Buying Heroin Penang

__________________________

📍 Verified store!

📍 Guarantees! Quality! Reviews!

__________________________

▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼

>>>✅(Click Here)✅<<<

▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲

Buying Heroin Penang

JavaScript is required Please enable Javascript in order to use PubChem website.

JavaScript is required...

Buying Heroin Penang

This judgment text has undergone conversion so that it is mobile and web-friendly. This may have created formatting or alignment issues. Please refer to the PDF copy for a print-friendly version. 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. They had a photocopy of a photograph of Ms Yen. There was no dispute about the identity of the person identified by him. 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. She told SSSgt Tan that the accused had thrown away the packet during the arrest. 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:. Q: This bag, does it belong to you? A: Accused nods here head. Q: What is inside the bag? A Inside the bag contained more than 30 packets of heroin. He also denied that the accused had said there was nothing inside the sling bag. Sgt Ler had recorded the arrest and what the accused had said in his pocket book the next day ie 9 May NE 98 and 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 , he said during re-examination that he had made a mistake and he did not hear the accused say this NE , and 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 NE She also said that during the arrest, she spotted the accused throwing a packet of crystallised substance onto the ground PS 14 para 5. Cpl Mak had recorded the events mentioned in his statement in his pocket book at about 9. He saw the accused who was handcuffed. The boot of the Taxi was open and he saw the sling bag in it. He sat beside the driver of the Taxi. The accused said Hokkien. Accused: Hokkien. SI Ronnie See: This black colour bag belongs to whom? SI Ronnie See: What is inside? Accused: Heroin. SI Ronnie See: How much heroin? 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. SI See continued with his questions:. SI Ronnie See: The heroin here belongs to who? SI Ronnie See: What are this heroin meant for? Accused: Consume. SI Ronnie See: Whom you obtained the heroin from? SI Ronnie See: Do you have anything else to say? 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. 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 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 to 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 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 and Her evidence on the questions and answers were based on her memory see NE to 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 to , She had asked the accused whether she understood English and she nodded. The questions and answers which she recorded in her field book were:. Q1: Does the taxi driver who drove you to Toa Payoh have any knowledge of the drugs inside his taxi? Q2: Does he know or not? Q3: Does the Chinese guy who was arrested with you have any knowledge about the drugs inside the taxi? Q4: What do you call the Chinese guy who was arrested with you? 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. The accused then signed at the bottom of this charge. Again Mr Wu interpreted it in Hokkien to the accused. The accused signed below this charge. She read it in English and Mr Wu interpreted it in Hokkien to the accused. The accused signed below the Notice of Warning. At about 4. That is all. The sachets were marked as:. Both the brown paper bags were found in a red plastic bag marked as B. His findings were:. The aggregate weight of the granular substance from the sachets was therefore The aggregate diamorphine content was not less than She said she did not complete secondary one education but then said she did complete secondary one but not secondary two. She was asleep and said she would call him back. 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 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. 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. When she took it, she did not pay attention whether it felt heavy or not. 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. 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. The officer then opened the sling bag and took out a packet and she saw that it contained heroin. 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. I set out below those parts of her long statement which contradicted her oral testimony:. He then told me to meet him at Thomson Plaza to pick up the stuff. I then took a taxi to Toa Payoh Central …. I was then carrying my handbag. He handed over some cash and thereafter, I was placed under arrest by CNB officers. After my arrest, I was brought to witness a search of the taxi that I had took to Toa Payoh. The officers then recovered a bag from the boot of the taxi. They found some drugs. He also told me that he would settle the balance of money with me on another day. Therefore I was surprised when the officers recovered so much drugs in my bags. These 20 to 30 sachets of heroin were meant for my consumption. I would ask him how come there were so many extra sachets of heroin and I would return the extra sachets of heroin to him. 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. She thought that by admitting to these sachets, she would escape the death penalty. She never expected the accusation that the sachets belonged to her. 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. 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. 