Public Prosecutor v Huang Hong Si

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 11 July 2003
• Neutral Citation: [2003] SGHC 147
• Docket Number: Criminal Case No 24 of 2003
• Date: 11 July 2003
• Year: 2003
• Published date: 16 January 2004
• Plaintiff Counsel: Tan Kiat Pheng (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Citation: [2003] SGHC 147
• Defendant Counsel: Tan Wee Soon (Attorney-General's Chambers),Accused in person
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Whether mental condition a mitigating factor,Mitigating factors,Definition of 'aggravating factor',Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Not to be confused with 'aggravated offence',Sentencing,Aggravating factors

1 The accused is a 33 year old Chinese national who came to Singapore about two years ago to work as a plasterer. He was employed by a company called Sinzhou Engineering Pte Ltd. Zhang Xu Sheng, a 35 year old Chinese national and his partner Guo Han Cheng, also a Chinese national, were the two directors of Sinzhou.

2 It was asserted that in August 2002 Guo Han Cheng absconded with Sinzhou’s money and, consequently, the company had to cease business. The salaries of its workers’ had not been paid for some time. In November 2002, the accused, together with other workers, went to Zhang Xu Sheng’s flat to demand payment of their wages. The confrontation turned ugly and the police were summoned. The workers were eventually persuaded to leave the flat by the police. But the accused went to the flat again, this time alone, on 14 December 2002 at 2.30pm. This time he brought with him a knife wrapped in a newspaper. He intended to ask Zhang Xu Sheng to either pay him $5,800 or at least some money for daily expenses as he had only $2 left. Zhang was not home. The accused decided to wait for him outside Zhang’s flat.

3 Zhang Xu Sheng returned to the flat about 5pm. Zhang asked the accused to get assistance from the Ministry of Manpower instead. The two quarrelled. Zhang’s parents, Zhang Shi Xiang and Wei Mei Mei came out of the flat and saw the accused slashing his own arm twice and saying ‘See whether I dare!’. Zhang Xu Sheng asked the accused not to do anything foolish. The accused then stabbed Zhang once, injuring him. When Zhang’s parents saw that they rushed at the accused to prevent him from further hurting Zhang. The accused ‘waved and jabbed the knife’ at Zhang’s parents and in the melee, he stabbed Zhang’s mother, Wei Mei Mei, aged 62, once in her left chest. The knife went into the woman’s heart, killing her. Her husband was also injured but not too seriously.

4 Huang Hong Si pleaded guilty to a charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under s 304(a) of the Penal Code, Ch 224 in respect of Wei Mei Mei’s death, and a charge of causing grievous hurt with weapon under s 324 of the same code, before me. A third charge under s 324 for causing hurt to Zhang’s father was taken into account for the purposes of sentencing.

5 The accused was not represented by counsel and said in mitigation that he went to Zhang only to recover his money, a sum which he says may not be large to others but was great to him. He is married with a 10 year old son in China.

6 The learned DPP submitted that there were aggravating factors in this case and he listed them as follows:

‘(i) the Accused had armed himself with a knife when he went to look for Zhang Xu Sheng (“the victim”) on 14 December 2002. He knew the knife could be used as a dangerous weapon and he intended to use it to threaten or cause hurt for the purpose of obtaining money from the victim;

(ii) the victim and his mother, Wei Mei Mei (“the deceased”) were two innocent people who fell victim to the accused’s action in using the knife;

(iii) there was no provocation by the victim or the deceased;

(iv) the deceased and the victim were unarmed and harmless to the accused;

(v) the deceased was merely trying to stop the accused from attacking her son when the accused turned the knife on her;

(vi) the injuries suffered by the deceased and the victim were very serious. The victim’s injuries were so serious that he had to be hospitalised for 4 days. And if not for the deceased and her husband’s intervention to stop the accused, the victim’s injuries could have been worse. Although the deceased had suffered a single stab wound, it was sufficient to cause her death; and

(vii) this was the second time that the accused had confronted the victim at his flat over his pay matters.’

7 It has become common practice for prosecuting counsel to address the court on sentencing. It is done with the view of assisting the court in balancing all the factors relevant to its determination of the sentence. The prosecuting counsel’s submission will naturally focus on the degree of seriousness in connection with the offence...