Ang Eng Beng v PP

JurisdictionSingapore
CourtCourt of Three Judges (Singapore)
Judgment Date25 September 1990
Date25 September 1990
Docket NumberCriminal Motion No 21 of 1989

[1990] SGCA 17

Court of Appeal

Wee Chong Jin CJ

,

Lai Kew Chai J

and

Yong Pung How J

Criminal Motion No 21 of 1989

Ang Eng Beng
Plaintiff
and
Public Prosecutor
Defendant

J B Jeyaretnam (J B Jeyaretnam) for the applicant

Sowaran Singh for the respondent.

R v Yeo Kim Watt [1946] MLJ 155 (folld)

Wong Kim Wah v PP [1948] MLJ Supp 134 (folld)

Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) ss 34, 37, 394 (consd); ss 149, 396

Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1985 Rev Ed) s 60

Criminal Law–Complicity–Common intention–Applicant charged together with others for being jointly concerned in robbery with hurt–Hurt caused by other participant in the robbery–Whether necessary to prove common intention to commit robbery between applicant and party causing hurt–Sections 34, 37 and 394 Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed)

The Court of Appeal was asked to determine the following question of law: whether in the case of a person charged with being jointly concerned with another person in committing robbery under s 394 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) (“the Code”), such other person having caused hurt while committing the robbery, it was incumbent on the Prosecution to prove the existence of a common intention to commit the robbery as between the person so charged and the person who caused the hurt.

Held, answering the question in the negative:

(1) A reading of s 394 of the Code will show that it deals with the group liability of robbers one or more of whose number causes or cause hurt. Under it, the guilty act of a robber who causes hurt in committing the robbery is imported to all the others who are “jointly concerned” in the commission of the robbery. Such hurt must be caused voluntarily for the end of the robbery. The section obviously refers to two distinct classes of persons: (a) those who cause the hurt, and (b) those who do not, but are “jointly concerned” in the commission of the robbery: at [7].

(2) Section 37 of the Code reads: “When an offence is committed by means of several acts, whoever intentionally co-operates in the commission of that offence by doing any one of those acts, either singly or jointly with any other person, commits that offence.” Such a person made liable under s 37 of the Code is a person “jointly concerned” with the commission of robbery if it is an offence under s 394 of the Code: at [8].

(3) It is not necessary for the Prosecution to prove a common intention (within the meaning of s 34 of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Panya Martmontree and Others v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 7 August 1995
    ...appellant Bala Reddy (Deputy Public Prosecutor) for the respondent. Anandagoda v The Queen [1962] MLJ 289 (folld) Ang Eng Beng v PP [1990] 2 SLR (R) 186 (folld) Chin Seow Noi v PP [1993] 3 SLR (R) 566; [1994] 1 SLR 135 (folld) Ismail bin U K Abdul Rahman v PP [1974-1976] SLR (R) 91; [1972-1......
  • Prasong Bunsom and Others v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 21 August 1995
    ...& Partners) for the third appellant Muhd Hidhir and Wong Choon Ning (Deputy Public Prosecutors) for the respondent. Ang Eng Beng v PP [1990] 2 SLR (R) 186 (folld) Chin Seow Noi v PP [1993] 3 SLR (R) 566; [1994] 1 SLR 135 (folld) Punjab Sing v R AIR 1993 Lah 977 (refd) Queen-Empress v Teja (......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT