Chua Hwa Soon Jimmy v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Karthigesu JA
• Judgment Date: 03 March 1998
• Neutral Citation: [1998] SGCA 16
• Date: 03 March 1998
• Subject Matter: Distinction between 'could not' and 'did not control impulse',Conduct before, during and after killing relevant,Diminished responsibility,Impairment of mental responsibility must be substantial,Defence's burden of proof,Special exceptions,Whether defence established on a balance of probabilities,Criminal Law,Conflicting expert evidence,s 300 Exception 7 Penal Code (Cap 224)
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 7 of 1997
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Defendant Counsel: Sowaran Singh (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ismail bin Hamid (Edmond Pereira & Partners) and Ranjit Singh (Amolat & Partners)

Judgment:

1.YONG PUNG HOW CJ

The charges

The appellant was charged in the court below for the gruesome murder of his sister-in-law on 26 August 1996, one Neo Lam Lye (the deceased). He was also charged for the attempted murder of his nephew, one Garret Chua, whom he viciously attacked the same day.

2.At the time of the offences, the appellant was 25 years of age and was serving in the Singapore Armed Forces, holding the rank of Sergeant, Second Class. The deceased was a housewife married to the appellant`s elder brother, Chua Hua Ngee. Garret Chua, who was 4 years old at the material time, is one of the three children of the deceased and Chua Hua Ngee.

3.At the end of the trial, the appellant was convicted on both charges and sentenced to death and life imprisonment respectively.

4.Before us, the appellant appealed only against the conviction and sentence under the murder charge. At the end of the hearing on 9 February 1998, we dismissed the appeal and affirmed the death penalty. We now give our reasons.

5. The facts

The facts surrounding the commission of the offences were largely undisputed. There was also no dispute over the identification of the appellant as the culprit. For the purposes of narrating the events on that fateful day, we have extracted the relevant portions from the agreed statement of facts:

3 On 26 August 1996, sometime around noon time, the accused arrived at Block 120 Bedok Reservoir Road in his car After parking his car in a parking lot in front of the said block of flats, he proceeded to the deceased`s house at unit number #09-174. He was let into the flat unit by the deceased. At the material time, only the deceased and her son, Garret Chua, were at home.

4 While the accused was at the deceased`s house, sometime between 12.45pm and 1.20pm, he caused bodily injuries to the deceased by:

(a) punching her repeatedly,

(b) strangling her with a telephone cord,

(c) slashing her repeatedly with a chopper , and

(d) stabbing her repeatedly with a knife

6 On the same occasion when the accused caused bodily injuries to the deceased, he also caused bodily injuries to Garret Chua with a chopper.

7 After causing bodily injuries to the deceased and Garret Chua, the accused walked to the main wooden door to the deceased`s house. After opening the main wooden door, he found that the metal gate to the deceased`s house was locked. He then walked to the bedroom next to the deceased`s master bedroom. He opened the top drawer of a cabinet in the said bedroom and took out a bunch of keys. The accused subsequently used one of these keys to open the metal gate to the deceased`s house. The accused then stepped out of the deceased`s house, and closed the main wooden door. The bunch of keys were left on the inside of the metal gate with one of the keys inserted into the key slot to the said gate. Before leaving the deceased`s house, the accused had already put on his boots.

9 Thereafter, the accused walked down the staircase in the deceased`s block of flats to his car.

11 After the accused got into his car, he drove to a vacant land off Tampines Avenue 10, which is approximately 3.6km from the deceased`s block of flats. The entrance to this vacant land is not prominent from Tampines Avenue 10 and is not meant for access by vehicles.

12 At the vacant land off Tampines Avenue 10, the accused threw a grey coloured round neck T-shirt which he had worn at the deceased`s home earlier into the bushes. He also removed his army boots that he was wearing. Following that he took off his army camouflaged slacks and his underwear. He threw the army camouflaged slacks and his underwear into the bushes. The accused then changed into a fresh pair of underwear, a fresh pair of shorts and a grey coloured round neck T-shirt which he had kept at the boot of his car. Later, he took out a Coca Cola bottle containing water from the boot of his car and drank from it. He then poured water over his hand to wash away the blood. He also used water to wash away the blood on the roof of his car as he had earlier placed his hand there.

13 Thereafter, the accused drove his car and arrived at a canteen in an army camp at Changi. He bought three cans of `Coke` and some plasters Later, the accused proceeded to a Shell petrol kiosk. He topped up his vehicle with petrol and bought some plasters.

