WOT but please bear with me
ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S CHAMBERS
YONG VUI KONG V PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
(CRIMINAL APPEAL 13 OF 2008)
PRESS RELEASE
1. The above-stated appeal was heard before the Court of Appeal this
morning on 15 March 2010. This appeal arose out of the appellant’s
trial and subsequent conviction in the High Court on a capital charge
under s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed)
(“MDA”) for the offence of trafficking in not less than 47.27 grams of
diamorphine.
2. This amount of diamorphine can be used to produce approximately
4,566 straws of heroin, which is worth at least $136,980. The
appellant also faced another eight charges which were stood down at
the commencement of the trial.
3. Upon his conviction, these eight charges were withdrawn pursuant to
section 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68). These charges
were as follows:
No. Offence Date and Time of Offence
1. Trafficking in controlled drugs by delivering 34 packets of a substance containing notless than 14.09 g of diamorphine to one
‘Reggie’, under section 5(1)(a) and punishable under section 33 of the MDA
On 13 June 2007, at about 12.05 am, at the vicinity of Meritus
Mandarin Hotel at Orchard Road,
Singapore
2. Trafficking in controlled drugs by transporting 1 packet of substance
containing not less than 82.77 g of ketamine in motor car MBK 5317 from
Yishun St 22 to the vicinity of Meritus Mandarin Hotel at Orchard Road, Singapore,
under section 5(1)(a) and punishable under section 33 of the MDA
From about 10.40 pm on 12 June 2007 to
about 12.05 am on 13 June 2007
3. Trafficking in controlled drugs by
transporting 100 tablets containing 13.04g of N, a-dimethyl-3,4-(methylenedioxy)
phenethylamine (ie ecstasy) in motor car MBK 5317 from Yishun St 22 to the vicinity of Meritus Mandarin Hotel at Orchard Road,
Singapore, under section 5(1)(a) and punishable under section 33 of the MDA
From about 10.40 pm on 12 June 2007 to
about 12.05 am on 13 June 2007
4. Trafficking in controlled drugs by transporting 1 packet of substance
containing 19.28 g of methamphetamine (ie ‘ice’) in motor car MBK 5317 from Yishun St 22 to the vicinity of Meritus Mandarin
Hotel at Orchard Road, Singapore, under section 5(1)(a) and punishable under section 33 of the MDA From about 10.40 pm on 12 June 2007 to
about 12.05 am on 13 June 2007
5. Trafficking in controlled drugs by delivering
130 tablets containing 16.77 g of N, adimethyl- 3,4-
(methylenedioxy)phenethylamine (ie ecstasy) to one ‘Reggie’, under section 5(1)(a) and punishable under section 33 of the MDA
On 13 June 2007, at about 12.05 am, at the vicinity of Meritus
Mandarin Hotel at Orchard Road,
Singapore
6. Trafficking in controlled drugs by delivering 3 packets of substance containing not less than 106.88 g of ketamine to Reggie, under section 5(1)(a) and punishable under section 33 of the MDA
On 13 June 2007, at
about 12.05 am, at the
vicinity of Meritus
Mandarin Hotel at
Orchard Road,
Singapore
7. Trafficking in controlled drugs by delivering 1
packet of substance containing 3.73 g of
methamphetamine (ie ‘ice’) to Reggie,
under section 5(1)(a) and punishable under
section 33 of the MDA
On 13 June 2007, at
about 12.05 am, at the
vicinity of Meritus
Mandarin Hotel at
Orchard Road,
Singapore
8. Trafficking in controlled drugs by delivering
1500 tablets containing nimetazepam (ie
Erimin) to Reggie, under section 5(1)(a) and
punishable under section 33 of the MDA
On 13 June 2007, at
about 12.05 am, at the
vicinity of Meritus
Mandarin Hotel at
Orchard Road,
Singapore
4. On 29 April 2009, the Applicant withdrew his appeal to the Court of
Appeal and the sentence of death was affirmed. On 20 November
2009, the President, after due consideration of the Applicant’s Petition
for Clemency, and on the advice of the Cabinet, decided that the
sentence should stand.
5. On 8 December 2009, the Court of Appeal granted the Applicant’s
application in Criminal Motion No. 41 of 2009 for an extension of time
to pursue his appeal against conviction and sentence. This appeal
(Criminal Appeal 13 of 2008) was fixed for hearing on 15 March 2010.
6. At this appeal, the appellant argued :
a. That the mandatory death penalty for trafficking in
15g or more of diamorphine as prescribed under
the Misuse of Drugs Act (‘MDA’) is void for
inconsistency with Article 9 of the Constitution;
and
b. That the mandatory death penalty for trafficking in
15g or more of diamorphine as prescribed under
the MDA is void for inconsistency with Article 12(1)
of the Constitution.
7. The appellant also sought to adduce, by way of a criminal motion, the
evidence of one Professor Jeffrey Fagan to put forth the contention
that the mandatory nature of the death penalty has little deterrent
effect in curbing homicides and drug offences.
8. The arguments of the Attorney-General’s Chambers in respect of both
the appeal and the criminal motion are enclosed herewith.