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. Accordingly, her testimony could not be relied upon regarding whether the statement recorded by SI See was accurate. Ms Goh submitted that it was not put to the accused that such evidence was untrue. A previous statement made by an accused, which has been used to impeach his credit, is only admissible for that limited purpose, and not as substantive evidence of the content thereof. I quote from her written submissions:. The defence is contending that there is a break in the chain of evidence, calling into doubt the identity of the sachets. In this case, there is failure by the prosecution to adduce evidence to provide the necessary link in the chain of evidence and is fatal to the prosecution case. In Teoh Hoe Chye v. The Court held : It is unnecessary to call evidence to ensure that there is no break in the chain of evidence but where a doubt as to the identity of an exhibit arises, a failure to adduce evidence to provide the necessary link in the chain of evidence would be fatal to the prosecution case. Summary of case on pg : Supt Low, a member of Customs ambush party, upon arrest of the accused, took possession of the brown bag. He examined the bag and found 10 packages wrapped in brown paper. While in his office, he handed the bag which was believed to contain the drugs to Supt Lum. Supt Low then left the office. The following questions may be asked : what did Supt Lum do with the exhibits after he received them from Supt Low; where did he keep them; were they kept under lock and key; and did Supt Lum return to Supt Low the very same exhibits he received from Supt Low. The answers to these questions are highly pertinent to a proper determination of the identity of the exhibits. A very vital link in the prosecution case seems to be missing. The Court held: In this regard, it behoves us to reiterate that the requirement of strict proof in a criminal case cannot be relaxed to bridge any material gap in the prosecution evidence. Irrespective of whether the Court is otherwise convinced in its own mind of the guilt of innocence of an accused, its decision must be based on the evidence adduced and nothing else …. At about 8. From the evidence adduced \[by both of them\], the only time that Neither SSSgt Tan nor Sgt Ler saw the black briefcase was in the boot of the taxi. At about 9. Where was the black sling bag after it was taken away from the CNB car? No evidence has been adduced to show that she received the black sling bag either from SI Ronnie See or from any of the other witnesses. At about Where was the accused between The question is how who brought the black sling bag to Basement 4 carpark for photographs to be taken? In her examination-in-chief, the accused was asked Q : Did he explain to you what he asked you to sign? A : He did not. Q : After appending your signature, what happened next? A : They then took away my belonging, including my handbag and the black bag. This was not challenged by the prosecution - that the black bag was taken away from the CNB car. Therefore, there is evidence from the accused that the black sling bag was taken away i. The question is who took away the black sling bag and who had possession of the black sling bag thereafter? From the above, the defence contends that there is a break in the chain of evidence the black sling bag affecting the identity of the exhibits i. No evidence has been adduced by the prosecution to provide the necessary link in the chain of evidence. And it is the defence submission that this is fatal to the prosecution case. In Abdul Rashid v P. Summary of case : After seizing the package, SNO Chew testimony was that it was in his possession be it actual or constructive right until the time he labelled it. The Court held: At page -. Where there is a break in the chain of possession and a doubt arises as to the identity of these exhibits, the court will hold that the prosecution has not discharged the burden. In Lai Kam Loy v. Summary of case at page Sgt Sivakumaran had properly labeled the give \[ sic \] packets of drugs before he handed them over to SNO Johnny Ho so as not to create a doubt as to whether they were the same five packets he collected from SNO Johnny Ho the following day. There is no evidence as to the whereabouts of the black sling bag from the car park to the CNB Hq. In Satli Bin Masot v. Summary of case : Drugs found in a flat. Who actually carried it from the flat to the CNB car? There were 3 officers. Insp Cindy Goh testimony was that although she did not personally carried \[ sic \] the large plastic bag from the flat to the car, she remembered it was one of the 2 officers with her and she had the drugs in her view all the time. The prosecution did not call the 2 officers to testify. The defence did not contend that there was any further breaks at any other period of time. The Court held: At page :. Only when such a doubt had arisen would it be necessary for the prosecution to call al \[ sic \] necessary witnesses so as to provide the necessary links in the chain of evidence. No evidence as to where was the black sling bag after it was taken away from the CNB car. The defence humbly submits that there is a break in the chain of evidence and the prosecution had not called witnesses to provide the necessary link in the chain of evidence. Following the case of Abdul Rashid v. And if a doubt arises as to its identity, the court will hold that the prosecution has not discharged the burden. We humbly submit that a doubt has arisen as to the identity of the exhibits and hence the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden. If the court does not hold that a doubt