Public Prosecutor v Lim Tee Hian

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeLai Kew Chai J
Judgment Date02 September 1991
Neutral Citation[1991] SGHC 120
Docket NumberCriminal Case No 45 of 1988
Date02 September 1991
Published date19 September 2003
Year1991
Plaintiff CounselJennifer Marie (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
Citation[1991] SGHC 120
Defendant CounselJeyapalan Balasingam and Samuel Jacob (Samuel Jacob & Co)
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Subject MatterAbetment,Criminal Law,Suicide,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Court taking into account accused's behaviour and testimony in considering sentence,Abetment by instigation,Sentencing,Principles,ss 107 & 306 Penal Code (Cap 224),Ingredients of offence of abetment of suicide

Cur Adv Vult

The accused, Lim Tee Hian, was charged before me with the offence under s 306 of the Penal Code (Cap 224) (`the Code`) of having abetted the suicide of one Yvonne Lim Poh Yian (`the deceased`) by instigating her to and she did fall to her death from a flat known as Block 39 Chai Chee Avenue, #09-23, Singapore at about 3.30pm on Tuesday, 16 June 1987. That flat was the residence of the accused. He claimed trial. At the conclusion of a ten-day trial, I convicted him of the offence as charged and sentenced him to a term of eight years` imprisonment with effect from 7 February 1991.

The gravamen of the case for the prosecution was that the accused had instigated the deceased, a naive and trusting girl who he knew loved him deeply enough to sacrifice herself, to commit suicide, which he would mask or make to appear as an accidental death, in a scheme to defraud two insurance companies of $500,000 under two policies which he had in early June 1987 procured on the life of the deceased.


The deceased was 22 years old when she died.
She was employed as a receptionist at Hollandse Club in Camden Park, off Adam Road (`the club`) from 13 October 1983 until her death. Her last pay was $420 per month. It was at her work place that she first met the accused who worked in the club as a part-time waiter for only the last two days of August 1984. According to the general manager of the club, the deceased was able to handle her work; she was a pleasant and quiet girl who did not talk much. According to records of the club, the deceased had reported for work at 7.57am on 16 June 1987 and left work at about 3.02pm. The general manager learnt of her death at about 5.30pm.

The prosecution also led the evidence of another colleague of the deceased, Jenny Khoo Geok Choo (`PW10`), who worked in the club since 1979.
She did not give evidence at the preliminary inquiry and accordingly the prosecution gave notice thereof under s 188(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) (`CPC`). She knew the deceased for about two to three years. She recalled that on the morning of 15 June 1987, she saw the deceased crying while talking over the telephone. She again saw the deceased crying at about 2.30pm on 16 June 1987. She saw that the deceased`s eyes were red. She knew the accused was the boyfriend of the deceased. This witness expressed the view that the deceased was a very naive, simple-minded girl. Jenny Khoo said in evidence that the deceased had told her a few months before her death that the accused was a President`s Scholar and was reading accountancy in the National University of Singapore (`NUS`). She said she did not believe this story as she knew that those scholars mostly read medicine. This witness told the court that she had made a statement to the police three years before her appearance in court but she was not called to give evidence.

In June 1987, the family of the deceased lived at Block 166 Bukit Batok West, Avenue 8, #04-256, Singapore.
According to her mother, Soh Ah Huay, a housewife, the deceased was the youngest of three children. The deceased was educated in English at Swiss Cottage Primary School and Whitley Secondary School. She left school while in Secondary Two. In 1984, the deceased confided in her that she had a boyfriend at the club. She told the mother that he was an orphan and was a university student on a scholarship. In 1985, Madam Soh met the accused. He told her that he was studying in the NUS and that he was living with his elder brother. His elder brother used to bring friends to the home and they were quite noisy, as a result of which he had to study in the void deck. Madam Soh took pity on the accused and told the deceased to invite him to live with them. The accused declined her invitation, although he had spent nights at her home. The deceased and the accused slept in the hall; she on a collapsible bed and he on a mattress on the floor. Madam Soh testified that her daughter was a filial daughter; that she usually stayed at home if she was not working. She did not know how much her daughter was earning but her daughter used to give her $150 per month as her contributions to the household expenses. The deceased used to be very happy whenever the accused visited her; she never had any other boyfriend. In November 1985, she gave $400 to the deceased who wanted to give it to the accused who said he had lost some diving equipment of a friend which he had to replace. On 10 December 1985, the deceased asked her mother for another loan of $900. She told the mother that the accused needed it to buy books. Madam Soh agreed and gave the loan.

In January 1986, the deceased again asked her mother for a loan of $5,800.
She told the mother that the accused was going overseas for further studies and needed the sum of $10,000 as a deposit to pay to the government. The deceased indicated that the accused had borrowed $5,000 from his friends. The deceased also told her mother that the accused would repay the loan within two months after he had sold his flat in Tanglin Halt. Madam Soh agreed and also agreed with the deceased not to inform the other members of the family as the accused did not want it to be known. Madam Soh had worked in an electronics company known as Honeywell Electronics. She was retrenched and she received about $9,000 which she had saved in her POSB account from which either Madam Soh or the deceased could withdraw. Her account at that time showed a credit balance of $9,890.67. She handed the POSB book to the deceased. When it was returned to her, she found that the deceased had withdrawn $6,000 instead. Madam Soh did not make an issue of this. The deceased appeared happy at that time.

