Lim Thian Hor and Another v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 06 April 1996
• Neutral Citation: [1996] SGHC 64
• Date: 06 April 1996
• Subject Matter: Whether the latter had to be established,Unlawful assembly,Distinction between common object and common intention,Criminal Law,s 141 Penal Code (Cap 224),Common object,Whether mere presence sufficient,Whether established,Offences,Complicity,Proof of membership
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 15 of 1996
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Defendant Counsel: Ong Chin Rhu (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Patrick Nai (Choo & Yap)

Judgment:

YONG PUNG HOW CJ

The charge

The two appellants, who are father and son, were charged in the court below for rioting under s 147 of the Penal Code (Cap 224), as follows:

You, B1 Lim Thiam Hor, m/51 yrs NRIC No: 0832068-C

B2 Lim Teck Beng, m/22 yrs NRIC No : 7344062-I

are charged that you on or about 6 March 1995, at or about 12.55pm, at Blk 47 Toa Payoh Lor 6, #01-130, Teck Hock Eating House, Singapore, together with three unknown male Chinese were members of an unlawful assembly, the common object of which was to cause hurt to one Chew Boon Chai, m/32 yrs and in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, violence was used and you have thereby committed an offence of rioting punishable under s 147 of the Penal Code (Cap 224).

Both appellants were found guilty by the learned trial judge. The first appellant (aged 51) was sentenced to 18 months` imprisonment. No caning was imposed due to his age. His son, the second appellant (aged 22) was sentenced to 24 months` imprisonment and six strokes of the cane. This appeal was against both conviction and sentence.

The facts

The facts of the case were largely not in dispute. On 6 March 1995, the victim Chew Boon Chai (PW1) was working in Teck Hock Eating House, a coffeeshop located in Toa Payoh. The coffeeshop was owned by Low Tian Hock (PW3). On the day of the offence, the first appellant who lived in a block of flats near the coffeeshop, had tried to borrow a newspaper from PW3. When PW3 refused to lend him the newspaper, he hurled abuses at him. PW1 then tried to pacify the first appellant by telling him not to make abusive remarks but was rebuked instead by the latter who told him to mind his own business. He further told PW1 not to leave the coffeeshop. According to the first appellant, PW1 had picked up a stool and charged at him in the coffeeshop while he was quarrelling with PW3. In any event, nothing came out of this quarrel and the first appellant subsequently left the coffeeshop, apparently seething with anger. However, the quarrel in the coffeeshop was serious enough to cause alarm to PW3 who called the police and a report waslodged when they arrived. By this time, the first appellant had already left the coffeeshop.

The first appellant was clearly dissatisfied about what had happened at the coffeeshop and he paged for his son, the second appellant, who was then making deliveries in Jurong. When the latter returned the pager call, the first appellant related to him how he was nearly beaten up by PW1 when he tried to borrow the newspaper from PW3. The second appellant told the first appellant that he would return to Toa Payoh in about half an hour. Thereafter, the first appellant waited for the second appellant and at the same time, kept a watch on the coffeeshop from his window.

Before the arrival of the second appellant, three unknown Chinese men entered the coffeeshop and sat at a table outside having their drinks. When the second appellant finally arrived in his lorry, the first appellant came down from his flat to join him, carrying a hollow pipe which he claimed was used as a walking stick due to the pain in his leg. The first appellant then pointed out PW1 to the second appellant as the person who tried to beat him up.

As for the events thereafter, there were discrepancies between the prosecution`s and the defence`s version as to what precisely happened. The prosecution contended that the second appellant entered the coffeeshop and confronted PW1 who asked whether the latter had bullied his father. Next, he picked up a stool and struck PW1 with it. At about this time, one of the three Chinese men picked up a bottle and hit PW1 on the head with it whilst the other two started to kick and punch him while he was on the floor. The defence`s version was essentially this. The second appellant had asked PW1 to come out of the coffeeshop to settle the matter but the latter did not comply. So the second appellant turned around to leave. At this stage, one of the three unknown Chinese men threw a bottle into the coffeeshop. When the second appellant heard the sound of a bottle breaking behind him, he thought he was about to be assaulted. He quickly turned around, picked up a stool and struck PW1 with it. The three Chinese men then left the shop. The second appellant apparently only stopped assaulting PW1 when told by the first appellant to do so.

The plastic stool which was used to assault PW1 broke into two pieces. It was not disputed that the first appellant never took part in the assault but remained outside the coffeeshop throughout the relevant time. By the time the police arrived at the scene, the second appellant and the three Chinese men had already left the coffeeshop but the first appellant who had remained behind was arrested. The second appellant subsequently turned himself in to the police.

The relevant legislation

In an offence of rioting, the following sections of the Penal Code are relevant.Section 147 of the Penal Code reads:

Whoever is guilty of rioting shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 5 years and shall also be liable to caning.

Section 146 of the Penal Code states:

Whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly or by any member thereof, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, every member of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting.

For a definition of `unlawful assembly`, s 141 of the Penal Code, so far as relevant, states:

An assembly of 5 or more persons is designated an `unlawful assembly`, if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is -

...

(c) to commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence ;

...

The offence here being to cause hurt to PW1.

Decision of the court below

The trial judge had no difficulty in reaching the conclusion that the three Chinese men had been summoned by the first and second accused to take part in the assault of PW1. He concluded that they had the common intention to hurt PW1. In his opinion, there was no other explanation as to why one of the three Chinese men would throw a bottle into the coffeeshop as claimed by the first accused. In any event, he was convinced that they were all acting in concert, otherwise there was no reason for the three Chinese men to participate in the assault. The trial judge accepted that the medical report on PW1 corroborated his evidence that while the second accused assaulted him with a chair, one of the three Chinese men hit him with a bottle on the head. He also believed PW1`s evidence that the other two unknown Chinese men had kicked and punched him. Therefore he agreed with the...