Public Prosecutor v Leong Soon Kheong

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chan Seng Onn J
• Judgment Date: 13 November 2008
• Neutral Citation: [2008] SGHC 208
• Citation: [2008] SGHC 208
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 17 November 2008
• Plaintiff Counsel: Amarjit Singh and Jean Chan Lay Koon (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Defendant Counsel: Thangavelu (Straits Law Practice LLC)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law

13 November 2008

Chan Seng Onn J:

1 Leong Soon Kheong (“the Accused”) pleaded guilty to a charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under s 304(b) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) (“PC”) read together with s 149 of the PC. The maximum term of imprisonment for this offence is ten years. I sentenced the Accused to four years and nine months’ imprisonment. The Public Prosecutor has filed an appeal against the sentence. I now give my reasons.

Brief facts

Confrontation of the deceased

2 On 15 February 2003, the deceased, Wong Dao Jing, an 18 year old first-year male student at Temasek Polytechnic, and two of his friends, Poh Wen Bin (“Wen Bin”) and Lim Boon Kiat (“Boon Kiat”), were at an arcade in Lucky Chinatown Shopping Centre. Whilst playing on a game machine, the deceased spotted an unattended haversack next to the game machine. The deceased took the haversack and left the arcade shortly thereafter.

3 About five minutes later, two of the Accused’s accomplices, Sean Leong Hung Chu (“Sean”) and Teo Guan Kah, (“Teo”), were seen searching for the haversack. They confronted Wen Bin and Boon Kiat who informed them that the deceased had taken it. Sean and Teo then instructed Wen Bin to call the deceased to return the haversack, and Wen Bin did so.

4 The deceased returned to the arcade and handed the haversack to Sean and Teo who then passed it to Toh Chun Siong (“Toh”), another accomplice. Sean and Teo questioned the deceased as to why he had taken the haversack. After checking the contents of the bag, Toh claimed that “something” was missing from the haversack. This “something” was never specified.

5 Sean and Teo challenged the deceased to go for a talk at a stairwell. The latter agreed and followed Sean, Teo and Toh to the third storey staircase landing of the building. Wen Bin and Boon Kiat followed them out of concern for the deceased’s safety.

6 At the stairwell, Sean, Teo and Toh surrounded the deceased and accused him of stealing the haversack. They repeatedly questioned the deceased as to why he had stolen the haversack and claimed that “something” was missing from it. The deceased explained that he was unaware that the haversack belonged to them as it was left unattended.

7 Unappeased by the deceased’s explanation, the group started scolding him for being “cocky” in Hokkien. The deceased’s rejoinder was that he had already returned the haversack and asked them what more they wanted from him. The group demanded that the deceased pay for the “missing item” but the deceased refused, claiming that he had no money on him. The deceased produced his wallet to prove his point.

Entry of the Accused

8 It was during the confrontation that Toh made a call (presumably to the Accused) whilst Sean and Teo continued to question the deceased.

9 Later, the Accused and another accomplice, Lim Liang Long Larry (“Lim”), appeared on the scene and joined in the questioning. The Accused, the oldest person in the group, made a sarcastic remark to which the deceased responded that he had taken the haversack, so what more did the Accused want. This caused the Accused to rebuke the deceased for being “arrogant” despite having wrongfully taken the haversack. The Accused then shouted “Take weapon!” in Hokkien but his accomplices did not do so.[note: 1]

10 Not long after, Lim pushed the deceased and questioned if he was a member of any secret society. The deceased denied belonging to any secret society and asked them not to use violence against him. The Accused shouted at the deceased and said that it was difficult for him to let the deceased off so easily because there were so many of his men watching him. Thereafter, Lim pushed the deceased who nearly fell. Lim subsequently challenged the deceased to fight with him “one-to-one”. The deceased declined, saying that he was afraid.

The assault

11 Immediately, Sean, Teo, Toh and Lim (“the Group”) besieged the deceased and started assaulting him. The Accused remained at the staircase landing with Wen Bin and Boon Kiat and they witnessed the Group punching and kicking the deceased. In his police statement, the Accused admitted that he had taken a few steps down the stairs intending to assault the deceased but the narrowness of the stairwell prevented him from reaching the deceased.

12 Afraid of being assaulted themselves, Wen Bin and Boon Kiat did not render any help to the deceased but noticing the severity of the deceased’s injuries, they knelt down and apologised to the Accused who was standing between them. According to investigations, the Accused was unmoved and reportedly stated that the deceased deserved the beating and that a person like him would not be so easily beaten to death.

