PP v Lim Ghim Peow

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 27 January 2014
• Date: 27 January 2014
• Docket Number: Criminal Case No 2 of 2014
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Public Prosecutor

Plaintiff

and

Lim Ghim Peow

Defendant

[2014] SGHC 19

Tan Siong Thye JC

Criminal Case No 2 of 2014

High Court

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing—Sentencing—Culpable homicide not amounting to murder—Accused set deceased on fire—Accused suffering from psychiatric condition at time of offence—Sentencing considerations applicable to mentally disordered offenders where manner of committing offence was particularly heinous

The accused and the deceased were formerly in a relationship. The accused planned to kill the deceased after she rejected his numerous requests to reconcile their relationship. He filled up empty mineral water bottles with petrol and waited outside the flat of the deceased's cousin where the deceased was staying. When the deceased was at the door of the flat, the accused confronted the deceased and proceeded to douse the deceased in petrol. The accused then set the deceased ablaze with a lighter, causing the deceased to suffer burns over three-quarters of her total body surface area. The deceased succumbed to her injuries on the same day. The accused was diagnosed with major depressive disorder at the time of the offence.

The accused was charged for committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder under s 304 (a) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed). He pleaded guilty and was convicted. The Prosecution advocated 16-20 years' imprisonment given the killing was premeditated and vicious. The accused was also diagnosed with a latent propensity towards violent behaviour. In mitigation, the accused's counsel submitted that a lower imprisonment term of ten years was appropriate by placing emphasis on (a) the major depressive order the accused was suffering from at the time of the offence, (b) the familial support the accused will receive upon his release from prison, and (c) the remorse of the accused evidenced by his plea of guilt.

Held, sentencing the accused to 20 years' imprisonment:

(1) Although general deterrence could and should be given considerably less weight if the offender was suffering from a mental disorder at the time of the commission of the offence, retribution was nonetheless a relevant sentencing principle. The punishment had to be proportionate to the accused's criminal conduct which required an assessment of the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case: at [49] and [51] .

(2) The accused displayed a strong element of premeditation. This was not a case in which the accused suddenly snapped or lost his self-control because of his mental condition. The entire plan to kill the victim was devised in a cold, conscientious manner over a span of two days. The accused was patient in the execution of his plan. He first lay in wait for the deceased. When no opportune moment arose, he continued to wait for her the next day. There was nothing to suggest that the accused's major depressive disorder made him unable to fully appreciate the consequences of his actions. The attack was cruel and vicious. The accused caused hurt to the deceased's cousin who was in the flat at the time of the attack and also placed the neighbourhood at the risk of a fire: at [59] to [64] .

(3) Further, the accused had a violent disposition. This was worsened by his history of substance abuse. The fact that his antecedents were under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (Cap 67, 2000 Rev Ed) and its previous editions indicated that he was involved in secret society activities which are often associated with violent activities. The accused had also informed the psychiatrist that he was involved in gang fights. Hence, prevention was also a relevant sentencing principle in this case as society had to be protected from the accused given his latent violent disposition: at [66] to [70] .

(4) There are some cases where the level of culpability was so extreme that the community interest in retribution and punishment could only be met through the imposition of the maximum penalty. Although rehabilitation was a relevant consideration, there might be cases falling within the category of the worst class of cases where there was even little utility in considering the prospects of rehabilitation. Although the maximum sentence of life imprisonment was inappropriate here, this was nonetheless one of the worst cases of culpable homicide not amounting to murder given the aggravating factors. Therefore, the community interest in retribution could only be met through a very substantial sentence notwithstanding the accused's mental condition: at [79] and [80] .

(5) Given the violent disposition of the accused and the seriousness of the offence, the accused's major depressive disorder should not deter the application of the prevention principle by the court in reaching a long incapacitative custodial sentence: at [81] and [82] .

(6) In view of the above, the accused was sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment. The level of heinousness of the crime and the need for society to be protected gave rise to the consequence that the subjective circumstance of the accused could not displace the need for a long incapacitative sentence: at [83] .

