SINGAPORE, October 16 – A judge from the Supreme Court yesterday dismissed the Prosecutor's appeal against Metro-familygeion Ong Jenn, agreeing with a district court ruling that he should not be condemned for drug sharing.
Ong, a business development manager at Metro Holdings, is serving a two-year prison sentence after he has pleaded guilty to two counts of attempted possession of controlled drugs.
The public prosecutor claimed that the 43-year-old should have been convicted of the original allegations of sexual assault for traffic-controlled drugs, and appealed against his lower costs and against the sentencing to those lower costs.
On May 12 last year, Ong admitted that the attempt to use drugs after a six-day trial period was in the possession.
At the time, district judge Jasvender Kaur agreed with Ong's argument that the drugs – 92.68 g of cannabis and 385.1 g of cannabis mixture – were for personal consumption only.
Among the many reasons put forward in their appeal, the Prosecution argued that the & # 39; huge amount & # 39; drugs owned by Ong prompted the conclusion that he had ordered from his supplier Mohamad Ismail Abdul Majid with a view to human trafficking.
Ismail was arrested on October 30, 2014 before he could deliver the drugs, and Ong, who agreed to buy 500 g of the drugs for S $ 5,000 (RM15,095.50), was arrested a day later.
Ong also appeared to have 360g of the same medication.
The prosecutor also argued that Ong – the grandson of Ong Tjoe Kim, founder of department store chain Metro – had "given very contradictory statements about his (drug) consumption rate".
During the trial in court, Ong's claims varied on his personal consumption percentages from 50 g to 350 g per month.
Moreover, on the basis of Ong's perceived consumption pattern, the Prosecution claimed that the total quantity would be "grossly larger" than its own consumer needs.
They added that text messages between Ong and two friends had shown that he agreed to sell or share the cannabis with them.
Justice Hoo Sheau Peng said yesterday, however, that the lower court had carefully considered these matters.
In explaining her decision, she noted that Ong was a long-term drug addict because it had been diagnosed as having a cannabis dependency disorder-a fact that was not challenged by the Prosecution.
And although there were "inconsistencies" in evidence of Ong's consumption, the judge of the Supreme Court said that the Prosecution had not challenged the evidence during the trial.
Using the "undisputed evidence" to which the court of justice had relied – about 350 g per month – Hoo pointed out that the drugs and additional drugs would have taken him more than two months.
"Although this was perhaps a bit of a stock, there was no evidence that it went far beyond its consumption needs," she said.
Regarding the messages that Ong sent to his two female friends, Hoo noted that the two women had not been called as witnesses to prove the intention to sell drugs, and that their messages were "brought only in cross-examination".
When he said that it "took some effort" to link the messages to the drugs in question, Hoo said, "I agree with the court judge that the human trafficking case had not been issued."
She added: "As the investigating judge noted, (Ong) was a heavy (cannabis) user and had the means to buy the drugs for his own consumption."
The Appellant's appeal against the judgment of Ong is pending, with the case to be heard again on 1 November. – TODAY