PP v Kho Jabing

JurisdictionSingapore
Judgment Date18 November 2013
Date18 November 2013
Docket NumberCriminal Case No 31 of 2009
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Public Prosecutor
Plaintiff
and
Kho Jabing
Defendant

Tay Yong Kwang J

Criminal Case No 31 of 2009

High Court

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing—Sentencing—Murder—Respondent convicted of murder under s 300 (c) Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) —Re-sentencing of accused pursuant to s 4 (5) (f) Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2012 (Act 32 of 2012) —Section 300 (c) Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) —Section 4 (5) (f) Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2012 (Act 32 of 2012)

Jabing Kho (‘the convicted person’) and Galing Anak Kujat (‘Galing’) were both convicted of murder in furtherance of a common intention by the trial judge. Both the convicted person and Galing appealed against this. The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision against the convicted person, but allowed the appeal by Galing, whose conviction was substituted with an offence of robbery with hurt committed in furtherance of a common intention.

On 30 April 2013, the Court of Appeal confirmed that the convicted person was convicted under s 300 (c) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed), and allowed his application for his case to be remitted to the High Court for resentencing pursuant to s 4 (5) (f) of the Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2012 (Act 32 of 2012).

The circumstances of the murder were set out. On 17 February 2008, the convicted person, Galing, and other friends went to Geylang to find some victims to rob. In Geylang, the convicted person and Galing walked some distance away from their friends and spotted two possible victims, Cao Ruyin (the deceased) and Wu Jun. Galing assaulted Wu Jun and the deceased with a belt wrapped around his fist with the metal buckle exposed. The convicted person attacked the deceased with a piece of wood which he picked up while approaching the deceased. Wu Jun escaped with minor injuries and called the police. When the police arrived at the scene of the crime, the deceased was lying unconscious on the ground, with his face covered in blood. The deceased's mobile phone had been taken away by Galing. The deceased suffered severe head injuries and passed away in a hospital on 23 February 2008. The cause of death was certified by a pathologist to be severe head injury.

Held, sentencing the convicted person to life imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane:

(1) There should not be a default position preferring the death penalty or life imprisonment in considering the appropriate sentence under s 300 (c) of the Penal Code. In other legislation providing for punishment for offences, the courts had consistently accepted that there was no presumptive preference that the least severe punishment should be the starting or default position. It would also be wrong to regard the death penalty as the starting point and then see if there were factors which would justify the less severe alternative. All the facts of the case should be looked at before deciding which was the appropriate punishment for offences under ss 300 (b) to 300 (d): at [37] .

(2) It was not necessary or fruitful to look at decisions in other jurisdictions as to when the death penalty would be appropriate. Each society had to decide for itself what type and degree of punishment it wanted and needed in the unique context of its values and development on all fronts, including social, cultural and economic: at [38] .

(3) The death penalty was not the appropriate sentence because of (a) the convicted person's relatively young age at the time of the offence; (b) the convicted person's choice and use of the piece of wood was opportunistic and improvisational and not part of a pre-arranged plan; (c) there was no clear sequence of events concerning the attack; in particular, there was no clear evidence that the convicted person went after the deceased from behind without warning and started hitting him on the head with the piece of wood: at [40] .

Kho Jabing v PP [2011] 3 SLR 634 (refd)

Panya Martmontree v PP [1995] 2 SLR (R) 806; [1995] 3 SLR 341 (refd)

PP v Galing Anak Kujat [2010] SGHC 212 (refd)

PP v Law Aik Meng [2007] 2 SLR (R) 814; [2007] 2 SLR 814 (refd)

Sia Ah Kew v PP [1974-1976] SLR (R) 54; [1972-1974] SLR 208 (folld)

Sim Gek Yong v PP [1995] 1 SLR (R) 185; [1995] 1 SLR 537 (refd)

Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 396

Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) ss 34, 300 (b) , 300 (c) , 300 (d) , 302, 394

Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2012 (Act 32 of 2012) s 4 (5) (f) (consd) ;ss 2, 4 (6)

Seraphina Fong, Lee Lit Cheng and Teo Lu Jia DPPs (Attorney-General's Chambers) for the Prosecution

Anand Nalachandran (Braddell Brothers LLP), Josephus Tan and Keith Lim (Patrick Tan LLC) for the convicted person.

