Public Prosecutor v Kwan Cin Cheng

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Karthigesu JA
• Judgment Date: 09 February 1998
• Neutral Citation: [1998] SGCA 10
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 8 of 1997
• Date: 09 February 1998
• Year: 1998
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Francis Tseng, Jasbendar Kaur and Christina Koh (Deputy Public Prosecutors)
• Citation: [1998] SGCA 10
• Defendant Counsel: Chua Eng Hui (Chua Eng Hui & Co) and Leo Cheng Suan (Chu Chan Gan & Ooi)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Applying the 'reasonable man' test,Subjective requirement that accused deprived of self-control by provocation,Murder,Criminal Law,Defence of grave and sudden provocation,Two requirements for defence,Whether relationship between accused and deceased at material time a decisive factor,Whether basis exists for interfering with trial judge's decision that provocation grave and sudden,Offences,s 300 Exception 1 Penal Code (Cap 224),Whether mere words can amount to grave and sudden provocation,Objective requirement that 'grave and sudden' provocation exists based on 'reasonable man' test- Whether accused's emotional state of mind at material time is relevant in ascertaining objective requirement

Judgment:

YONG PUNG HOW CJ

(delivering the grounds of judgment of the court): The respondent was charged with murder. The learned trial judge held that the respondent had established a defence of grave and sudden provocation; he convicted him on a charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and sentenced him to ten years` imprisonment. We dismissed the prosecution`s appeal but enhanced the sentence to life imprisonment. We now give our reasons.

2. Facts

The respondent faced the following charge:

That you, Kwan Cin Cheng, on or about 4 October 1996, at about 8.50pm, at Yung Kuang Road Singapore, did commit murder by causing the death of Phang Ai Looi, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 302 of the Penal Code (Cap 224).

3.The following facts were not disputed at trial. The respondent is a 29 year old Malaysian man. He stabbed to death one Phang Ai Looi (the deceased), who was a 23 year old Malaysian woman with Singapore permanent residence status.

4.The respondent and the deceased were both from Ayer Tawar in Perak, Malaysia, and had known each other since 1988. They had an intimate relationship until the deceased`s father objected, after which the deceased ended the relationship.

5.In early 1991, they resumed their intimate relationship. The deceased came to work at Murata Electronics S`pore (Pte) Ltd in Singapore in November 1993. The respondent came to Singapore frequently to visit her and thereafter began working in Singapore as well. He stayed in a flat at Block 66, Yung Kuang Road in Jurong together with his brother and several other workers.

6.On 22 July 1996, the deceased switched jobs, joining PIN Corporation Pte Ltd as a clerk. There, she met a co-worker named Koh Meng Hock (Koh). She and Koh began dating in August 1996 and her relationship with the respondent deteriorated. On 9 September 1996, she met the respondent in the flat at Yung Kuang Road and told him she wished to end their relationship. She then took her television set from the flat and left. The respondent returned to Ayer Tawar.

7.A few days after 29 September 1996, the respondent telephoned the deceased and told her he was coming to Singapore to give her her share of `tontine` money which amounted to a few thousand dollars.

8.The respondent returned to Singapore on the night of 3 October 1996 in a Proton car and stayed overnight in the Yung Kuang Road flat. He contacted the deceased by phone the next morning, 4 October, and they agreed to meet. He spent the rest of the morning in Johore Bahru with one Ngu Kee Watt, who also lived in the flat, to purchase spare parts for his car; they returned to the flat at about 11.45am that same day. He then went to the NTUC supermarket at the ground floor of the flat to purchase a knife, and again returned to the flat. After this he left the flat for a drive in his car and returned some time after 7pm, whereupon he was informed by an occupant of the flat that the deceased had telephoned him. He then paged for her; when she called, they arranged to met at the ground floor of Block 66, Yung Kuang Road.

9.The deceased had been having dinner with Koh. She arrived with Koh in his lorry at the carpark of Block 66 at 8.30pm. The deceased used Koh`s handphone to inform the respondent she was there. She waited for the respondent at the ground floor lift lobby of Block 66; Koh stood a short distance away as he did not want the respondent to see him with the deceased.

10.Before going downstairs, the respondent retrieved from his room the knife he had bought earlier and placed it in his trouser pocket. He met the deceased at the ground floor lift lobby. They had a short conversation. The respondent then walked towards his car in the carpark in front of Block 66 and the deceased followed him. Koh followed them at a distance by walking along the ground floor corridor of Block 66. When the respondent reached his car, Koh saw him open the front driver`s side door. Koh then looked elsewhere and did not pay attention to them. A short while later, Koh heard the deceased scream and turned to see the respondent assaulting the deceased. Koh ran towards them and punched the respondent on the head, causing him to be thrown to the ground a few feet away. The respondent stood up and assumed a fighting stance; Koh did the same. The respondent then saw the deceased kneeling on the ground and ran off towards Block 66. Koh stayed with the deceased and did not chase the respondent.