as to the identity of the exhibits has arisen, we humbly submits \[ sic \] that the accused had through her testimony in Court rebutted the presumption on a balance of probabilities and humbly urge this Honourable Court to discharge and acquit her accordingly. At p to , Lord Parker said:. The situation with regard to containers presents further problems. If a man is in possession of the contents of a package, prima facie his possession of the package leads to the strong inference that he is in possession of its contents. But can this be rebutted by evidence that he was mistaken as to its contents? Thus the prima facie assumption is discharged if he proves or raises a real doubt in the matter either a that he was a servant or bailee who had no right to open it and no reason to suspect that its contents were illicit or were drugs or b that although he was the owner he had no knowledge of including a genuine mistake as to its actual contents or of their illicit nature and that he received them innocently and also that he had had no reasonable opportunity since receiving the package of acquainting himself with its actual contents. For a man takes over a package or suitcase at risk as to its contents being unlawful if he does not immediately examine it if he is entitled to do so. As soon as may be he should examine it and if he finds the contents suspicious reject possession by either throwing them away or by taking immediate sensible steps for their disposal. 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. 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. Chain of possession. In other words, it cannot be that in every drug case it lies on the prosecution to laboriously call every single witness to establish the chain of possession of the seized drugs. The need to do so only arises where a doubt as to the identity of an exhibit has arisen. This may arise for instance where it has been established that there was a shortfall in numbers or a failure to mark the exhibits. Defence of break in the chain of evidence. We do not think there is merit in this point. The question was whether the exhibits the Inspector produced were the guns and ammunition he found at the scene, and as when he produced them as those very guns and ammunition there was no objection by the defence, it would have been a waste of judicial time to call all the intervening handlers. In our experience much judicial time is spent unnecessarily, notably in subordinate courts, in ensuring no break in the chain of evidence. In our judgment, if the officer who picked up an object at the scene produced it and identified it as that very object, that is enough, and there is no need to call every other officer who handled it. For this reason it is desirable for a police officer who picked up an object that is easily marked such as a gun, to mark it well, in case it may be needed later on as an exhibit. There are, however, objects such as blood samples and the like that cannot be easily marked; it is only in the case of such objects that it may be necessary to call everybody who has handled it - then only if there is doubt as to identity. Whether such a doubt exists must be judged in light of all relevant circumstances surrounding the transportation of the drugs from the flat to the car. In fact all three of them walked to the staff car together, during which time, Insp Goh had the drug exhibits within her view throughout. In the circumstances, the drug exhibits could be said to have been in her de facto possession be it actual or constructive during the relevant time. The drug exhibits were accounted for at all times while they were being transported down to the CNB staff car. This is consistent with the burden on the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. I will now refer to that para 4 and other evidence on this point. To me, this was a quantum leap. 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. Neither of these witnesses were challenged on this aspect of their evidence. Indeed, that is how Ms Goh summarised her argument in her oral closing submission NE 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? During the photographing, the sling bag was found to contain seven other exhibits. Also, this was not a situation where the prosecution had failed to call a witness. SI See was a witness. From the sling bag:. Inside each brown paper bag were 30 sachets of yellow granular substance. Inside were 30 sachets of yellow granular substance. Inside the brown paper bag were 30 sachets of yellow granular substance. In my view, they were untrue in a different sense i. 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. 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 , 17 May twice , 20 May and 21 August By 21 August , 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. She was not able to explain how the snide remarks had caused her to make untrue statements. Their evidence was corroborated by other CNB officers and I accept their evidence. All these statements of the accused belied her oral testimony. When she took the sling bag she could not have failed to note that it was not empty. This was also not a case where the accused had thought that the contents of the sling bag were something else. 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. 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. 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 after she awoke from her sleep. She failed to call her mother to testify on her behalf. 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. 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. Section 3 states:.

Buying Heroin Penang