Lim Chin Chong v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Karthigesu JA
• Judgment Date: 06 May 1998
• Neutral Citation: [1998] SGCA 27
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 26 of 1997
• Date: 06 May 1998
• Year: 1998
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: R Palakrishna and Luke Lee (Palakrishnan & Pnrs)
• Citation: [1998] SGCA 27
• Defendant Counsel: Tan Siong Thye, Daniel Yong and Sandra Tsoa (Deputy Public Prosecutors)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Objective requirement that provocation grave and sudden,Whether defence made out,s 300 Exception 7 Penal Code (Cap 224),s 300 Exception 2 Penal Code (Cap 224),Defence to show accused suffering from such abnormality of mind which substantially impairs his mental responsibility,Subjective requirement casuing accused to be deprived of self-control by provocation,s 300 Exception 1 Penal Code (Cap 224),Murder,Defence of diminished responsibility,Right of private defence,Defence of grave and sudden provocation -Two requirements for defence,Criminal Law,Whether there is right of private defence arises on facts

Judgment:

KARTHIGESU JA

(delivering the grounds of judgment of the court): The appellant, a 19 year old Malaysian, was convicted of the murder of one Low Cheng Quee (Low), a 65 year old man, at Block 17 Diamond Tower, Jalan Rajah, #04-21, Singapore, at about 12.30am on 20 June 1997 and sentenced to death. We dismissed his appeal for the reasons we now give.

2.Low operated a brothel for male prostitutes at his residence at Block 17 Diamond Tower, Jalan Rajah #04-21, Singapore. The appellant was one of the male prostitutes employed by him. It is necessary to deal briefly with how the appellant drifted into becoming a male prostitute and of the brothel Low ran at his residence. The materiality of this will be seen when we discuss one of the defences, the defence of diminished responsibility (Exception 7 to s 300 of the Penal Code).

3.The appellant was born in Penang. At the age of two he was given away to adoptive parents. He lived with his adoptive parents and their three daughters who were much older than he. When he was four years old his adoptive mother died and by then her daughters had married. Two years later his adoptive father remarried and started a new family; he had two daughters and one son. He felt he was not loved and ran away from home. Eventually he went to Kelantan where he stayed in a hostel and continued his studies. When he was 15 years old he returned to Penang and started work. He worked as a motor mechanic, a waiter at a night club and as a part-time labourer. Soon he got tired of this and went to Kuala Lumpur. There he came across a newspaper advertisement by a modelling agency recruiting male models. He applied to the agency for a position. However, at the interview he discovered that the modelling agency was a cover for the recruitment of male prostitutes. He was told at the interview that if he was prepared to work in Singapore he could earn up to $3,000 to $4,000 per month. Attracted by the money the appellant accepted.

4.In March 1996 the appellant came to Singapore and on the introduction of the Kuala Lumpur recruiting agency met Low. Low provided the appellant with food and lodging. The appellant was prepared to provide massage and masturbation services but not oral or anal sex to his clients. Each client was charged $100 per session of which $50 went to Low, $15 to the Kuala Lumpur recruiting agency and $35 to the appellant. However, after about a month the appellant returned to Kuala Lumpur but was persuaded by the Kuala Lumpur recruiting agency to go back to Singapore and resume working for Low as a male prostitute.

5.After about a month`s stay in Kuala Lumpur the appellant came back to Singapore and stayed with Low and worked for him as a male prostitute. Sometime in July 1996 he found work as a cook at a fast food restaurant at Ginza Plaza in the West Coast, which also provided accommodation and meals. He moved out of Low`s flat on 19 July 1996. The appellant maintained that his primary objective in coming to Singapore was to find regular employment and not to work as a male prostitute, which activity he would cease once he found regular employment.

6.It appears that during the period the appellant worked as a cook in the fast food restaurant at Ginza Plaza, ie from 19 July 1996 to 20 February 1997, he did not work as a male prostitute. During this period he had a regular girlfriend and led a normal heterosexual life.

7.It is not known why the appellant stopped working as a cook at the fast food restaurant at Ginza Plaza in February 1997. But since then he found the pay inadequate or for some other reason was unable to tie himself down to regular employment. After working for short periods at the Goodwood Park Hotel and the Holiday Inn he remained unemployed and made a living as a male prostitute on a freelance basis for Low. He did not stay with Low but with a friend at Cavenagh Gardens along Cavenagh Road.

8.Low, as we have already observed, ran a brothel for male prostitutes at his residence. He lived off their earnings. Apart from using such freelance male prostitutes as the appellant, Low also had a resident male prostitute. He was a Thai by the name of Sajai Karakot (Sajai). He occupied the room next to Low`s.