Tay Yong Kwang J

1 Jabing Kho (‘the convicted person’) and Galing Anak Kujat (‘Galing’) were convicted of murder under s 300 (c) read with s 34 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (‘Penal Code’) and punishable under s 302 of the same by Kan Ting Chiu J and the then mandatory death sentence was passed on them accordingly. The present proceedings concern the re-sentencing of the convicted person pursuant to s 4 (5) (f) of the Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2012 (Act 32 of 2012) (‘the PCAA’). After hearing the submissions made by both parties, I re-sentenced the convicted person to life imprisonment with effect from the date of his arrest (26 February 2008) and to receive 24 strokes of the cane.

2 The Prosecution, which urged me to re-sentence the convicted person to death, has appealed against my decision.

The background

3 The convicted person was born on 4 January 1984. The charge against him at the trial read as follows:

That you, Jabing Kho, on or about the 17th day of February 2008, at about 8.19 pm, at the open space near Geylang Drive, Singapore, together with one Galing Anak Kujat, in furtherance of the common intention of both of you, committed murder by causing the death of one Cao Ruyin, male 40 years old, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.

4 The co-accused, Galing, faced a similar charge and both the convicted person and Galing were tried together. On 30 July 2010, Kan J convicted both of them of them of murder committed in furtherance of their common intention and sentenced them to receive the then mandatory death penalty. Kan J accepted that the convicted person's offence fell within s 300 (c) of the Penal Code. His judgment appears at PP v Galing Anak Kujat[2010] SGHC 212 (‘Kan J's judgment’).

5 Both Galing and the convicted person appealed against Kan J's decision. On 24 May 2011, the Court of Appeal affirmed the decision against the convicted person. Galing's appeal was allowed by the Court of Appeal which substituted his conviction for murder with an offence of robbery with hurt committed in furtherance of a common intention under s 394 read with s 34 of the Penal Code (see Kho Jabing v PP[2011] 3 SLR 634 at [38] - ‘the Court of Appeal's judgment’). Galing's case was remitted to Kan J for sentencing in respect of the substituted offence and he was subsequently sentenced to imprisonment for 18 years and six months and to receive 19 strokes of the cane.

6 On 30 April 2013, the Court of Appeal confirmed that the convicted person was convicted under s 300 (c...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Kho Jabing v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 5 April 2016
    ...Judge”) re-sentenced the Applicant to a term of life imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane (see Public Prosecutor v Kho Jabing [2014] 1 SLR 973 (“HC (Re-sentencing)”)). The Prosecution appealed and the matter came before us. On 14 January 2015, we allowed the Prosecution’s appeal by a maj......
  • PP v Wang Wenfeng
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 7 February 2014
    ...2009 (16 July 2013) (refd) PP v Gopinathan Nair Remadevi Bijukumar Criminal Case No 40 of 2011 (28 August 2013) (refd) PP v Kho Jabing [2014] 1 SLR 973 (refd) PP v Kwong Kok Hing [2008] 2 SLR (R) 684; [2008] 2 SLR 684 (refd) PP v Law Aik Meng [2007] 2 SLR (R) 814; [2007] 2 SLR 814 (refd) PP......
  • Kho Jabing v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 5 April 2016
    ...Judge”) re-sentenced the Applicant to a term of life imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane (see Public Prosecutor v Kho Jabing [2014] 1 SLR 973 (“HC (Re-sentencing)”)). The Prosecution appealed and the matter came before us. On 14 January 2015, we allowed the Prosecution’s appeal by a maj......
  • Public Prosecutor v Kho Jabing
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 14 January 2015
    ...with effect from the date of his arrest (ie, 26 February 2008) and 24 strokes of the cane (see Public Prosecutor v Kho Jabing [2014] 1 SLR 973 (“the Re-sentencing Judge’s Decision”)). The Prosecution then appealed against the Re-sentencing Judge’s decision, urging this Court to impose the d......
2 books & journal articles
  • Criminal Procedure, Evidence and Sentencing
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2013, December 2013
    • 1 December 2013
    ...Code. The convicted person would also be liable to be caned where life imprisonment was imposed. 14.81 In Public Prosecutor v Kho Jabing[2014] 1 SLR 973 (‘Kho Jabing’), the accused person was convicted of murder under s 302 of the Penal Code. The High Court, in convicting him, accepted that......
  • LOOKING BEYOND PROSPECTIVE GUIDANCE
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2014, December 2014
    • 1 December 2014
    ...Prosecutor v Fernando Payagala Waduge Malitha Kumar[2007] 2 SLR(R) 334 at [38]. 228 See para 34 above. 229Public Prosecutor v Kho Jabing[2014] 1 SLR 973 at [37]. The Public Prosecutor filed an appeal against sentence in Criminal Appeal No 6 of 2013. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appe......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT