SUPREME COURT OF SINGAPORE
2 April 2024
Case summary
Public Prosecutor v Seet Poh Jing [2024] SGHC 95
Criminal Case No 47 of 2022
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decision of the General Division of the High Court:
Outcome: The General Division of the High Court found that the accused had failed to prove his defence that he possessed 4509.2g of cannabis mixture for the purpose of conducting research and development of cannabidiol. As the accused had not rebutted the operative presumption in s 17 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) that he had the cannabis mixture in his possession for the purpose of trafficking, the court convicted him as charged and imposed the mandatory death penalty.
Background
1 The accused, Seet Poh Jing (“Seet”), claimed trial to a charge of having in his possession for the purpose of trafficking not less than 4509.2g of cannabis mixture (“the Drugs”), an offence under s 5(1)(a) read with s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“MDA”). This is an offence punishable under s 33(1) of the MDA.
2 It is undisputed that Seet had actual possession of the Drugs and that Seet knew the nature of the Drugs in his possession. The key issue in this case is whether Seet can rebut the presumption of trafficking under s 17 of the MDA, and show on the balance of probabilities that he did not possess the Drugs for the purpose of trafficking.
3 Seet’s case centres on the defence that he possessed the Drugs for the purpose of conducting research and development of cannabidiol (“CBD”) (the “Research Defence”), and not for the purpose of trafficking. Seet also claims that he was suffering from a drug-induced hypomanic episode, thus causing him to exhibit reckless behaviour in carrying out his plans to set up a cannabis business by extracting CBD oil. Accordingly, the defence submits that the presumption of trafficking under s 17 of the MDA is rebutted and the Prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Decision
4 In order to rebut the presumption of trafficking under s 17 of the MDA, the burden lies on the accused to prove on a balance of probabilities that he had no such purpose of trafficking: at [28].
5 The Research Defence has not been proved on a balance of probabilities. Accordingly, Seet has failed to rebut the presumption of trafficking under s 17 of the MDA: at [30].
6 The Research Defence is an afterthought. Seet provided statements to the Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) on multiple occasions after his arrest, but did not raise the Research Defence until trial. This was despite the fact that Seet was asked numerous times by the Investigating Officer about his purpose for possessing the Drugs. The statements that Seet gave are reliable and the court accords them appropriate weight: at [31]–[43], [46]–[53].
7 The Research Defence is internally inconsistent. There is no evidence that Seet had the means or any plan in place to conduct research and development and/or to extract the CBD: at [54]–[56].
8 Seet is not a credible witness, and his evidence is riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies relating to: (a) his purpose for possessing the Drugs; (b) whether he had willingly accepted the five blocks of cannabis mixture; and (c) the details of his alleged personal consumption of the Drugs: at [58]–[62].
9 Seet’s enthusiasm for cannabis does not prove that Seet possessed the Drugs for the purpose of research and development of CBD. In deciding whether Seet has rebutted the presumption, the pivotal question is whether Seet has demonstrated on the balance of probabilities what he intended to use the Drugs in his possession for. It is difficult to believe that Seet had any concrete ideas or plans for the research and development (including the production and/or extraction) of CBD in Singapore that he could work with and was ready to act on, much less specifically in relation to the Drugs. Any such ideas or plans existed only within his imagination. Seet may well be a “cannabis enthusiast” and concomitantly also an illicit trafficker of controlled drugs: at [63]–[71].
10 The totality of the evidence is consistent with Seet having possessed the Drugs for the purpose of trafficking. Seet’s phone records show that on 30 May 2018, Seet had advertised the sale of “weed” to at least 19 contacts, and that he also referred to himself as the “Ganja man”. Drug-related paraphernalia commonly associated with trafficking activities, such as stained knives and stained digital weighing scales, were also among the various exhibits seized upon Seet’s arrest: at [72]–[78].
11 Seet has not shown on a balance of probabilities that he suffered from a drug-induced hypomanic episode at the time of the offence, which allegedly caused him to form the unrealistic intention to attempt to produce and/or extract CBD from the Drugs. In that regard, the assessment of the Prosecution’s expert Dr Kenneth Koh (“Dr Koh”) is more objective and more consistent with the available evidence, compared to that of the Defence expert, Dr Jacob Rajesh. Dr Koh found that while Seet had mild manic tendencies, these were not elevated to a severe level of hypomania, and he was not psychotic or impaired in his judgment and cognitive functioning: at [82]–[83], [94]–[102].
12 In order to qualify for the alternative sentencing regime under s 33B(3)(b) of the MDA, an accused person must first prove that he is a courier (s 33B(3)(a) of the MDA). Seet has never claimed that he was a mere courier. In any case, Seet was not suffering from an abnormality of mind and there was no impairment of his mental responsibility for his acts in relation to his offence: at [103]–[111].
13 Seet has not proved on a balance of probabilities that he had possessed the Drugs for the purpose of research and development, including the production and/or extraction, of CBD, and not for the purpose of trafficking. Accordingly, Seet has failed to rebut the presumption of trafficking under s 17 of the MDA. Therefore, the Prosecution has proved the charge of possession for the purpose of trafficking beyond reasonable doubt. Seet is thus found guilty and convicted. As the alternative sentencing regime in s 33B of the MDA is inapplicable in the present case, the court imposes the mandatory death penalty on Seet: at [112]–[113].
This summary is provided to assist in the understanding of the Court’s grounds of decision. It is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court. All numbers in bold font and square brackets refer to the corresponding paragraph numbers in the Court’s grounds of decision.