Public Prosecutor v Dolah bin Omar

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck JC
• Judgment Date: 04 September 2001
• Neutral Citation: [2001] SGHC 256
• Date: 04 September 2001
• Docket Number: Criminal Case No 45 of 2000
• Plaintiff Counsel: Chan Wang Ho and Thong Chee Kun (Attorney-GeneralÂ’s Chambers)
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Culpable homicide not amounting to murder,Whether court should disregard plea of guilt,Accused aware of wrongful nature of act,Accused suffering from chronic schizophrenia,ss 84 & 300 Exception 7 Penal Code (Cap 224),Criminal Law,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Accused's mental illness affecting perception of right and wrong,Accused's mental condition requiring constant psychiatric treatment and supervision,Sentencing options and considerations,Whether life imprisonment appropriate,ss 304(a) & 314 Penal Code (Cap 224),Whether accused deserves compassion and leniency due to diminished mental culpability,Accused satisfying criteria for defence of diminished responsibility,Diminished responsibility,Special exceptions,Accused of unsound mind,Difficulty in understanding court procedure or in instructing counsel

: The accused, aged 55, was charged and convicted for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under s 304(a) of the Penal Code (Cap 224). An offence under this section is punishable with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term, which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine or caning.

The accused, represented by Mr Ahmad Nizam, pleaded guilty and admitted the facts set out in the statement of facts. On 20 January 2000 the accused bludgeoned his 79-year-old uncle to death with a stool and then cut off the deceased uncle`s genitals. The killing was utterly gruesome. After considering the mitigation plea by Mr Nizam as well as the submission on sentence by the Deputy Public Prosecutor Mr Chan, I sentenced the accused to a term of life imprisonment. Although Mr Chan called for the imposition of life imprisonment because of the repulsive nature of the offence, it was not on that basis that I handed down the sentence.

The accused was a patient of the Institute of Mental Health and has been receiving outpatient treatment at the Tampines Psychiatric Outpatient Clinic. A psychiatric report dated 24 February 2000 by Dr Tommy Tan, an Associate Consultant Psychiatrist at the Woodbridge Hospital, which report was tendered as part of the prosecution`s statement of facts, reveals the accused to be a person with a history of `chronic schizophrenia` since the 1960s. He was `markedly disabled socially and intellectually, unable to be gainfully employed and dependent on his family`.

The report went on to state that at the time of the offence the accused `was suffering from an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia`. The psychiatrist stated that the accused satisfied the criteria for the defence of `diminished responsibility`. He said that the accused `has an abnormality of the mind, ie a persecutory delusion, brought on by Schizophrenia [which] would have substantially impaired his mental responsibility`.

The defence of insanity was not raised. Mr Nizam declared that the accused did not satisfy the insanity test under s 84 of the Penal Code. The psychiatric report declared the accused fit to plead. It will be seen from the medical evidence that the accused was clearly in need of constant psychiatric treatment and supervision and that will continue for an indefinite period. Although he was suffering from mental illness since the 1960s, this was the only known incident of violence in his record of antecedents; but this episode was manifested in an extreme form, and there is evidence that there is a danger of recurrence if he does not undergo medical treatment. I have noted the plea made by his family, through his counsel, that they have forgiven him and do not hold him responsible for the crime.

The medical evidence shows that the mental culpability of this accused was substantially diminished. As such he deserves compassion and leniency, but nonetheless I am of the view that the sentence of life imprisonment is the appropriate sentence. The alternative was to sentence him to a fixed term of imprisonment not exceeding ten years. That will enable the accused to return to society after about seven years on account of good behaviour; but remains a danger to himself and others. Finding the correct principle to apply in the sentencing process in this case was, however, not a straightforward exercise. If a man must be punished for what he has done, then the fact that his mental culpability was diminished by reason of a mental illness ameliorates his crime and the punishment ought to be reduced to the extent that he is not punished beyond what he deserves. If medical treatment is not required (or in issue) a long custodial...