Public Prosecutor v Kuah Teck Hin

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Shaiffudin Bin Saruwan
• Judgment Date: 25 October 2021
• Neutral Citation: [2021] SGDC 239
• Year: 2021
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 30 October 2021
• Docket Number: District Arrest Case No. 927487-2019 & Anor, Magistrate’s Appeal No. MA-9210-2021-01
• Plaintiff Counsel: DPP Marcus Foo and Benedict Teong
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Bachoo Mohan Singh and Ho Kah Chon (BMS Law LLC)
• Subject Matter: Criminal law,Penal Code,Newton hearing,Criminal procedure and sentencing,Sentencing,Preventive Detention
• Citation: [2021] SGDC 239

District Judge Shaiffudin Bin Saruwan: Introduction

The Accused was a 66-year old male Chinese. He pleaded guilty to two counts of snatch theft under s 356 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224 (“Penal Code”). A Newton hearing was then held to determine two issues which were disputed and would have an impact on the sentence. They were – (i) the Accused’s psychiatric condition and whether it was a contributory factor for the commission of the offence, and (ii) his motivation for committing the offences.

The charges

The two charges against the Accused were as follows – DAC-927487-2019 “are charged that you, on 14th October 2019, at about 12 pm, at the void deck of Block 7A Commonwealth Avenue, Singapore, did use criminal force on one Ngahamah Sinnappan, female, 68 years old, to commit theft of one gold chain, valued at about S$2,200, which was in the possession of and being worn by the said Ngahamah Sinnappan, to wit, by snatching the said gold chain which she was wearing around her neck from her, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 356 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.” DAC-929451-2019 “are charged that you, on the 26th September 2019, sometime in the morning, along Buangkok Green, near Blk 988B Buangkok Green, Singapore, did use criminal force on one Toh Ie Choo, female, 67 years old, to commit theft of one gold necklace, valued at about S$1,700.00, which was in the possession of and being worn by the said Toh Ie Choo, to wit, by snatching the said gold necklace she was wearing around her neck from her, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 356 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.”

DPP Marcus Foo and DPP Benedict Teong were the prosecutors in this case. The Accused was represented by Mr Bachoo Mohan Singh and Mr Hong Kah Chon.

The PG mention

The Accused admitted to the following facts, namely – DAC-927487-2019 On 26 Sep 21, when the Accused was at the vicinity of Blk 988B Buangkok Green, he noticed Toh walking by with her 71-year old husband. At the time, the Accused had been thinking about how to earn some money as his cousin, whom he was lodging with, had threatened to evict him unless he paid $1,000. The Accused noticed that Toh was wearing a gold necklace. He then formed the intention to steal the gold necklace from Toh. The Accused followed Toh, before approaching her from behind without her and her husband noticing. He then pulled at the gold necklace and snatched it off from around Toh’s neck. Toh shouted out “robbery” in Hokkien. The Accused fled in the direction of Blk 988B Buangkok Green, and through the housing estate thereafter. Toh’s husband gave chase but he ended up falling down. The Accused fled to his home at Blk 984C Buangkok Link. He reached his home at about 9.22 am. He changed his clothes. At about 9.39 am, he left home and took a public bus to a pawnshop at Blk 682 Hougang Ave 4. At the pawnshop, he pawned the gold necklace for $1,700. He disposed of the pawn ticket at a dustbin near his home. The following events were captured by various CCTV cameras – The Accused fleeing through Blk 988B Buangkok Green, wearing a white t-shirt and black shorts. The Accused thereafter proceeding into the lift of Blk 984C Buangkok Link at level 1 in a white t-shirt and black shorts. He subsequently emerged from the lift in an orange polo t-shirt and black shorts. The Accused entering the pawnshop at Blk 682 Hougang Ave 4. DAC-929451-2019 On 14 Oct 21, at about 12 pm, Ngahamah was sitting at the void deck of Blk 7A talking to her friend, Magdelen Michael Naidu, a 71-year old female. The Accused was also at the same void deck. He noticed that Ngahamah was wearing a gold chain around her neck. The Accused recalled that he was being hounded by his friends over some money which he had owed them from betting on soccer matches and horse-racing. He then formed the intention to steal the gold chain. The Accused approached Ngahamah from behind. Magdelen signalled Ngahamah that the Accused was approaching her. As Ngahamah turned around, he grabbed the gold chain and pulled it off from around her neck. The Accused fled towards a nearby cemetery. Ngahamah tried to give chase but was unsuccessful. The Accused went to the Tanglin Halt area. There, he took a public bus to the vicinity of Ghim Moh. At Ghim Moh, he bought a shirt and a pair of slippers. He washed up and changed into them at a public toilet. He then took a taxi back to his home at Blk 577 Ang Mo Kio Ave 10. He reached his home at about 2.40 pm. He left his home at about 3.20 pm and went to a nearby pawnshop at Blk 555 Ang Mo Kio Ave 10. At the pawnshop, he pawned the gold chain for $2,200.

