines 19 – 20.

^{[note: 73]}NEs, Day 9, Page 39, Lines 5 – 8.

^{[note: 74]}NEs, Day 9, Page 39, Lines 9 – 14; NEs, Day 9, Page 60, Lines 3 – 16.

^{[note: 75]}NEs, Day 9, Page 36, Lines 20 – 22; NEs, Day 9, Page 39 Line 28 – Page 40 Line 2.

^{[note: 76]}NEs, Day 9, Page 55, Lines 18 – 19.

^{[note: 77]}NEs, Day 9, Page 40, Lines 3 – 8.

^{[note: 78]}“P31”, “PolCam at Lobby”, 20:21:05 – 20:21:17; NEs, Day 8, Page 20 Line 15 – Page 21 Line 2.

^{[note: 79]}“P31”, “PolCam at Lobby”, 20:19:20 – 20:19:44; NEs, Day 8, Page 19, Lines 7 – 27.

^{[note: 80]}“P31”, “PolCam at Lobby”, 20:21:05 – 20:21:17; NEs, Day 8, Page 20 Line 15 – Page 21 Line 2.

^{[note: 81]}NEs, Day 5, Page 13, Lines 29 – 32.

^{[note: 82]}NEs, Day 5, Page 13, Lines 23 – 28.

^{[note: 83]}NEs, Day 5, Page 18, Lines 2 – 9; 17 – 25

^{[note: 84]}NEs, Day 5, Page 16, Lines 2 – 6.

^{[note: 85]}NEs, Day 5, Page 17, Line 10.

^{[note: 86]}NEs, Day 5, Page 16 Line 15 – Page 17 Line 12.

^{[note: 87]}NEs, Day 5, Page 17, Lines 11 – 13.

^{[note: 88]}NEs, Day 5, Page 17, Lines 8 – 17.

^{[note: 89]}NEs, Day 5, Page 21 Line 27 – Page 22 Line 1.

^{[note: 90]}NEs, Day 5, Page 17, Lines 27 – 31.

^{[note: 91]}NEs, Day 5, Page 18, Lines 26 – 29.

^{[note: 92]}NEs, Day 5, Page 20, Lines 4 – 13.

^{[note: 93]}NEs, Day 5, Page 19, Lines 3 – 11.

^{[note: 94]}NEs, Day 5, Page 22, Lines 2 – 7.

^{[note: 95]}NEs, Day 5, Page 36, Lines 2 – 8.

^{[note: 96]}NEs, Day 5, Page 34, Lines 1 – 3.

^{[note: 97]}NEs, Day 5, Page 19, Lines 12 – 19; NEs, Day 5, Page 24, Lines 17 – 21.

^{[note: 98]}NEs, Day 5, Page 24, Lines 22 – 24.

^{[note: 99]}NEs, Day 5, Page 21, Lines 4 – 5.

^{[note: 100]}NEs, Day 5, Page 21, Lines 6 – 9.

^{[note: 101]}NEs, Day 5, Page 37 Line 19 – Page 38 Line 12.

^{[note: 102]}“P3” at Page 107.

^{[note: 103]}NEs, Day 5, Page 45, Lines 10 – 16.

^{[note: 104]}NEs, Day 6, Page 5, Lines 17 – 26.

^{[note: 105]}NEs, Day 6, Page 3, Lines 10 – 27.

^{[note: 106]}NEs, Day 6, Page 6, Lines 11 – 21.

^{[note: 107]}NEs, Day 6, Page 7, Lines 2 – 8.

^{[note: 108]}NEs, Day 7, Page 4, Lines 13 – 24.

^{[note: 109]}NEs, Day 7, Page 4 Line 25 – Page 5 Line 10.

^{[note: 110]}NEs, Day 9, Page 39, Lines 5 – 8.

^{[note: 111]}NEs, Day 5, Page 52, Lines 6 – 8.

^{[note: 112]}NEs, Day 5, Page 20, Lines 14 – 15.

^{[note: 113]}NEs, Day 5, Page 49 Line 21 – Page 51 Line 13.

^{[note: 114]}NEs, Day 10, Page 1, Lines 22 – 30.

^{[note: 115]}NEs, Day 5, Page 34, Line 27 – Page 35 Line 18.

^{[note: 116]}NEs, Day 5, Page 39, Lines 20 – 29.

^{[note: 117]}NEs, Day 5, Page 29, Lines 13 – 22.

^{[note: 118]}NEs, Day 5, Page 30 Line 27 – Page 31, Line 1.

^{[note: 119]}NEs, Day 6, Page 20, Lines 27 – 31.

^{[note: 120]}NEs, Day 6, Page 21, Lines 24 – 26.

^{[note: 121]}NEs, Day [1976] UKHL 6; 7, Page 16, Lines 14 – 24.

^{[note: 122]}NEs, Day 7, Page 12, Lines 5 – 8.

^{[note: 123]}NEs, Day 7, Page 12, Lines 9 – 11.

^{[note: 124]}NEs, Day 7, Page 13, Lines 4 – 9.

^{[note: 125]}NEs, Day 7, Page 6, Lines 8 – 16; Page 33, Lines 1 – 9; Page 34, Lines 18 – 21.

^{[note: 126]}NEs, Day 8, Page 27 Line 26 – Page 28 Line 8.

^{[note: 127]}NEs, Day 7, Page 13, Lines 17 – 27.

^{[note: 128]}NEs, Day 7, Page 14, Lines 11 – 13.