Calvin Low Chan Hoe v Pendakwa Raya

Case Significance

Illustrates that carrying a large quantity of drugs constitutes trafficking within section 2 and engages the presumption of trafficking under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, and that a bare denial of knowledge, without evidence, will not rebut the presumption or unsettle a conviction under section 39B(1)(a).

This Court of Appeal decision concerns an appeal against conviction and sentence for drug trafficking under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, turning on knowledge, the trafficking presumption and complaints of a deficient investigation. The appellant had been convicted in the High Court of trafficking in 3,448.1 grams of methamphetamine and sentenced to life imprisonment, meaning 30 years, together with twelve strokes of whipping. The prosecution case was that a police team, acting on information, kept a courier-service office under surveillance and saw the appellant, the sole occupant of a car, walk to the office and emerge carrying five parcels, whereupon he was arrested and the parcels, containing methamphetamine concealed in chocolate tins, were seized from him. On appeal the appellant argued that the investigation was shoddy because the so-called real trafficker had not been investigated, that his knowledge of the contents of the parcels had not been proved, that too much emphasis had been placed on his reaction on arrest, and that there was a gap in the prosecution case. The Court rejected these contentions. It held that the mere act of carrying the drugs constituted trafficking within the definition in section 2 of the Act, that the quantity, exceeding the statutory threshold for the presumption of trafficking by approximately 69 times, engaged the presumption, and that the appellant had adduced no evidence to rebut it, offering only a bare denial of knowledge which the trial judge had correctly rejected. Satisfied that the presumption of trafficking remained unrebutted and that the conviction was safe, and that the sentence was the minimum prescribed by law, the Court dismissed the appeals against both conviction and sentence and affirmed the decision of the High Court. The judgment is a useful illustration of how carrying a large quantity of drugs engages the trafficking presumption and of the limited weight of a bare denial of knowledge.