The Newton hearing The issues

A Newton hearing was conducted to determine the following two issues – The nature of the Accused’s psychiatric condition and whether it contributed to the offences. The two medical reports admitted for this purpose were by Dr Christopher Cheok (“Dr Cheok”) for the prosecution, and Dr Tommy Tan (“Dr Tan”) for the defence. Briefly, Dr Tan opined that the Accused has persistent depressive disorder (“PDD”), and that he had suffered a major depressive episode (“MDE”) at the time the offences were committed. It was his opinion that the Accused’s PDD was a contributory factor in the commission of the offences. In contrast, Dr Cheok’s opinion was that the Accused did not suffer from PDD. But he agreed that the Accused had suffered from MDE at the material time and that it was of moderate severity. However, he was of the opinion that there was no contributory link between the Accused’s MDE and the offences. The motivation for the commission of the two offences. The Accused claimed that he had committed the offences solely in order to get his estranged wife’s attention. He did not commit them for financial gain. The prosecution’s case was that the motivation was for financial gain, and that his assertion that it was to get his wife’s attention was an afterthought.

It was pertinent to note that, at the conclusion of the Newton hearing, the defence abandoned Dr Tan’s diagnosis of PDD. Instead, they made their case on the basis that the Accused was suffering from Major Depressive Disorder (“MDD”), and that he had MDE at the time of the offences. Surprisingly, they conceded that the MDE had no contributory link to the offences. Instead, they based their case on the argument that the MDE had factually contributed to the offences, in that, the MDE had affected the Accused’s clarity of thought and ability to think through the consequences of his actions.

Analysis of the evidence The Accused’s psychiatric condition

I now set out the salient points raised by Dr Tan and Dr Cheok in their respective psychiatric reports and their oral testimonies. In his psychiatric report (D3)¹, Dr Tan opined that at the time of the offences, the Accused had suffered from “[PDD] with intermittent [MDE], current episode moderate”. He also opined that “it was very likely that [the Accused] has [PDD] since adolescence”. Dr Tan added that the Accused’s PDD was characterised by low self-esteem and low mood.

Dr Cheok disputed the above diagnosis. Instead he opined that the Accused’s pessimistic outlook on life was better explained by his history of physical abuse and recurrent stresses due to his social disadvantages and lifestyle². In so far as MDE was concerned, Dr Cheok agreed with Dr Tan that the Accused has MDE around the time of the alleged offences³. However, it was his opinion that the MDE was not of such severity so as to impair both the Accused’s judgment of the nature of his acts and his ability to resist his actions⁴.

There was no dispute as to the credentials of both Dr Tan and Dr Cheok as experts in the field of forensic psychiatry.

In analysing and deciding on the two conflicting expert evidence, I took guidance from the decision of the Court of Appeal (“CA”) in PP v Chia Kee Chen [2018] 2 SLR 249 (“Chia Kee Chen”). In Chia Kee Chen, the CA had laid down the following principles relating to expert evidence in the context of criminal proceedings - An expert must be neutral and independent. His overarching duty was to assist the court. But it was permissible for the expert to propound and press home the opinion that he sought to persuade the court to accept. An expert should provide the reasoning behind his conclusions or opinions. In other words, he should present the underlying evidence and the analytical process by which he reached his conclusions and opinions. The court would not hesitate, in appropriate cases, to disregard or even draw an adverse inference against expert evidence that exceeded the judicially determined boundaries of coherence, rationality and impartiality.

Applying the above principles, I found that Dr Cheok’s assessment of the Accused was objective, the scope of his investigations comprehensive, and his opinions and conclusions rational and coherent. I found these traits to be lacking or were inadequately featured in Dr Tan’s report and evidence. The reasons for my findings were set out below.

Firstly, I have grave doubts about the reliability and objectivity of Dr Tan’s conclusions because they were predominantly based on the Accused’s self-reporting accounts. As stated clearly at [2] of D3, Dr Tan had only relied on his examination and interview with the Accused at the Changi Prison Complex on 11 March 2020, and an interview with his wife on 9 March 2020. I noted that Dr Tan had conceded that he was aware that the Accused could have provided him with an account that was favourable to him in order to get a lighter sentence. Notwithstanding his awareness of this danger, Dr Tan had decided that it was not necessary to request for other relevant documents or evidence concerning the offences in question so that he could make his assessment and arrive at his conclusions in an...