In mid 1986, the deceased again asked the mother for a loan of $20,000 which the accused required.
Madam Soh refused. She said she was angry that the accused had not gone overseas to study and yet was asking for another bigger loan. After her refusal the accused did not visit her home; the deceased was angry with the mother. The deceased said she was going to move out to live with the accused. She advised her against it and the deceased did not move out.

One morning at about 4am in October 1986, Madam Soh found the deceased lying semi-conscious in the hall next to the telephone with its handset off the hook.
The deceased was drowsy. Madam Soh replaced the handset and tried to wake the deceased up. Shortly, the telephone rang. It was Veronica Tan Puay Leng (`PW8`), a very good friend of the deceased, at the other end of the line. The sister of the deceased, Lim Poh Kim (`PW9`), answered the phone. Veronica Tan asked her to check on her sister. She was worried that something might have happened; that her sister had done something silly. Lim Poh Kim later learnt that her sister had taken 12 sleeping tablets. The deceased recovered and was discharged from hospital after a short stay. Lim Poh Kim told the court that the deceased, after her discharge from hospital, told her that she found out that the accused was already married with a son and that his wife was actually the girlfriend of his brother; that his brother had made her pregnant; and that he had married his wife to help her out. The obvious suggestion was that it was a marriage of convenience and that the accused did not love his wife. The deceased further stated that the accused had told her that he and his wife were getting a divorce later. Lim Poh Kim then advised the deceased to have nothing further to do with the accused. She knew that the deceased had broken off with the accused for a while. But the deceased and the accused were reconciled a few months prior to the death of the deceased.

In connection with this incident, the deceased was interviewed by Mrs K Naban (`PW2`), the senior medical social worker attached to the Alexandra Hospital.
The deceased denied that she had attempted suicide. She said she had a misunderstanding with her boyfriend and that led to a quarrel. She suffered from insomnia and she took an overdose of sleeping pills to have a good sleep. The deceased refused to divulge the nature of the quarrel nor the identity of her boyfriend.

The deceased had a very close friend, Veronica Tan Puay Leng (`PW8`), a private tutor, who she had befriended in 1982.
Since 1984 Veronica knew that the accused was the boyfriend of the deceased. The deceased had told her that the accused had no parents and that he was a university student. She said that at about 2am one morning in October 1986, the deceased telephoned her. The deceased was crying and told her that the accused had another woman and was living with her. The deceased was very sad. Veronica advised the deceased to forget about him but she said she could not. Then, suddenly, the line was cut off; she was worried and kept dialling. Finally, the phone rang and the deceased`s mother came on the phone. Veronica told her that the deceased might have some problem and advised her to take care of the deceased. Later, she was told by the deceased that she had taken some sleeping tablets; that she wanted to commit suicide because she thought she was losing the accused. The deceased had also told Veronica that she had been giving money to the accused for his studies in the university and that she had borrowed money from her mother to give to him.

Veronica then recounted what the deceased had told her in a telephone conversation on or about 9 June 1987.
The deceased told her that she was very worried over the safety of the accused. The deceased told her that some gangsters were looking for him over a debt of $200,000 which was incurred by the accused`s employers. The deceased did not explain why in that case the accused was responsible for the debt. Veronica said she advised the deceased not to believe the accused as he could be bluffing her. The deceased did not heed her advice. She told Veronica that she trusted the accused and that the accused would not bluff her.

Veronica also
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • S Balakrishnan and Another v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 17 August 2005
    ...had to show the court that there was “active suggestion, support, stimulation or encouragement” of the offence: PP v Lim Tee Hian [1992] 1 SLR 45, approved in Ng Ai Tiong v PP [2000] 2 SLR 67 Capt Pandiaraj was the Supervising Officer for the 80th CST course, which made him the most senior ......
  • Jimina Jacee d/o CD Athananasius v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 2 November 1999
    ...PP [1992] 1 SLR (R) 192; [1992] 1 SLR 713 (folld) Maideen Pillai v PP [1995] 3 SLR (R) 706; [1996] 1 SLR 161 (refd) PP v Lim Tee Hian [1991] 2 SLR (R) 393; [1992] 1 SLR 45 (refd) PP v Victor Rajoo [1995] 3 SLR (R) 189; [1995] 3 SLR 417 (refd) PP v Yeo Choon Poh [1993] 3 SLR (R) 302; [1994] ......
  • Ng Ai Tiong v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 15 March 2000
    ... ... (1) ... (a) ... Whether the word `instigates` in s 107(a) of the Penal Code (Cap 224) requires the prosecution to show that `there had been active suggestion, support, stimulation or encouragement ... ` [as pronounced in PP v Lim Tee Hian [1992] 1 SLR 45 ] or a `mere intention` ... (b) ... Whether the words ` ... thing ... ` in s 107 and ` ... that thing ... ` in s 107(a) of the Penal Code require the prosecution to show that at the time of the `instigation` the abetted knew or can be said to have reasonably known ... ...
  • Public Prosecutor v Choo Hiang Mui
    • Singapore
    • District Court (Singapore)
    • 27 September 2021
    ...by instigation are well settled. The question of what constitutes “instigation” was considered in the local case of PP v Lim Tee Hian [1991] 2 SLR(R) 393, where Lai Kew Chai J held (at [50]–[51]): The offence of abetment by instigation was considered in at least two Malaysian cases dealing ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Criminal Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2000, December 2000
    • 1 December 2000
    ...of abetment by instigation required a showing of active suggestion, support, stimulation or encouragement (citing PP v Lim Tee Hian[1992] 1 SLR 45; see also PP v Ng Ai Tong[2000] 1 SLR 454 (also mentioned above)). However, all that the prosecution alleged in the instant case was that the ap......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT