Muhammad bin Kadar v PP
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Court | Court of Three Judges (Singapore) |
Judge | V K Rajah JA |
Judgment Date | 05 July 2011 |
Neutral Citation | [2011] SGCA 32 |
Citation | [2011] SGCA 32 |
Published date | 19 August 2011 |
Defendant Counsel | Thrumurgan s/o Ramapiram (Thiru & Co) and Balvir Singh Gill (B S Gill & Co),Anandan s/o Bala, Mark Tay Swee Keng and Mohamed Faizal (Attorney-General's Chambers) |
Date | 05 July 2011 |
Docket Number | Criminal Appeal No 8 of 2009 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Kanagavijayan Nadarajan (Kana & Co) and Rajan Supramaniam (Hilborne & Co) |
Hearing Date | 21 January 2011,05 July 2011,15 April 2011,31 May 2011 |
Subject Matter | Criminal Law,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing |
This is an extraordinary case. Two brothers, Muhammad bin Kadar (“Muhammad”) and Ismil bin Kadar (“Ismil”) (collectively referred to as “the Appellants”), were charged with the brutal murder of a 69-year-old woman (“the Deceased”) in the High Court. They were convicted by the trial judge (“the Judge”), who gave his grounds in a 214-page judgment (see
At the start of the trial, the Prosecution unequivocally asserted that Ismil was the
Unsurprisingly, the twists and turns did not end with the trial. Before us, when queried, the Prosecution changed its position yet again. This time, it conceded that the Judge had erred in that only Muhammad should be found liable for murder, and that Ismil should not be held to be equally liable as the evidence on record was insufficient to prove a common intention to cause the Deceased’s death. The Prosecution, however, submitted that Ismil should be found guilty of committing robbery with hurt since he was present at the scene of the crime and there was sufficient evidence to show that he shared a common intention with Muhammad to commit robbery. In maintaining that Ismil should be convicted, albeit for robbery with hurt, the Prosecution referred to statements in which he claimed to be the sole assailant. This, of course, raises a vexing conundrum – a veritable legal curate’s egg – in that it has to be decided whether the Prosecution can rely on the barest residue of evidence from statements that have already been seriously compromised. It should be added that absolutely no objective evidence was placed before the court that tied Ismil to the scene of the crime or the crime itself. Pertinently, the lead investigator acknowledged that more could have been done in the investigations to secure objective evidence (see
Another unusual feature is that the Judge did not make a finding as to the identity of the actual assailant – whether it was Muhammad or Ismil. He stated that he was unable to do so. Yet, he concluded that by virtue of s 34 of the Penal Code, both should be held liable for murder as they had shared a common intention to rob. In arriving at this determination, he relied on the series of confessions made by the Appellants in their statements. All counsel before us (including Muhammad’s) unreservedly accepted that only Muhammad was responsible for the killing. Counsel for Ismil, however, went further, in that he forcefully maintained that Ismil was never even present at the scene of the crime and that false confessions in statements that had been made by Ismil during police investigations had caused a miscarriage of justice. Several manifest evidential inconsistencies in the said statements were also alluded to.
Aside from the aforementioned unusual aspects, another aspect of the proceedings that has left us disturbed would be the fact that the Prosecution failed to disclose statements made on 12 May 2005 and 5 September 2005 by the Deceased’s bedridden husband, Mr Loh Siew Kow (“Mr Loh”), until nearly 18 months after the trial had commenced. Mr Loh, who passed away due to cancer a few months after the trial began, was no ordinary witness. He was the only person – other than the Deceased and her assailant or assailants – present in the Deceased’s flat throughout the incident. In his detailed statements, he clearly and consistently stated that there was only
The present appeal, in short, presents knotty issues of both fact and law for this court to resolve. As this is a fairly lengthy judgment, it makes sense to first outline what will be covered in schematic form:
The Appellants are brothers who lived in a flat with their family at Block 185 Boon Lay Avenue #04-154, one floor below the Deceased’s flat which was #05-156. Muhammad was 29 years old at the time of his arrest. His highest educational qualification was Primary Seven (extended).2 At the time of his arrest, he was working as an odd-job general worker on a part-time basis.3 In terms of criminal history, he has had two stints in the Drug Rehabilitation Centre as well as a number of antecedents in property and drug offences. He started taking drugs at the age of 15. His history of drug abuse began with cannabis and then progressed to various other kinds of drugs, including heroin. From 2003, he started consuming Subutex in place of heroin. He began consuming Dormicum in 2004.4 Prior to his arrest, he had been consuming Dormicum on a daily basis.5 He was, in short, a chronic substance abuser.
Ismil was 37 years old at the time of his arrest. His highest educational qualification was Primary Six. At the time of his arrest, he was working as a general worker on a contract basis.6 He began consuming cannabis and sniffing glue at the age of 15, and continued this...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Goldring Timothy Nicholas v PP
...[2002] 1 AC 871 (refd) Leach v R [1912] AC 305 (refd) Mac Kenzie and R, Re (1973) 10 CCC (2 d) 193 (refd) Muhammad bin Kadar v PP [2011] 3 SLR 1205 (folld) National Assistance Board v Wilkinson [1952] 2 QB 648 (refd) Ng Boo Tan v Collector of Land Revenue [2002] 2 SLR (R) 633; [2002] 4 SLR ......
-
Muhammad bin Kadar v PP
...in Criminal Motion No 57 of 2011. Godfrey Gerald QC v UBS AG [2004] 4 SLR (R) 411; [2004] 4 SLR 411 (folld) Muhammad bin Kadar v PP [2011] 3 SLR 1205 (refd) Selvarajan James v PP [2000] 2 SLR (R) 946; [2000] 3 SLR 750 (refd) Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (Act 15 of 2010) ss 6, 166, 196, 298 ......
-
AOF v Public Prosecutor
...would be disclosed to Appellant’s counsel under the rules for disclosure set out in Muhammad bin Kadar and another v Public Prosecutor [2011] 3 SLR 1205 (“Muhammad bin Kadar”); The statements made by C1, the mother and Lathiff to the police in relation to the rape investigation could not be......
-
Public Prosecutor v Adaikalaraj a/l Iruthayam
...Mohd Shariff Jamalddin and another v Public Prosecutor [1999] SGCA 12 at [53], and Muhammad bin Kadar and another v Public Prosecutor [2011] SGCA 32 at [177]. See the Court of Appeal decision of Azman bin Mohamed Sanwan v Public Prosecutor [2012] SGCA 19 at [19]-[27]. See also Chen Siyuan a......
-
The Judicial Discretion to Exclude Relevant Evidence: Perspectives from an Indian Evidence Act Jurisdiction
...Modern Law of Evidence, 8th edn (Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2010) 44–5. 15 Ibid. See also Muhammad bin Kadar v Public Prosecutor [2011] 3 SLR 1205 at [146]–[147]. 400 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE & PROOF JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO EXCLUDE RELEVANT EVIDENCE (some of which have imp......
-
The discretionary death penalty for drug couriers in Singapore
...to provide any information that may increase the probability of his criminal prosecution.17. Muhammad bin Kadar vPublic Prosecutor [2011] 3 SLR 1205 at [65]; Seah Hock Thiam vPublic Prosecutor [2013] SGHC136 at [2]. See also Marie (2012: 54–56).52 The International Journal of Evidence & Pro......
-
Is the Invocation of Inherent Jurisdiction the Same as the Exercise of Inherent Powers?: Re Nalpon Zero Geraldo Mario
...2 SLR(R) 821 at [29]–[30];Attorney-General vTee Kok Boon [2008] 2 SLR(R) 412 at [123]–[131]; Muhammad bin Kadar vPublicProsecutor [2011] 3 SLR 1205 at [52] and [112]; Then Khek Khoon vArjun Permanand Samtani [2012] 2 SLR451 at [13]–[14]. See also Wellmix Organics (International) Pte Ltd vLa......
-
‘In the interests of justice’ as the new test to exclude relevant evidence in Singapore
...For the difference between ‘inherent jurisdiction’ and ‘inherent power’, see Siyuan (2013c).45. Muhammad bin Kadar vPublic Prosecutor [2011] 3 SLR 1205 at [52].46. Siyuan (2012: 406).47. Interpretation Act (ch. 1, rev. ed., 2002), s. 9A(1).Siyuan ReferencesChoo A (2012) Evidence. 3rd ed. Ox......