Public Prosecutor v Phuthita Somchit and another

Public Prosecutor v Phuthita Somchit and another

The court accepted the second interpretation of s18(2) (that the accused must be shown to have known the nature of the specific drug unless the presumption is rebutted) and found, on the facts, that Somchit rebutted the presumption by proving on the balance of probabilities she believed the substance to be a "not serious" drug and was not wilfully blind; she was therefore acquitted of trafficking diamorphine but convicted under s175(2) CPC of attempting to traffic a Class C drug and sentenced to 9 years' imprisonment; by contrast the evidence established that Quek had possession, knowledge and intention to traffic diamorphine, his charge was validly amended and he was convicted and...

Citation
[2011] SGHC 67
Parties
Prosecutor: Public Prosecutor; First Accused: Phuthita Somchit; Second Accused: Quek Hock Lye
Court
General Division of the High Court
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
25 March 2011
Case Number
Criminal Case No 52 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Drug Trafficking (misuse of Drugs Act) / High Court Trial Judgment and Sentencing
Outcome
First accused (Phuthita Somchit): acquitted of original charge of trafficking diamorphine; convicted of attempt to traffic a Class C controlled drug and sentenced to 9 years' imprisonment. Second accused (Quek Hock Lye): convicted of amended charge of trafficking not less than 62.14g diamorphine and sentenced to death.
Legal Topics
Possession Under S18, Knowledge Presumption (s18(2)), Wilful Blindness, Presumption of Trafficking (s17), Amendment of Charge (s163 Cpc), Sentencing (capital and Imprisonment)
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Drug Offences Statutory Interpretation Evidence Law Possession Under S18 Knowledge Presumption (s18(2)) Wilful Blindness Presumption of Trafficking (s17) +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecutor

Phuthita Somchit

First Accused

Quek Hock Lye

Second Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Drug Trafficking (misuse of Drugs Act) / High Court Trial Judgment and Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act requires knowledge of the specific drug or only that it is a controlled drug
  2. 2 Whether the accused (Somchit) rebutted the statutory presumption of knowledge under s18(2) on the balance of probabilities
  3. 3 Whether the facts established wilful blindness on the part of Somchit

Ratio Decidendi

The court accepted the second interpretation of s18(2) (that the accused must be shown to have known the nature of the specific drug unless the presumption is rebutted) and found, on the facts, that Somchit rebutted the presumption by proving on the balance of probabilities she believed the substance to be a "not serious" drug and was not wilfully blind; she was therefore acquitted of trafficking diamorphine but convicted under s175(2) CPC of attempting to traffic a Class C drug and sentenced to 9 years' imprisonment; by contrast the evidence established that Quek had possession, knowledge and intention to traffic diamorphine, his charge was validly amended and he was convicted and...

Court Disposition

First accused (Phuthita Somchit): acquitted of original charge of trafficking diamorphine; convicted of attempt to traffic a Class C controlled drug and sentenced to 9 years' imprisonment. Second accused (Quek Hock Lye): convicted of amended charge of trafficking not less than 62.14g diamorphine and sentenced to death.

Orders

  • Acquit Phuthita Somchit of the original s5(1)(a)/s5(2) charge for trafficking diamorphine
  • Convict Phuthita Somchit under s175(2) CPC of attempt to traffic a Class C controlled drug