Mansoor s/o Abdullah and Another v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 09 September 1998
• Date: 09 September 1998
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 2 of 1998
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)

Mansoor s/o Abdullah and another

Plaintiff

and

Public Prosecutor

Defendant

[1998] SGCA 57

Yong Pung How CJ

,

M Karthigesu JA

and

LP Thean JA

Criminal Appeal No 2 of 1998

Court of Appeal

Criminal Law—Complicity—Common intention—Murder—Submission that trial judge erred in finding that appellants intended to inflict injuries sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death to victim—Submission that trial judge erred in finding common intention—Whether necessary to find that intention of appellant was to commit crime for which he was charged—Whether weight of evidence supporting trial judge’s finding of common intention between appellants—Section 34 Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed)—Criminal Law—Special exceptions—Diminished responsibility—Damage caused to brain structure by neurological illness in infancy—Whether trial judge failed to take into account damage to brain structure—Whether trial judge erred in law or in fact in arriving at conclusion that second appellant was not suffering from abnormality of mind at material time—Section 300 Exception 7 Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed)

The appellants, Nazar and Mansoor, and two others, Rani and Gerardine, were charged with committing murder in furtherance of common intention under s 302 read with s 34 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed). Rani pleaded guilty to a charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under s 304 (a) of the Penal Code and was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. Mansoor, Nazar, and Gerardine were tried in the High Court for murder. Gerardine was convicted of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under s 304 (a)read with s 34 of the Penal Code and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment while Mansoor and Nazar were convicted of murder under s 302 read with s 34 of the Penal Code and sentenced to death. Both Mansoor and Nazar appealed. Nazar argued that the trial judge failed to take into account: (a) the fact that he (Nazar) had suffered damage to his brain structure early on life; and (b) the evidence of the Defence’s medical expert that Nazar was schizophrenic, and therefore wrongly rejected his plea of diminished responsibility under Exception 7 to s 300 of the Penal Code. Mansoor argued that the trial judge erred in: (a) finding that the assailants of the deceased intended to inflict the injuries which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; and (b) finding that Nazar and Mansoor shared a common intention.

Held, dismissing both appeals:

(1) The trial judge did take into account the damage to Nazar’s brain structure caused by hydrocephalus at a young age. However, he rightly concluded that such damage did not automatically lead to schizophrenia. In order to ascertain whether a person was suffering from schizophrenia, it would still have been necessary to examine the person for evidence of schizophrenia. The medical evidence supported the trial judge’s finding that Nazar was not suffering from any abnormality of mind at the material time. There was conflicting medical evidence. Furthermore, Nazar had given clear and consistent accounts of the stabbing, which suggested that his mental state at the time of the stabbing was normal. Furthermore, his actions immediately after the attack showed complete self-control: at [17] and [27].

(2) Mansoor’s submissions were also misconceived. Under s 34 of the Penal Code, there was no need for the trial judge to find that Mansoor had the intention under s 300 (c) of the Penal Code to inflict the injuries which led to the death of the deceased. What the trial judge needed to, and did find, was that the actual doer of the act, Nazar, had the requisite intention for the offence charged, and that Mansoor shared a common intention with Nazar. Their common intention did not have to be identical with the intention to commit the crime for which they were charged: at [30].

(3) The weight of the evidence not only supported the trial judge’s finding that there was a common intention between Mansoor and Nazar to assault and rob the deceased, but also that they had a common intention to cause grievous hurt to the deceased: at [32].

Asogan Ramesh s/o Ramachandren v PP [1997] 3 SLR (R) 201; [1998] 1 SLR 286 (folld)

Chia Chee Yeen v PP [1991] 2 SLR (R) 653; [1991] SLR 312 (refd)

Kraisak Sakha v PP [1996] 2 SLR (R) 244; [1996] 2 SLR 713 (distd)

R v Byrne [1960] 3 WLR 440 (refd)

Sek Kim Wah v PP [1987] SLR (R) 371; [1987] SLR 107 (folld)

Tan Chee Hwee v PP [1993] 2 SLR (R) 493; [1993] 2 SLR 657 (distd)

Wong Mimi v PP [1971-1973] SLR (R) 412; [1972-1974] SLR 73 (folld)

Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) ss 34, 300 Exception 7 (consd);s 300 (c), 302, 304 (a)

Edward D’Souza (Edward D’Souza & Co) and Martin Marini (Chan, Ng, Aqbal & Marini) for the first appellant

David Rasif (David Rasif & Partners) and Goh Aik Leng Mark (Goh Aik Leng & Partners) for the second appellant

Bala Reddy and Mavis Chionh (Deputy Public Prosecutors) for the respondent.