13 The Group continued to punch and kick the deceased even after the deceased had collapsed on the floor and was no longer retaliating but merely using his arms to ward off the blows. It was only some time after the incessant pleadings from Wen Bin and Boon Kiat that the Accused relented and shouted in Hokkien, “Enough, let’s go”.[note: 2] The attack by the Group immediately ceased. Prior to leaving the stairwell, the Accused told Wen Bin and Boon Kiat to bring the deceased away and warned them not to report the matter to the police.

14 According to Boon Kiat, the deceased was already in a semi-conscious state and in great agony. An ambulance was subsequently called. Upon arrival at the Singapore General Hospital, the deceased was in cardiac arrest. He failed to respond to resuscitation.

15 The Accused and the perpetrators of the attack, i.e. the Group, fled the country following the incident. It was only on 30 November 2007 that the Accused was apprehended by the Malaysian police. He was handed over to the Singapore police on 4 December 2007.

Conviction

16 In the statement of facts, which was admitted by the Accused without any qualification, it was stated that the Accused was, at the time of the offence, a member of an unlawful assembly comprising his accomplices – Sean, Teo, Toh and Lim – and himself. The common object of the assembly was to cause hurt to the deceased and in prosecution of that object, one or more of the members of the assembly had committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder by fisting and kicking the deceased on the head, face and stomach after he had fallen to the ground with the knowledge that such acts were likely to cause the death of the deceased. I accordingly convicted the Accused of the offence as charged.

Culpability of the Accused

17 Though the statement of facts did not explicitly state that the Accused was the “ringleader”, it would appear that he wielded considerable influence over the members of the Group. I noted that the Accused was called to the scene when Sean, Teo and Toh did not seem to elicit the response they wanted from the deceased. Upon arrival, the Accused took over the questioning of the deceased and rebuked the deceased for being “arrogant”. Before the assault occurred, the Accused remarked that it was “difficult for him to let the deceased off so easily because there were so many of his men watching him”.[note: 3] Most tellingly perhaps was the fact that there was immediate compliance by the Group when the Accused called for the assault to cease.

18 Being in a position of some authority and influence within the Group, the Accused could have called off the confrontation well before the attack took place. Instead his behaviour emboldened his younger acomplices to proceed with the assault. His intention to join in the assault was another aggravating factor to be taken into account. Furthermore, the Accused had been obdurate towards the pleas of Wen Bin and Boon Kiat, even though it was obvious to him that the deceased had already collapsed to the ground and was merely shielding himself from the blows. The behaviour of the Accused was therefore malevolent and callous. His failure to halt the attack promptly was reprehensible given that he must have known that the Group would listen to him.

19 It was fortuitous for the Accused that he was prevented from participating in the physical assault because of space constraints. Otherwise, I would have given him a heavier sentence.

Antecedents

20 The only antecedent the Accused had was for voluntarily causing hurt under s 323 of the PC. He was convicted in 1990 and sentenced to 18 months’ probation. That one-off skirmish with the law some 17 years ago when he was only 15 years old could be attributed to “youthful indiscretion” and would not indicate to me a consistent pattern of violent criminal behaviour. Hence, I did not place much weight on this antecedent in my sentencing considerations.

Mitigation Plea

Personal circumstances of the Accused

21 The Accused, a 32-year-old Malaysian, moved to Singapore with his family when he was five years old. He has a NTC certificate in injection moulding from the Institute of Technical Education. He worked as a mould maker for six years, then as a salesman for three years. He was running a shop with his brother-in-law at the time of the offence. Whilst hiding in Malaysia, he obtained work at several places; in his last job, he was an engineer in a multinational company in Ipoh.

22 In mitigation, counsel for the Accused (“counsel”) stated that the Accused was married with a four-year-old son. He was the sole breadwinner of the family. After the offence, he fled to Malaysia, fearful of the consequences of his involvement with the crime even though he had not actually beaten up the deceased. For the four years that the Accused was working and hiding in Malaysia, his wife had to support herself and their son by working as a petrol pump attendant in Singapore, earning $850 a month.

The mitigating factors

23 Counsel emphasised that the Accused was unaware of the theft of the haversack and the initial confrontation with the deceased. Only after he was told that the thief (i.e. the deceased) had been caught did the Accused (together with Lim...