Public Prosecutor v Ng Kwang Lim

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Woo Bih Li J
• Judgment Date: 29 April 2004
• Neutral Citation: [2004] SGHC 85
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 04 May 2004
• Year: 2004
• Plaintiff Counsel: Winston Cheng and Deborah Tan (Deputy Public Prosecutors)
• Defendant Counsel: Subhas Anandan and Anand Nalachandran (Harry Elias Partnership)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Offences,Culpable homicide,s 304(a) Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed),Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Sentencing,Mentally disordered offenders,Whether life imprisonment appropriate.
• Citation: [2004] SGHC 85

29 April 2004

Woo Bih Li J:

1 The accused person, Ng Kwang Lim (“the Accused”), faced two charges. Under the amended first charge, the Accused was charged with the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder by causing the death of one Lee Kwok Hong by slashing him in the neck with a paper cutter which act was done with the intention of causing death, an offence punishable under s 304(a) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed).

2 Under the second amended charge, the Accused was charged with the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt to one Deborah June Chew Ai Sim by using a paper cutter to slash her on her face, causing permanent disfigurement, an offence punishable under s 326 of the Penal Code.

3 The Prosecution proceeded with the amended first charge to which the Accused pleaded guilty. I accepted his plea of guilt and convicted him on it. The Accused agreed to the amended second charge being taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing.

4 The punishment under s 304(a) of the Penal Code is life imprisonment or imprisonment of up to ten years. The Accused was also liable to fine or caning.

5 In mitigation, the Defence submitted that the Accused was suffering from a mental illness that impaired his mental responsibility, an illness that was undetected, undiagnosed and untreated for many years. The Defence also submitted that the Accused accepted responsibility for his role and was sincerely apologetic to the family of the deceased. The Defence informed me that although the Accused was estranged from his parents for almost ten years, his relationship with them had improved. The Accused was confident that they will play an instrumental part in his recovery. The Defence urged that no caning be imposed.

6 The Prosecution pressed for life imprisonment on the basis that the Accused was a threat to society and could not be relied upon to take his medication. The Prosecution relied on reports from two psychiatrists which I shall elaborate on later, the case of R v Hodgson (1968) 52 Cr App R 113, and sentencing precedents. The Prosecution did not make a submission for caning.

The court’s decision

7 As can be seen, the main question before me was whether life imprisonment was an appropriate sentence for the Accused. The statement of facts, which the Accused agreed to, stated:

4 Investigations revealed that on 13 August 2003 at about 9.30 a.m., the Informant, 11 other senior staff and colleagues and the Deceased were having a Faculty Management Committee meeting at the Conference Room located at unit #07-26 of the Faculty of Engineering, NUS.

5 At the time, the Accused was in the vicinity as he was tasked with setting up the audio-visual equipment in the Conference Room and ensuring that it worked properly. …

6 Shortly after the meeting began, the Accused opened the Conference Room door with a loud bang and went in. He had a paper cutter in his right hand. He walked briskly towards the Deceased, who at that juncture was sitting near to the entrance of the Conference Room and facing away from the Accused. The Accused went behind the Deceased and grabbed the latter’s head with his left hand. He then slashed the Deceased’ throat with the paper cutter in his right hand. The Deceased collapsed to the ground with blood gushing out from his neck.

7 Some of the Deceased’s colleagues in the Conference Room tried to restrain the Accused who struggled and attempted to throw a kick at the Deceased. The others went to the Deceased’s aid. The Accused managed to free himself and ran out of the Conference Room. He dropped the paper cutter he had been holding and ran off in the direction of the storeroom. There, he took a new paper cutter from the stationary supplies in the storeroom. In the meantime, those who were inside the Conference Room attended to the Deceased and locked the Conference Room door from the inside in order to prevent the Accused from re-entering the room.

8 The Accused returned moments later with the new paper cutter and struggled to open the locked door of the Conference Room from the outside. He was agitated and shouting that someone in the Dean’s Office was playing “black magic” on him.

9 The [Accused] paced to and fro near the Conference Room. At one point, he tried unsuccessfully to unlock the side door to the Dean’s private office. He then used a paper cutter to cut the wires running along the edge of the side door to the Dean’s office, thus disabling the power supply to the staff card entry system. This prevented the side door from being opened from the outside. He also locked the main entrance to the Dean’s office.

10 Thereafter, the Accused went on a rampage around the office wielding the second paper cutter. He subsequently went back to the storeroom to get a third paper cutter. Later on, he took a chair and sat in front of the door to the Conference Room, preventing the occupants from escaping. He held a paper cutter in his hand all the while.

11 The Police then arrived and unlocked the main entrance to the Dean’s office. They then disarmed and arrested the Accused without a struggle.

8 Dr Stephen Phang, a consultant forensic psychiatrist and Deputy Chief of the Department of Forensic Psychiatry of the Institute of Mental Health and Woodbridge Hospital, provided two reports.

9 In his first report dated 1 October 2003, Dr Phang said that the...