Difficulties With Drug Conspiracies in Singapore: Can You Conspire to Traffic Drugs to Yourself?

Kenny Yang
{"title":"Difficulties With Drug Conspiracies in Singapore: Can You Conspire to Traffic Drugs to Yourself?","authors":"Kenny Yang","doi":"10.5070/P8371048805","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Author(s): Yang, Kenny | Abstract: If Person A delivers drugs to Person B at the latter’s request, Person A is liable for drug trafficking—a serious offense in many jurisdictions. However, the liability of Person B for drug trafficking is unclear as much may depend on Person B’s intention with the drugs. The Singaporean Courts recently had to grapple with this issue in Liew Zheng Yang v. Public Prosecutor and Ali bin Mohamad Bahashwan v. Public Prosecutor and other appeals. Prior to these two cases, the position in Singapore was clear—Person B should be liable for drug trafficking as an accessory to Person A, in line with Singapore’s strong stance against drug offenses. However, since these cases, the Singaporean Courts have taken a contrary position and held that Person B may not be liable if the drugs were for his/her own consumption.This Article examines the law with respect to this drug conspiracy offense in Singapore, looking at its history, the primary legislation and similar cases. It also scrutinizes the judicial reasoning in the two cases above and considers whether this can be reconciled with the Courts’ prior position on the issue. In this analysis, the Article also investigates the position taken in other comparable common law jurisdictions—including the UK, Australia, Canada and the United States—and concludes that the Singaporean Courts’ reasoning in the aforementioned two cases may not be tenable and warrant a reexamination.","PeriodicalId":83387,"journal":{"name":"UCLA Pacific Basin law journal","volume":"1 1","pages":"127-177"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"UCLA Pacific Basin law journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5070/P8371048805","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Author(s): Yang, Kenny | Abstract: If Person A delivers drugs to Person B at the latter’s request, Person A is liable for drug trafficking—a serious offense in many jurisdictions. However, the liability of Person B for drug trafficking is unclear as much may depend on Person B’s intention with the drugs. The Singaporean Courts recently had to grapple with this issue in Liew Zheng Yang v. Public Prosecutor and Ali bin Mohamad Bahashwan v. Public Prosecutor and other appeals. Prior to these two cases, the position in Singapore was clear—Person B should be liable for drug trafficking as an accessory to Person A, in line with Singapore’s strong stance against drug offenses. However, since these cases, the Singaporean Courts have taken a contrary position and held that Person B may not be liable if the drugs were for his/her own consumption.This Article examines the law with respect to this drug conspiracy offense in Singapore, looking at its history, the primary legislation and similar cases. It also scrutinizes the judicial reasoning in the two cases above and considers whether this can be reconciled with the Courts’ prior position on the issue. In this analysis, the Article also investigates the position taken in other comparable common law jurisdictions—including the UK, Australia, Canada and the United States—and concludes that the Singaporean Courts’ reasoning in the aforementioned two cases may not be tenable and warrant a reexamination.
新加坡毒品阴谋的困难:你能密谋贩毒给自己吗?
【摘要】如果甲应乙的要求向乙提供毒品,甲要承担贩毒的责任,这在许多司法管辖区都是一种严重的犯罪行为。然而,B人对贩毒的责任尚不清楚,因为这在很大程度上可能取决于B人使用毒品的意图。新加坡法院最近在刘正阳诉公诉人和Ali bin Mohamad Bahashwan诉公诉人和其他上诉中不得不努力解决这个问题。在这两起案件之前,新加坡的立场是明确的,B应该作为A的从犯对贩毒负责,这与新加坡反对毒品犯罪的强硬立场一致。然而,由于这些案件,新加坡法院采取了相反的立场,认为如果药物是为他/她自己消费,则该人B可能不承担责任。本文考察了新加坡关于毒品串谋罪的法律渊源、主要立法和类似案例。委员会还仔细审查上述两个案件的司法推理,并考虑这是否能与法院在这个问题上的先前立场相协调。在这一分析中,文章还调查了其他类似的普通法司法管辖区(包括英国、澳大利亚、加拿大和美国)所采取的立场,并得出结论,新加坡法院在上述两起案件中的推理可能站不住脚,需要重新审查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书