Ang Ser Kuang v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 03 September 1998
• Neutral Citation: [1998] SGHC 297
• Docket Number: Magistrate’s Appeal No 261 of 1997
• Date: 03 September 1998
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1998
• Plaintiff Counsel: K Shanmugam SC and K Muralidharan Pillai (Allen & Gledhill), Daniel Gerald Jeyasegaram (Koh Ong & Partners)
• Citation: [1998] SGHC 297
• Defendant Counsel: Bala Reddy and Toh Han Li (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Sentencing,Appellent court amends charge to conspiracy to commit robbery with hurt,Whether communication between each and every conspirator necessary,s 111 Penal Code (Cap 224),Appellant recruits first conspirator,Abetment,Seriousness of robbery and hurt caused,First conspirator recruits three more conspirators,Alteration,Appellant charged with conspiracy to commit armed robbery,Conspiracy to commit robbery,Whether common design necessary,Conspiracy to commit robbery with hurt,Only first conspirator has contact with and knows appellant,Criminal Law,No request by appellant to use weapon for robbery,s 107(b)Penal Code (Cap 224),s 256 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68),Whether sentence of six years' imprisonment and 12 strokes of cane appropriate,Whether amendment of charge prejudices appellant,Robbers using knives,Abetted act different from conspiracy,Whether use of knife during robbery a probable consequence of abetment,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Charge

Judgment:

YONG PUNG HOW CJ

The appellant was charged with one count of conspiracy to commit the offence of armed robbery with hurt. He was convicted by the district court and was sentenced to six years` imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane. He appealed against his conviction and sentence. At the end of the appeal, I directed the charge to be amended to one of conspiracy to commit the offence of robbery with hurt and convicted the appellant of the charge. The appeal against sentence was dismissed. I now set out my grounds.

2.The charge against the appellant was as follows:

You, Ang Ser Kuang M/37 years, NRIC No S1366315G are charged that you, between end 1995 and December 1996, did engage with one Nga Song Pou, Teo Beng Chuan, Tan Chin Poh and Tan Choon Huat in a conspiracy to commit robbery of one Yeo Song Care, and in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to the doing of that thing, an act took place on 17 December 1996 at about 1.42pm, inside the lift at the 10th floor of Block 341 Ubi Avenue 1, Singapore, to wit, the said Tan Chin Poh and Tan Choon Huat committed robbery on Yeo Song Care of the following:

(a) one travelling bag valued at $25

(b) one briefcase valued at $55

(c) an assortment of gold jewellery weighed at about 12 kg valued at $180,000

(d) one Rolex watch valued at $700

Total $180,780

in possession of the said Yeo Song Care, and at the time of the robbery the said Tan Chin Poh and Tan Choon Huat were each armed with a deadly weapon, to wit a knife with a 31 cm blade, and in the course of the robbery one of them caused hurt to the said Yeo Song Care`s fingers with a knife and you have thereby abetted the offence of armed robbery with hurt, which offence was committed in consequence of your abetment, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 394 read with s 397 and s 109 of the Penal Code (Cap 224).

3. The prosecution`s case

The crux of the prosecution`s case was that the appellant and PW7 (Nga Song Pou, also referred to as `David` by the prosecution witnesses), conspired to rob PW1 (Yeo Song Care) on 17 December 1996. The appellant supplied all the information on PW1 to PW7 so as to enable the latter to execute the robbery. PW7 then recruited PW4 (Teo Beng Chuan) who in turn recruited PW2 (Tan Chin Poh) and PW3 (Tan Choon Huat, also referred to as `Koo` by the prosecution witnesses), to commit the robbery.

4.On 1 April 1997, PW7 pleaded guilty to the offence of engaging in a conspiracy to commit armed robbery contrary to s 109 read with s 392 and s 397 Penal Code. He was sentenced to four years` imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane. PW2 and PW3 pleaded guilty and were convicted on 2 May 1997 of the offence of armed robbery under s 392 and s 397 Penal Code. On the same day, PW4 pleaded guilty to the offence of engaging in a conspiracy to commit armed robbery under s 109 read with s 392 and s 397 Penal Code. PW2 and PW4 were each sentenced to four years` imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane. PW3 was sentenced to serve a term of 52 months` imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane.

The evidence of PW7 (Nga Song Pou)

5.The main witness for the prosecution was PW7 who was the only witness who implicated the appellant directly. Prior to his arrest, PW7 was servicing air-conditioners for the last seven to eight years. The appellant helped out at his family`s retail business in a jewellery shop known as Yong Heng Goldsmith and Jewellery. PW7 had known the appellant since 1988 when he installed air-conditioners in the jewellery shop. They later became good friends.

6.Between the end of 1995 and early 1996, the appellant suggested to PW7 that they rob a person whom the appellant knew had a lot of gold. PW7 agreed. This conversation took place in the appellant`s car. PW7 explained that the conversation actually began in a coffee-shop but, because it was not convenient to talk in the coffee-shop, the conversation was continued in the appellant`s car. The original plan was for PW7 to look for someone to rob the victim and escape on a motorcycle. PW7 would wait for him in the appellant`s car. The appellant would wait nearby until the loot was placed in the car and he would then get in the car and drive to the jewellery shop for the loot to be melted. It was also agreed that within an hour after melting the gold, the appellant would give 30% to the robbers. The appellant and PW7 would take the rest equally and PW7 would get his share only after the melted gold was disposed of.