9.The evidence which unfolded at the trial, including that from the statements made by the appellant which were admitted without objection, was in the main not disputed at the trial. As the learned judge observed in his grounds of judgment `the accounts were generally consistent with no significant discrepancies`.

10.At about 8.30pm on 19 June 1997, Sajai who had been out to render sexual services to a male customer returned to the flat at Diamond Tower. He saw the deceased and the appellant talking to two male customers in the living room. Sajai had met the appellant for the first time only earlier that day. He joined them. At about 10pm the two male customers left and the deceased retired to his room. The appellant and Sajai remained talking to each other in English although Sajai was not conversant in English. In his evidence at the trial Sajai said that although he did not understand every word the appellant said, he thought that the appellant was complaining that he did not have the money to return to Malaysia. This and the appellant`s general demeanor raised apprehensions in his mind of the appellant`s intentions. He thought that the appellant was going to steal the money from the deceased.

11.At about 11.30pm Sajai, who by now was very concerned that the appellant would rob the deceased, decided to go out but as he did not have the key to the front door, woke the deceased up to get the key from him. He told the deceased that he was going out to buy some beer. Instead he went to a nearby BP petrol station and telephoned his friend, another Thai, and told him of his fears that the appellant might rob the deceased that night. To allay Sajai`s fears the friend said that one, Poon Woon Kong, who was with him, would telephone the deceased to make sure he was all right. Poon Woon Kong in his evidence at the trial said that he did telephone the deceased who said he was with the appellant and brushed off any suggestion of the appellant`s intention to rob him.

12.Thus assured Sajai returned to the flat at Diamond Tower a little past midnight. He let himself in and noticed that the door to the deceased`s room was ajar. What he saw through the gap to use his own word `shocked` him. He saw the deceased lying on the bed, his legs were moving and there was some cloth wound round his shin. The appellant was sitting on the deceased`s abdomen and struggling with the deceased. Before he could do anything the door bell rang. He opened the main door. Chan Kok Leong, a mute and one of the deceased`s customers had come to see him. Just then the appellant came out of the deceased`s room and gestured to Sajai and Chan Kok Leong to go away as he was having intercourse with the deceased. The two of them went to the BP petrol station and Sajai telephoned his Thai friend. Poon Woon Kong answered. Later Sajai and Chan Kok Leong went to the New Cathay Hotel where Sajai`s Thai friend and Chan Kok Leong were and narrated to them what he had seen. Eventually a 999 call to the police was made.

13.On leaving the New Cathay Hotel, Chan Kok Leong and Sajai got separated. Chan Kok Leong went to Diamond Tower to wait for Sajai. He waited outside for about an hour and when Sajai still did not show up, Chan Kok Leong went up to the flat. The front door was unlocked. He entered. There was no sign of the appellant. He had hardly entered the flat when the police arrived in response to the 999 call.

14.The deceased was found lying on his back in a diagonal position on his bed in his bedroom. The shower in the adjoining bathroom was running. His head was completely encased in a blood-stained pillowcase with a knot at the back of the neck. Part of the pillowcase was forced into his mouth. A denture was placed over the pillowcase to give it a macabre appearance. There was a long wooden pestle placed across the neck. His hands were tied together by a length of two-strand electrical wire and two rolled pillowcases. There was a rolled length of green blanket over the left lower leg. When the pillowcase covering the head was removed, one could see a rolled length of towel tied at the level of the chin with a knot over the back of the head. There were blood stains over the head board of the bed, the walls and the ceiling.

15.Dr Wee Keng Poh, the pathologist, certified that the cause of death was a contused brain due to multiple fractures of the skull. Dr Wee also noted bruises and abrasions on the nasal region, the lower lip and the chin; multiple lacerations on the back of the head and the forehead which resulted in a long crack fracture on the skull measuring 28cm, and two secondary fractures measuring 4cm and 10cm; bruises on the shoulder, the wrists and hands; and bruises on the neck. In Dr Wee`s opinion the external and internal injuries were consistent with that sustained as a result of multiple blows to the head by a blunt instrument like that of a wooden pestle which was found lying across the deceased`s neck. Dr Wee further confirmed that the brain injuries and the extensive fracturing of the skull were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

16.The appellant was arrested on 10 July 1997 at Johore Bahru and handed over to the Singapore police. Following his arrest he made a statement whilst in custody at Johore Bahru. He also made an investigation statement taken in parts over four days between 14 and 22 July as well as a cautioned statement on 11 July. All these statements were admitted in evidence without objections from the appellant.

17.We do not find it necessary to refer to the statements in detail. Suffice it to say that what we have narrated above is amply supported by what is contained in the statements. We will, however, reproduce a portion...