Yong Pung How CJ

(delivering the grounds of judgment of the court):

1 The two appellants were convicted in the High Court on the following charge and sentenced to death:

That you,	1 Mansoor s/o Abdullah
	2 Nazar bin Mohamed Kassim

on 13 March 1997 between 8.30am and 9am at Block 804 King George’s Avenue #14-154, Singapore, in furtherance of the common intention of the both of you, committed murder by causing the death of one Sivapackiam d/o Veerappan Rengasamy, female aged 53 years, and you have thereby committed an offence under s 302 read with s 34 of the Penal Code (Cap 224).

They appealed against their conviction. We heard their appeal and dismissed it. We now give our reasons.

The facts

2 The facts were as follows. The deceased was one Sivapackiam d/o Veerappan Rengasamy, female, 53 years old. At the time of her death on 13 March 1997, she was living in Block 804 King George Avenue #14-154 (“the flat?). Andrew Gerardine alias Maria (“Gerardine?) had been renting a room in the deceased’s flat since February 1997. Shortly before the deceased’s death, she was on bad terms with Gerardine. She had for example scolded Gerardine, called her a prostitute and used vulgarities on her.

3 The deceased was found dead in the flat. In his affidavit, Dr Gilbert Lau, a pathologist attached to the Institute of Science and Forensic Medicine stated:

1. 5 Iperformed a post-mortem on the deceased’s body. I certified the cause of death to be due to severe haemorrhage, mainly arising from the severance of the right superior thyroid artery caused by a stab wound situated on the right anterolateral aspect of the deceased’s neck. I am of the opinion that the said severance of the right superior thyroid artery is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

4 At about 2.00am to 3.00am on 13 March 1997, Gerardine, Mansoor s/o Abdullah (“Mansoor?), Nazar bin Mohamed Kassim (“Nazar?), and Kamala Rani d/o Balakrishnan (“Rani?) were at Albert Court. There Gerardine told the other three about her problems with the deceased. She asked them to help her teach the deceased a lesson and to beat her up. She also told them that the deceased kept a lot of jewellery and money in the flat. After they agreed to help her, Gerardine went back to the flat to collect her bag. She arrived at the flat at about 7.00am. After collecting her bag she went back to Tekar market, where the other three were waiting.

5 While waiting for Gerardine to return, Nazar went to Farrer Park Stadium. He and Mansoor had been sleeping at Farrer Park Stadium for six months. He changed his clothes, took a ten centimetre long knife and returned to Tekar market to wait for Gerardine. After Gerardine met up with the other three at Tekar market at about 7.30am, the four of them proceeded to wait for a taxi. While waiting for the taxi, Nazar told Mansoor that he had a knife and made Mansoor touch the handle of the knife.

6 The taxi took them to the vicinity of the flat, where they had breakfast. This was about 8.00am. After breakfast, they sat at a bench near a coffee shop to wait for the deceased’s son to leave for work. Gerardine spotted the deceased walking back to the flat carrying a newspaper with her. She pointed out the deceased to Nazar, Mansoor and Rani. Nazar and Mansoor then told Gerardine that they wanted to take a walk. At about 8.20am, Gerardine spotted the deceased’s son leaving for work. She was aware that he usually left for work at around that time. At about 8.30am, Nazar and Mansoor returned. After they returned, Gerardine told them to follow her to the flat. Nazar asked Gerardine what they were to say when they arrived at the flat. She told them to tell the deceased that they wanted to rent a room.

7 The four of them proceeded to the lift-landing of the flat. Before entering the lift, Gerardine went to the nearby Prime Supermarket, bought a pair of gloves and gave one each to Mansoor and Nazar. While in the lift Gerardine asked Mansoor and Nazar what they would be using to beat the decased. It was revealed that Mansoor would be using a chain that he was wearing. They took the lift to the 13th floor, and Mansoor and Nazar walked up the stairs to the 14th floor where the flat was, while Gerardine and Rani waited at the staircase on the 13th and 14th floor near the flat.

8 When they arrived at the flat, Mansoor called the deceased and told her that they wanted to rent a room. She then invited them to enter her house to view the room. They entered the house, and walked around to see the bedroom. While the deceased was showing them around, Mansoor took out a silver-coloured chain which he wore around his left wrist. He hooked the chain around her neck and started to strangle her with the chain. They pulled her into the bedroom located near the kitchen. The deceased struggled and screamed. In the ensuing struggle, Nazar joined in and stabbed the deceased at...