PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v Seet Poh Jing

[2024] SGHC 95 High Court (General Division) 2 April 2024 HC/CC 47/2022 62 min read
7 cases cited

Key facts

Court High Court (General Division)
Decided
Judge See Kee Oon
Charges / claim Criminal Law
Counsel Andre Jumabhoy LLC, Attorney-General's Chambers, Sterling Law Corporation, Andre Darius Jumabhoy, Jotham Tay Zi Xun, Nicholas Wuan Kin Lek, Quek Lu Yi, Sankar S/O Kailasa Thevar Saminathan

Source: [2024] SGHC 95, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .

Catchwords

Practice Areas

Judges (1)

Counsel (8)

Parties (2)

Case Significance

Public Prosecutor v Seet Poh Jing [2024] SGHC 95 was a reserved judgment of the General Division of the High Court of Singapore delivered on 2 April 2024 by See Kee Oon JAD, in Criminal Case No 47 of 2022, following trial hearings across September and November 2022 and various dates in 2023. The accused, Seet Poh Jing, claimed trial to a charge of having in his possession for the purpose of trafficking not less than 4,509.2g of cannabis mixture, an offence under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) ("MDA") and punishable under s 33(1) of the MDA. According to the charge, the accused was alleged to have trafficked in the drugs on 28 June 2018 at about 5.20pm, inside a car bearing Singapore registration number SJP9770Z parked at the car park of Block 857 Tampines Street 83. The five blocks of vegetable matter were analysed and found to contain not less than 1,894.7g of cannabis and not less than 2,614.5g of fragmented vegetable matter containing cannabinol and tetrahydrocannabinol, together constituting cannabis mixture as defined in s 2 of the MDA. The catchwords record that the case concerned a statutory offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The prosecution was conducted by the Attorney-General's Chambers, while the accused was represented by Andre Jumabhoy LLC and Sterling Law Corporation.

[2024] SGHC 95 explained

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v Seet Poh Jing ([2024] SGHC 95) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 2 April 2024. It is categorised under Criminal Law. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2024] SGHC 95 about?

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v Seet Poh Jing ([2024] SGHC 95) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2024. Its published catchwords are “Criminal Law — Statutory offences — Misuse of Drugs Act”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2024] SGHC 95 consider?

The judgment refers to Class A Controlled Drug listed in the First Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) and Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

What was the charge in Public Prosecutor v Seet Poh Jing [2024] SGHC 95?

The accused, Seet Poh Jing, claimed trial to a charge of possession for the purpose of trafficking of not less than 4,509.2g of cannabis mixture, an offence under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act and punishable under s 33(1) of the MDA.

What did the drug analysis show in [2024] SGHC 95?

The five blocks of vegetable matter, said to have been found on 28 June 2018 in a car at Block 857 Tampines Street 83, were analysed as not less than 1,894.7g of cannabis and not less than 2,614.5g of matter containing cannabinol and tetrahydrocannabinol, together forming cannabis mixture under s 2 of the MDA.

Statutes Cited

Cases Cited (7)

SLR (7)
[1995] 3 SLR(R) 90 [2011] 1 SLR 606 [2014] 3 SLR 721 [2018] 1 SLR 610 [2019] 2 SLR 216 [2022] 1 SLR 1240 [2023] 1 SLR 222

Related cases

Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.

Referenced in

Statutes interpreted in this judgment

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.

Read on eLitigation

Source: eLitigation ([2024] SGHC 95)