19 The accused was arrested on 26 August 96 at about 7.20pm at the void deck to the deceased`s block of flats.

6.The certified cause of death of the deceased was due to multiple injuries. The injuries inflicted were horrific; the deceased was found to have suffered no less than 109 injuries. In the autopsy report, it was stated that the deceased sustained an attempt at ligature strangulation, numerous incised wounds, stab wounds and head injuries. Some of the incised wounds, particularly those on the forearms and hands, could be classified as defensive injuries. Death was due to a combination of the head injury and severe haemorrhage from the incised and stab wounds.

7.On the evidence, there was no doubt that the appellant was the person who committed the offences. The only question raised was whether he possessed the requisite mens rea at the time to constitute the offences.

8. The defence

The only defence invoked by the appellant was one of diminished responsibility which, under exception 7 to s 300 of the Penal Code (Cap 224), reads as follows:

Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender was suffering from such abnormality of mind (whether arising from a condition of arrested or retarded development of mind or any inherent causes or induced by disease or injury) as substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts and omissions in causing the death or being a party to causing the death.

This defence has to be discharged on a balance of probabilities: see Cheng Swee Hin v PP [1981] 1 MLJ 1 [1980-1981] SLR 116 and Jamaludin bin Ibrahim v PP [1995] 2 SLR 47 .

9.According to the appellant, he had had an affair with the deceased since he was 15. That affair stopped in 1992 when he was 21. Two years later, in 1994, he got married. At the time of the marriage, he was obese and was prescribed slimming pills which made him perspire a lot. Moreover, his temper was bad. The last time he took these pills was on 25 August 1996, the eve of the murder. He apparently took two pills at dinner (between 7 and 8pm), and another two in the middle of the night (between 2 and 3am).

10.In the morning on the day of the tragedy, the appellant had finished his 24-hour duty at the army camp where he worked. Thereafter, he tried to sell his motorcar as he was having difficulty keeping up with the instalment payments. However, he was unsuccessful. Then, later that morning, he telephoned to speak to his brother from whom he had already borrowed $1,000. The appellant wanted to borrow another $1,000 and tell him about his financial problems. The appellant claimed that he needed the money to buy a ring and take his wife out for dinner because that day was his second wedding anniversary.

11.The appellant, however, was unable to reach his brother. Instead, he spoke to the deceased who asked him to go to her flat. When he refused, she allegedly threatened to expose their past affair. The appellant reluctantly went to her place.

12.As to the events that took place at the flat, it is perhaps best narrated by quoting what the appellant said during his examination-in-chief. At the risk of repetition, we shall reproduce at length what the trial judge below recorded during the testimony which was later set out in his judgment:

18 My sister-in-law opened the door when I [the appellant] knocked at the door. I went in. I took off my boots. Garret was with her in the hall. She then asked if I wanted a drink. Normally she would make me a cup of honey drink. I told her not to make a big cup, a small cup would do. She then went into the kitchen to make a cup of honey drink for me. I was in the hall. She gave me the cup of drink and asked me why I had not visited her in the last few years. She said I appeared to be avoiding her. I told her that there was nothing between the two of us. I told her to let bygone be bygone as I had already got married. She said she had something to tell me and asked me to go into the master bedroom. I went. I did not know what she was nagging about. She said that my elder brother was often out of the country. She told me that my brother neglected her and that all men were the same. I told her that it was a matter between them and did not concern [me]. At this point both of us were seated on the bed. That day was my wedding anniversary. I was extremely tired. I had performed 24-hour duty. I told her that I only wanted to go back. I did not bother very much with what she wanted to say. I will let her say or do whatever she wanted. I felt very thirsty and hot. She pulled my hand and refused to let me leave. I pulled away her hand and went into the kitchen to have a drink. She told me that Garret could be my son or somebody else`s son and perhaps Garret was not my elder brother`s son. I told her that I was not at all interested and that I was only concerned about my wife and my child. She said that she wanted my brother and I to regret for the rest of our lives. This was said in the kitchen.

[After a short adjournment]

19 . Earlier when I was with the deceased in the master bedroom she asked me why I wanted to see my brother. I smiled at her and told her that I had a little thing to discuss with him. Then she asked me if I had any financial problems. I replied `Yes`. She asked me how much I needed. I replied `Jit Liap`. I explained to her that it meant $1,000. She said she will check if she had money and if so she would hand the money to me. I saw her taking money for me. She took the money from the drawer. The deceased then handed to me a few stacks of $50 notes. She handed this in the hall. I did not count the money. I put the...