Chia Chee Yeen v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 09 October 1991
• Date: 09 October 1991
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 9 of 1990
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)

Chia Chee Yeen

Plaintiff

and

Public Prosecutor

Defendant

[1991] SGCA 35

Yong Pung How CJ

,

L P Thean J

and

F A Chua J

Criminal Appeal No 9 of 1990

Court of Appeal

Criminal Law–Special exceptions–Diminished responsibility–Accused claiming that under delusion at time of murder–Whether accused succeeded in discharging burden on balance of probabilities

The appellant was convicted of murdering one Daniel De Rozario. At the trial, the appellant relied solely on the defence that he was suffering an “abnormality of mind” within Exception 7 to s 300 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) at the material time. He claimed that he was suffering under a delusion that he was the hero in a television serial. The trial judges rejected his defence.

On appeal, the appellant contended that their decision was against the weight of evidence. In particular, the appellant's counsel argued that when there was more than one inference which could reasonably be drawn, the inference more favourable to the appellant should have been drawn.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) The burden was on the appellant to show, on the balance of probabilities, that the case fell within Exception 7 to s 300 of the Penal Code. This burden was not discharged by showing that the delusion was possible. Proof on the balance of probabilities entailed showing that it was more likely than not that there was such a delusion: at [32].

(2) The trial judges gave full and proper consideration to all the evidence, including the medical evidence. There was nothing to indicate that they erred in law or in fact in arriving at the conclusion that the appellant was not suffering from any “abnormality of mind” at the material time: at [36].

Tai Chai Keh v PP [1948-49] MLJ Supp 105 (distd)

Penal Code (Cap 224,1985 Rev Ed)ss 300, 302

Peter Yap (Peter Yap & Co) for the appellant

Bala Reddy (Deputy Public Prosecutor) for the respondent.

F A Chua J

(delivering the grounds of decision of the court):

1 The appellant was charged on the following charge:

That you on or about 17 July 1987 at about 10.35am at Provost Unit, Mowbray Camp, Ulu Pandan Road, Singapore, committed murder by causing the death of one Daniel De Rozario, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 302 of the Penal Code (Cap 224).

2 At the conclusion of the trial, he was convicted and sentenced to death. [See [1990] 1 SLR (R) 525.] We dismissed the appellant's appeal against conviction and now give our reasons.

3 At the material time, the appellant was a national serviceman holding the rank of lance corporal (“LCP”) and performing the duty of an armskoteman. The deceased, Daniel De Rozario, held the rank of staff sergeant and the post of company sergeant major.

4 At the trial, the appellant did not dispute the fact that he had shot and killed the deceased. He relied solely on the defence that at the material time he was suffering from an “abnormality of mind” within Exception 7 to s 300 of the Penal Code (Cap 224) (“the Code”). If established, this would reduce the offence from that of murder to that of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

5 The trial judges rejected his defence. On appeal it was contended for the appellant that their decision was against the weight of the evidence.

The facts

6 On 12 July 1987, the appellant and two others, LCP Ang Cheng Kam and LCP Mok Weng Yeong, were ordered to clean an area around the ammo dump as punishment for offences which each of them had committed. On 13 July 1987, the deceased checked the area and asked LCP Ang why it was that only certain parts were cleaned. LCP Ang told the deceased that LCP Mok was not around to do his share and that the appellant was not interested in cleaning and had also asked LCP Ang not to do the cleaning. On 17 July 1987, the day of the shooting, at about 9.00am, the appellant was scolded by the deceased in his office for not obeying orders. The deceased awarded two sets of six weekend confinements as punishment against the appellant, one set for not carrying out instructions to do the cleaning and the other for instigating LCP Ang to disobey orders. As the appellant was due to go for his Combined Tactical Shooting System (“CTSS”) exercise that afternoon, the deceased told the appellant to see him again before the latter went for his exercise.

7 Following this rebuke by the deceased, the appellant said that he felt that he had been wronged. He was angry. He felt himself to be the hero in the television serial “The Bund”. He wanted to have a talk with the deceased to try to get a solution. But if no solution could be found, then he would open fire.

8 At about 10.00am, the appellant returned to the armoury. LCP Chan Wai Seng, the armourer, said his face was expressionless. He walked about in the armoury. Fifteen minutes later, the appellant left, telling LCP Chan that he was going to the ammo dump to do a...