Public Prosecutor v Chia Moh Heng

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 09 May 2003
• Neutral Citation: [2003] SGHC 108
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Year: 2003
• Published date: 06 May 2004
• Plaintiff Counsel: Eddy Tham (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Defendant Counsel: Marjory Yeoh (Attorney-General's Chambers),Accused in person,Subhas Anandan (Harry Elias Partnership) as Amicus Curiae
• Subject Matter: Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Sentencing,Whether an order under s 315 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) may be made where the defence under s 84 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) has not been established.,Appropriate sentence under s 304 (a) of the Penal Code where the accused suffers from an impairment to the mind.
• Citation: [2003] SGHC 108

1 The accused is 52 years old and unemployed. He was renting a flat at Jalan Kukoh together with his friend Pang Siew Yin (‘Pang’) at the time of the offence. Pang was 55 years old. About 1am on 17 September 2002 the accused woke from sleep and went to brush his teeth at the kitchen sink. He spied a knife next to the sink and promptly took it in his hand and walked to Pang who was asleep. The accused plunged the knife deep into Pang’s chest. Pang woke up with shock and ran out of the flat where he collapsed and died. The accused was charged with killing Pang under s 304(a) of the Penal Code, Ch 224, for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The particulars of the charge aver that the act of the accused ‘was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause death’. The accused pleaded guilty to the charge. He was not represented but an amicus curiae, Mr Subhas Anandan was appointed to assist the court in respect of some important aspects relating to the mental state of the accused and to address the court in mitigation on behalf of the accused.

2 The accused was examined by Dr Tommy Tan of the Department of Forensic Psychiatry at the Woodbridge Hospital. Dr Tan gave his evidence orally and three of his reports on the accused were admitted into evidence. Dr Tan testified that he examined the accused over two or three occasions for a total of about two hours. He also studied the medical record of the accused. He stated that he did not peruse any of the statements given by the accused to the police because he did not think that they would be of much help to him.

3 The accused has a history of mental illness going back to 12 January 2001 when he was first admitted to the Woodbridge Hospital for setting fire to his landlord’s corridor. According to Dr Tan, the accused was then suffering from a paranoid delusion that his landlord was conspiring with a neighbour to harm him ‘and set five ghosts on him’. He believed that the landlord was spraying ‘special fragrant flakes’ that made people lose their minds, but he believed that he (the accused) was given special powers by some visiting monks to protect himself. The accused was admitted to the Woodbridge Hospital again on 31 January 2002 after the police arrested him at the Hotel Phoenix where he was found talking to himself.

4 In respect of the present offence, Dr Tan stated in his report of 4 October 2002 (P5) that the accused was examined by him and found to have ‘psychomotor retardation, that is to say [that] his mental processes, is slowed down. He spoke slowly and [his] movements were retarded. His affect was depressed. He could not tell [Dr Tan] why he had killed the deceased. He said that he was in a state between awake and asleep [at] the time of the alleged offence. He felt some force controlling him. He could have some paranoid beliefs about the deceased.’ Dr Tan concluded that in his opinion, the accused had a ‘schizoaffective disorder’ at the time of the offence which ‘substantially impaired his mental responsibility for the acts that caused the death of the deceased’. Dr Tan is of the opinion that the accused ‘was not of unsound mind at the time of the offence, as he knew what he was doing and what he did was contrary to law’ (sic). However, Dr Tan added that, in his view, the accused qualified for the defence of diminished responsibility because of the impairment to his mind caused by the schizoaffective disorder.

5 A person who is convicted of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under s 304(a) of the Penal Code shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine or caning if the act by which death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury, as is likely to cause death. Dr Tan had expressly stated in his report, which he re-affirmed in his testimony in court, that the accused was not of unsound mind but, nonetheless, qualifies for the defence of diminished responsibility. What the psychiatrist means is that he does not think that the accused can be described to be of unsound mind within the meaning of s 84 of the Penal Code:

‘84. Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.’

6 However, in his view, the accused can be said to have a diminished responsibility within the meaning of Exception 7 to s 300 of the Penal Code at the time of the offence. Exception 7 reads:

‘Exception 7. – Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender was suffering from such abnormality of mind (whether arising from a condition of arrested or retarded development of mind or any inherent causes or induced by disease or injury) as substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts and omissions in causing the death or being a party to causing the death.’

It is important to state at this point...