Micheal Anak Garing v Public Prosecutor and another appeal

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chao Hick Tin JA
• Judgment Date: 27 February 2017
• Neutral Citation: [2017] SGCA 7
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ramesh Tiwary (Ramesh Tiwary), Tng Soon Chye (Tng Soon Chye & Co) and Keith Lim Wei Ming (Quahe Woo & Palmer LLC)
• Date: 27 February 2017
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeals Nos 9 and 11 of 2015
• Hearing Date: 05 September 2016
• Subject Matter: Murder,Appeals,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Sentencing,Criminal Law,Offences
• Published date: 07 March 2017
• Defendant Counsel: Anandan Bala and Marcus Foo (Attorney-General's Chambers),Gill Amarick Singh (Amarick Gill LLC), Loo Khee Sheng (K S Loo & Co) and Justin Tan Jia Wei (Trident Law Corporation)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Citation: [2017] SGCA 7
• Year: 2017

Chao Hick Tin JA (delivering the judgment of the court): Introduction

Micheal Anak Garing (“MAG”) and Tony Anak Imba (“TAI”) were both tried in the High Court under s 300(c) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) for the murder of one Shanmuganathan Dillidurai (“the deceased”). They were both charged with murder committed in furtherance of a common intention, and were thus liable to be punished under s 302(2) read with s 34 of the Penal Code.

MAG and TAI, together with two other friends, Hairee Anak Landak (“HAL”) and Donny Anak Meluda (“DAM”) (collectively, “the Gang”), had set out from a friend’s house on the night of 29 May 2010 with a preconceived plan to commit robbery. One of them was armed with a deadly weapon, a parang. Over the course of that night and the wee hours of the following day, the Gang attacked the deceased and inflicted the injuries which eventually led to his death. It transpired that the deceased was not the only person whom the Gang attacked that night. Prior to attacking the deceased, the Gang had set upon three other victims in order to rob them. Fortunately, none of those other victims succumbed to their injuries. For the attacks on those three victims, MAG and TAI each faced three charges (one in relation to each victim) of robbery while one or more of the Gang was armed with a deadly weapon which came to be used to cause hurt to the three victims, an offence punishable under s 394 read with s 397 of the Penal Code. Those charges were stood down at the trial.

The High Court judge (“the Judge”) convicted both MAG and TAI of their respective murder charges (see Public Prosecutor v Micheal Anak Garing and another [2014] SGHC 13 (“the Judgment on Conviction”)). Given the amendments made to the Penal Code by the Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2012 (Act 32 of 2012), which came into effect on 1 January 2013, the Judge had the discretion to impose either the death penalty or life imprisonment with caning. The Judge sentenced MAG to suffer the death penalty, and sentenced TAI to life imprisonment with 24 strokes of the cane (see Public Prosecutor v Micheal Anak Garing and another [2015] SGHC 107 (“the Judgment on Sentence”)).

Criminal Appeal No 9 of 2015 (“CCA 9”) is MAG’s appeal against his conviction on the murder charge and the death penalty imposed on him. MAG contends that his conviction should be overturned; alternatively, if the conviction were ordered to stand, the matter should be remitted to the Judge to reconsider the sentence meted out as the Judge erred in principle in sentencing him to suffer the death penalty. Criminal Appeal No 11 of 2015 (“CCA 11”) is the Prosecution’s appeal against the Judge’s decision to sentence TAI to life imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane. The Prosecution contends that the death penalty should similarly have been imposed on TAI. For completeness, we should mention that TAI initially filed Criminal Appeal No 24 of 2015 (“CCA 24”) against his conviction on the murder charge and his sentence, but subsequently withdrew this appeal.

Before we outline the background facts, we shall first deal with a preliminary issue that was brought up at the hearing of these appeals.

Preliminary issue: Relevance of the evidence relating to the first three attacks

The preliminary issue concerns the relevance and, in turn, the admissibility of the evidence relating to the first three attacks perpetrated by the Gang. Counsel for MAG, Mr Ramesh Tiwary (“Mr Tiwary”), submits that this evidence should not be admitted because it is prejudicial to both MAG and TAI.

At the trial, a similar objection was raised before the Judge. The Judge ruled that the evidence concerning the three earlier attacks was admissible because those attacks formed part of the “crucial narrative” leading up to the commission of the offence in respect of which MAG and TAI were being tried. The Judge further opined that while each of those three attacks could be seen as an isolated incident, together, they formed “an integral act pursuant to a common intention to assault and rob”. The prejudicial effect of the evidence thus did not outweigh its probative value (at [2] of the Judgment on Conviction).