11.The deceased was pronounced dead by an ambulance officer at the scene at about 9.10pm. The respondent had inflicted 14 stab wounds and two slash wounds on her with his knife. The forensic pathologist who carried out the autopsy was of the opinion that moderate force would have been needed to inflict the wounds and that seven of the stab wounds, in the upper back and chest region, were fatal wounds.

12.The respondent was arrested by the police on the roof-top of Block 65 at 11.45pm. The police had tracked him down by following blood stains along the staircase of Block 66 and on the water-tank on the roof of Block 66, which is connected to Block 65. The respondent was eventually found lying under some concrete slabs near the water-tank on Block 65. He was found to have sustained cuts on both palms; the laceration on his left palm was more serious. The police recovered a shoe belonging to him which was floating inside the water tank on Block 65. His shirt was spotted on top of the tank but due to oversight was not recovered. Several days later, the respondent led the police to recover his belt from the top of the water tank on Block 66.

13.The knife used to stab the deceased was found by the police in the vicinity of the car-park. Its blade was bent into an `L`-shape. The forensic pathologist opined that the stab wounds on the deceased could not have been inflicted with the knife while it was in this bent state.

14.A s122(6) statement was recorded from the respondent in the early morning following his arrest, at 4am on 5 October 1996. Its admissibility was not challenged by the respondent. It stated:

The deceased has been my girlfriend for the past four years. Actually, we intended to get married soon. The deceased changed her job about two months ago and also changed her attitude towards me. After the deceased had changed her job, she found a new boyfriend at her new work place. I used to visit her at her place of work practically every day before she changed her job but she told me not to visit her every day but once a week. I bought a knife that morning. I intended to commit suicide with the knife. However, when I talked to the deceased in the evening we were unable to reconcile. We quarrelled. During which I stabbed her with the knife. But I did not intend to kill her.

15. The prosecution`s case

The prosecution contended that the respondent had brought the knife when meeting the deceased on 4 October 1996 because he intended to intimidate and cause harm to the deceased if she refused to resume her relationship with him. He intended to bring her to a secluded place but she refused to enter his car. He became angry with her when she refused to reconcile with him and kept asking for the return of her tontine money. He therefore stabbed her with the intention of causing such bodily injury as was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

16.The prosecution attempted to show that the respondent was an aggressive person. Kee Bee Choon (Kee), the deceased`s co-worker and flatmate, testified that the respondent had a bad temper. She also said he had threatened her on the night of 7 September 1996 when he came to their flat when the deceased was absent and she refused to tell him where she had gone. Koh testified that the deceased had told him in September 1996, after she had broken up with the respondent, that the respondent `strangled` her by the neck until she nearly fainted, and he had seen red marks on her neck.

17.Alternatively, the prosecution submitted that even if the deceased had provoked the respondent, such provocation was not grave and sudden, applying the `reasonable man` test in Vijayan v PP [1975] 2 MLJ 8 [1975-1977] SLR 100 and Ithinin bin Kamari v PP [1993] 2 SLR 245 . The provocation was not `sudden` since the respondent had since August 1996 already suspected the deceased of having another boyfriend, and she had ended their relationship on 9 September 1996. The provocation was not `grave`: the deceased had, according to the respondent, said she had a new boyfriend and was happy with him, and the respondent had taken this to mean she was happy in bed; he had thus placed a meaning on the words which was purely conjecture. The respondent`s claim that he had been deprived of self-control was a fabrication. In any case, the respondent`s reaction of stabbing the deceased was not commensurate with the degree of provocation.

18. The defence

The respondent testified in his own defence, in Mandarin. He said he had met the deceased in 1988 when she was 15. He made her pregnant in 1989 and wanted to marry her but her father objected; she had an abortion and they split up. In 1992 she contacted him again when she was studying in Sitiawan, which was near to Ayer Tawar; he then got a job in Sitiawan, stayed with her and supported her financially without her parents` knowledge. When she came to Singapore to work in 1993, he followed her two weeks later and found a job at a construction site. She stayed in her sister`s flat in Yishun while he stayed in his brother`s flat in Yung Kuang Road. He would meet her at least four times a week and they were sexually intimate. He had made her pregnant twice in 1993; each time she had an abortion against his wishes. For a period of about three months in 1994, he rented a room at her flat, but later moved out to save the rent and resumed staying at his brother`s flat. From 1992 to 1996, they generally treated each other as husband and...