Drug-trafficking accused must choose case at outset: Judge
File photo of the State Courts. Photo: Channel NewsAsia
SINGAPORE — Even with changes to the law from 2013 giving some drug traffickers the chance to escape the death penalty, there should not be a staggered trial resulting in an uncertain fate for accused persons at every stage, a High Court judge has ruled.
At the outset, an accused person has to choose his case — either arguing that he did not traffic drugs, or that he did so only as a courier. Prosecutors must also indicate then whether they will be granting a certificate of substantive assistance if an accused person is deemed to be merely a courier by the court, said Justice Choo Han Teck.
Having “a series of hearings” could give accused persons the impression that they have several opportunities to save themselves from the gallows, “thus diminishing the deterrent effect that Parliament seeks to maintain”, he added in a judgment made public today (June 10) determining Chum Tat Suan to have been only a drug courier.
There must be only one trial to dispose of all issues, following which, the option to appeal may be taken up, said Justice Choo.
The accused person might make two final submissions together: That he did not traffic drugs, but in the event that the court finds he did, his role was merely that of a courier. He cannot try out one defence after the other, the judge added.
“Even an accused in a murder case has to elect from the start if he wishes to plead diminished responsibility. By the same token, the Public Prosecutor must indicate at the outset as well whether it will or will not be granting the certificate of substantive assistance. This will enable the accused to consider his defence carefully and make his election,” wrote Justice Choo.
He had disagreed with prosecutors and Chum’s lawyer that the court must first make a finding on Chum being a mere courier, before prosecutors take a further statement from him to determine if he merited a certificate of substantive assistance that would give a judge the discretion to spare him the death penalty.
If a certificate is not issued, both parties would then argue if the accused had such abnormality of mind as to be spared the gallows.
The amended laws do not state that the findings must be made one after the other, which would prolong judicial proceedings, said Justice Choo.
When the law sets out a procedure for a capital case, it allows hope and mercy a fair and even chance to co-exist, he said. An accused should be spared the agony of having hopes raised and dashed “so many times”, he added.
Chum, 66, was arrested in January 2010 at the Woodlands Checkpoint and charged for importing not less than 94.96g of heroin into Singapore.
Contacted today on Justice Choo’s decision, an Attorney-General’s Chambers spokesperson said it will consider whether to issue a certificate of substantive assistance to Chum, and will seek expert opinion on his psychiatric report submitted. The latter is to assess if Chum suffered from abnormality of mind during the offence that substantially impaired his mental responsibility, said the spokesperson.
Justice Choo had in 2013 highlighted potential problems with a three-phase procedure after laws were amended to give judges the discretion to spare some drug couriers the death penalty.
The Public Prosecutor then raised three points of law to the Court of Appeal for clarification.
Last November, the apex court ordered the cases of Chum and another drug offender, Abdul Kahar Othman, to be sent back to the High Court to determine if they were couriers, after it ruled that the meaning of “courier” is limited only to transporting, sending or delivering the drug.