7.The following morning after the discussion of the proposed robbery first took place, the appellant drove PW7 to Block 341, Ubi Avenue 1 where the intended victim resided. Whilst they were on their way, the appellant described the victim as a person between 40 and 50 years of age who would be carrying two bags of gold items between 12 noon to 2pm from his flat to his Toyota car registration number SBZ 5105 which would be parked near the lift landing. On that occasion, however, they did not see the victim. A few days later, they went a second time and this time they saw the victim`s car. The appellant instructed PW7 to go there again later to see for himself whether the victim corresponded to the appellant`s earlier description. PW7 returned to the vicinity subsequently in January or February 1996 and noticed a man matching the description of the man carrying two bags which were placed in the said car. He told the appellant about what he had seen. The appellant told him to continue looking for accomplices who could commit the robbery.

8.In March 1996, PW7 contacted PW4, his friend, who expressed an interest in the robbery. PW7 described the victim and other details of the robbery. He mentioned that someone was behind him but did not disclose the appellant`s identity as the appellant had instructed him not to do so. However the appellant was kept up to date by PW7 as to the search for an accomplice to carry out the plan.

9.Around June or July 1996, PW7 was told by the appellant not to contact him after the robbery was committed. The appellant had become impatient with him for his constant paging and told him of the change of plans. The appellant would not be waiting in his car after the robbery. Instead the loot was to be kept by PW7 and the robbers, and the appellant was only to be contacted later.

10.Meanwhile PW4 recruited PW2 to assist the robbery and PW2 in turn recruited PW3. PW2 and 3 decided to commit the robbery at the end of November or early December 1996. After the robbery was committed, on the same day, PW4 informed PW7 of this. PW7 tried to contact the appellant but was unsuccessful in his attempts to do so. PW7 was arrested when he went to PW4`s flat to collect his share of the stolen loot.

The evidence of PW4 (Teo Beng Chuan)

11.PW4 was a hawker stall assistant and a friend of PW7. PW7 contacted him on the possibility of robbing a victim. PW7 said that he had an unnamed friend who knew a subject who carried gold items from his home. PW4 agreed to look for an accomplice and discussed with him the details of the plan. Before they parted, PW4 saw PW7 paging for his friend. PW7 returned shortly to say that his friend had confirmed that the information on the target was still good. PW4 did not know the identity of PW7`s friend.

12.In May 1996, PW4 recruited PW2 and arranged for PW2 to meet PW7. The initial agreement between PW7, PW4 and PW7`s unnamed friend was that one of the robbers, after snatching the gold during the robbery would put the loot in a car and escape by motorcycle. PW7 would then be waiting in the car for the bag of jewellery. The jewellery would then be handed over by PW7 to PW7`s unnamed friend for disposal. The friend would dispose of the gold and, within an hour, PW4 and the robbers would each be given his share of the loot. Subsequently PW4 did not hear of the robbery until 17 December 1996 when PW2 contacted him to inform him that the robbery had been committed.

The evidence of PW2 (Tan Chin Poh) and PW3 (Tan Choon Huat)

13.PW2 testified that he met PW4 in May 1996 and PW4 informed him of his plan to commit robbery with PW7 and PW7`s unnamed friend. PW2 agreed readily to join in the robbery as he was in financial difficulties. He met PW7 and PW4 to discuss the plan. The discussion was substantially the same as that recounted by PW4.

14.In November 1996, PW2, 4 and 7 went to the vicinity of Block 341 Ubi Avenue 1 to conduct observations. On that occasion they only saw a Chinese woman driving PW1`s Toyota car and PW7 said that she was PW1`s younger daughter. PW2 returned to conduct further observations himself. On one occasion, he saw PW1 with his elder daughter, each carrying a bag, approaching PW1`s car. PW2 contacted PW3 and asked him to assist in the robbery. PW3 agreed. They agreed between themselves that they would each take 40% of the loot and give the remainder to PW7 and PW4. Instead of the gold items being passed to PW7 in a waiting car, PW7 would not be present at all. PW2 and 3 would escape by driving off in the victim`s car and dispose of the jewellery themselves.

15.PW2 and 3 decided to commit the robbery on 12 December 1996. However, their attempt to rob the victim on that day was called off when the victim did not turn up. A similar attempt on 16 December 1996 was unsuccessful for the same reason. Later PW2 contacted PW7 to complain about their futile efforts. PW7 said that the victim would turn up on every Monday and Thursday. On 17 December 1996, they went down again, armed with knives which they had purchased. This time they were successful. Instead of attacking the victim at the void deck, to avoid attention, they ambushed him instead in the lift when it was at the landing on the 10th floor and robbed him. In the course of the robbery, PW1`s fingers were cut by the knife which the robbers carried with them. PW2 and 3 tried to escape by driving off in the victim`s car but the car alarm was activated and PW3 could not start the...