In our view, the Judge was plainly correct in admitting the aforesaid evidence. It cannot be denied that this evidence was prejudicial to both MAG and TAI in that it disclosed the commission of offences which were violent in nature. However, in determining the admissibility of evidence, the purpose for which the evidence is sought to be admitted is vital (see Tan Meng Jee v Public Prosecutor [1996] 2 SLR(R) 178 at [37]; Public Prosecutor v Purushothaman a/l Subramaniam [2014] SGHC 215 at [60]). If the Prosecution seeks to admit evidence for the purpose of showing an accused person’s violent tendencies, such evidence would be unduly prejudicial and therefore inadmissible (see Makin v Attorney General of New South Wales [1894] AC 57). However, as can be seen from [7] above, this was not the basis on which the Judge admitted the evidence relating to the three earlier attacks.

Section 6 of the Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) provides that facts which are not in issue but which are nevertheless “so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction” are relevant. A good illustration of this rule can be found in the case of O’Leary v King (1946) 73 CLR 566. In that case, the High Court of Australia ruled on the admissibility of evidence of assaults committed by the appellant on different persons prior to his killing of one Ballard, for which the appellant was charged with murder. Latham CJ, Rich, Dixon and Williams JJ (Starke and McTiernan JJ dissenting) held that the evidence relating to the prior assaults was admissible at the appellant’s trial for murder as it disclosed a connected series of events which should be considered as one transaction. Dixon J explained his decision as follows (at 577): In my opinion the evidence objected to was admissible, because, from the time on Saturday 6th July when the [appellant] and the party with him came under the influence of drink right up to the conclusion of the scene in the early hours of the following Sunday morning in the presence of the deceased’s body lying in front of the huts, a connected series of events occurred which should be considered as one transaction. … … Without evidence of what, during that time, was done by those men who took any significant part in the matter and especially evidence of the behaviour of the [appellant], the transaction of which the alleged murder formed an integral part could not be truly understood and, isolated from it, could only be presented as an unreal and not very intelligible event. …

In our view, the reasoning in O’Leary v King applies to the present case with equal force. It would be artificial to reject evidence of what the Gang did during the period between leaving their friend’s house on the night of 29 May 2010 and attacking the deceased. If this evidence were rejected, the court would have only a truncated version of the material events which might not shed true light on the attack carried out on the deceased, especially because all four attacks occurred within a short span of time. The evidence concerning the three earlier attacks is thus admissible as those attacks formed part of the same venture which the Gang agreed to undertake that night.

That evidence is also relevant as regards the state of mind of MAG and TAI. Section 14 of the Evidence Act provides that facts showing “the existence of any state of mind”, including intention and knowledge, are relevant when the existence of such state of mind is in issue. Explanation 1 to s 14 makes it clear that the facts in question have to show that a state of mind exists “not generally but in reference to the particular matter in question”. In the present case, both MAG and TAI were charged with committing murder in furtherance of a common intention. The attacks on the three victims that preceded the attack on the deceased are therefore highly material to the question of their state of mind at the time of the attack on the deceased. Moreover, as we shall elaborate, MAG’s and TAI’s knowledge of how each of them was likely to act in relation to the attack on the deceased has a material bearing on the question of sentence. In view of this, the evidence concerning those three attacks is relevant as evidence showing MAG’s and TAI’s state of mind at the time of the attack on the deceased.

For the above reasons, we agree with the Judge that the aforesaid evidence is admissible. With this preliminary issue disposed of, we turn to outline the material facts.

The material facts Background

MAG and TAI, who are now aged 28 and 38 respectively, are Malaysians from Sarawak. As earlier mentioned, HAL and DAM were the other members of the Gang. HAL, who was the Prosecution’s key witness in the court below, has already been convicted and sentenced for his role in the attacks. On 18 January 2013, he pleaded guilty to three charges of armed robbery with hurt, and was sentenced to 33 years’ imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane. DAM, on the other hand, has only recently been arrested and charged for his role in the attacks.

The attacks

Sometime on 29 May 2010, the Gang were drinking at the house of a friend named Shaman in Geylang Lor 12.¹ At some point during the night, the Gang resolved to leave the house and commit robbery. MAG armed himself with a parang, which he claimed he found in the house.² DAM armed himself with a terepi, which is a tap handle.

After leaving Shaman’s house, the Gang walked for ten to fifteen minutes until they reached a playground near Block 44 Sims Drive. There, they robbed one Sandeep Singh (“SS”).³ TAI initiated the attack on SS and the rest soon joined in. At some point during the attack, TAI used a brick to hit SS on the head.⁴ The attack lasted some two to three...