Chan Hiang Leng Colin v PP [1994] 3 SLR (R) 209; [1994] 3 SLR 662 (refd)

Goh Lee Yin v PP [2006] 1 SLR (R) 530; [2006] 1 SLR 530 (refd)

Ng So Kuen Connie v PP [2003] 3 SLR (R) 178; [2003] 3 SLR 178 (refd)

PP v AFR [2011] 3 SLR 833 (refd)

PP v Goh Lee Yin [2008] 1 SLR (R) 824; [2008] 1 SLR 824 (refd)

PP v Han John Han [2007] 1 SLR (R) 1180; [2007] 1 SLR 1180 (refd)

PP v Lim Ah Seng [2007] 2 SLR (R) 957; [2007] 2 SLR 957 (refd)

PP v Tan Fook Sum [1999] 1 SLR (R) 1022; [1999] 2 SLR 523 (refd)

R v Davies (1978) 67 Cr App R 207 (refd)

R v Fernando (1997) 95 A Crim R 533 (refd)

Rv Harris (2000) 50 NSWLR 409 (refd)

R v Sargeant (1974) 60 Cr App R 74 (refd)

Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (Cap 67, 1985 Rev Ed)

Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (Cap 67, 2000 Rev Ed)

Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (Cap 112, 1970 Rev Ed)

Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 304 (a) (consd) ;s 304 (b)

Jasmine Chin-Sabado and Chee Min Ping (Attorney-General's Chambers) for the Prosecution

Sunil Sudheesan and Diana Ngiam (RHTLaw Taylor Wessing LLP) for the accused.

Judgment reserved.

Tan Siong Thye JC

1 The accused, Lim Ghim Peow, pleaded guilty to the following charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder without any qualification:

That you, Lim Ghim Peow,

on the 25th day of May 2012, at about 8.30 a.m., at Blk 206 B Compassvale Lane #14-83, Singapore, did commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder by doing an act which caused the death of one Mary Yoong Mei Ling, F/43 years old, to wit, by pouring petrol over her body and setting her on fire with a lighter, which act was done with the intention of causing death, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 304 (a) of the Penal Code (Chapter 224, 2008 Revised Edition).

He also unequivocally admitted to the statement of facts (‘the Statement of Facts’) and his criminal antecedents.

The summary of the Statement of Facts

The accused

2 The accused is a 45-year-old male Singaporean and was a taxi driver. He is a divorcee staying at a rental flat at Block 33 Bendemeer Drive #01-751 (‘the Rental Flat’). The deceased was his ex-lover.

The deceased

3 The deceased was Mary Yoong Mei Ling, a 43-year-old female Singaporean. She was also a divorcee and was in a relationship with Choo Lye Weng (‘Steven’) at the time of her demise. Prior to her relationship with Steven, she was cohabitating with the accused.

4 At the time of the offence, the deceased was staying with her cousin Phua Duan Kai (‘the victim’) and his family. The victim is a 32-year-old male staying at Block 206 B Compassvale Lane #14-83 (‘the Flat’).

The relationship between the accused and the deceased

5 The accused first met the deceased 17 years ago. At that time, they were married to their respective spouses.

6 Sometime in September 2008, the accused and the deceased, both divorced then, renewed their friendship. They began a romantic relationship and cohabited at the Rental Flat. They referred to each other as ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ even though they were not legally married.

7 In 2011, the accused and the deceased's relationship began to deteriorate. The accused became increasingly possessive and would become violent and break things when he was jealous. When they quarrelled, the deceased would sometimes move out of the flat and stay with her friend, Justina Cher Siow Wei (‘Justina Cher’), at Block 207 C Compassvale Lane. At other times, she would stay with her grandaunt, or her aunt to avoid the accused. When they had reconciled, she would return to live with the accused.

End of the relationship

8 Sometime in late 2011, the accused slapped the deceased when they were quarrelling. After this incident the deceased was resolved to end her relationship with the accused. She moved out of the flat permanently.

9 The deceased alternated between staying with Justina Cher, her grandaunt, and her aunt. The accused pleaded with the deceased to return to him but she refused. The accused made numerous calls and sent several text messages to the deceased's mobile phone seeking reconciliation. She did not respond. The accused also called Justina Cher and visited her flat to check on the deceased's whereabouts. He approached common friends and the deceased's relatives to request for their assistance in persuading her to return to him.

10 The accused became more desperate in his attempts at reconciliation. His messages became more threatening and he told the deceased on more than one occasion that he would not leave her alone even if he became a ghost.

Threat to burn Justina Cher's home

11 On 16 February 2012, the accused sent a text message to the deceased threatening to set fire to Justina Cher's home if the deceased refused to meet...