Public Prosecutor v Ong Chee Hoe and Another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: MPH Rubin J
• Judgment Date: 23 June 1999
• Neutral Citation: [1999] SGHC 162
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 20 July 2004
• Year: 1999
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ng Cheng Thiam and Han Cher Kwang (Deputy Public Prosecutors)
• Defendant Counsel: Tan Teow Yeow (Tan Yeow and Co) and Edmund Wong (Trinel Rai and Partners) (both assigned),Peter Low (Peter Low Tang and Belinda Ang) and Goh Aik Leng ( AC) (Goh Aik Leng and Partners) (both assigned)
• Citation: [1999] SGHC 162

23 June 1999

M P H Rubin

Background

1 Two 22-year old Singapore men, Ong Chee Hoe also known as ‘Ah How’ (the first accused) and Soo Kian Fong also known as ‘Chiew Fong’ or ‘Mark’, (the second accused) were tried before me on a charge that they, in furtherance of their common intention with one Ng Beng Kiat, committed murder by causing the death of one Chia Lap Lai – a 16-year old lad between 9.20pm and 9.50pm on 5 January 1994 in a lift at Block 34, Teban Gardens, Singapore, an offence punishable under s 302 read with s 34 of the Penal Code (Cap 224).

2 Both accused, who were 17 years of age at the time the offence, fled Singapore shortly after the commission of the offence for Malaysia and were apprehended, the first accused on 25 November 1998 and the second accused on 5 January 1999. Ng Beng Kiat generally known as Bulldog, the other person, who was involved in the offence was arrested a few months after the incident and was tried and convicted by Sinnathuray J in March 1995 on a charge of murder in furtherance of the common intention with the present two accused. Since Ng Beng Kiat was also 17 years of age at the time of the murder, he was, as provided under s 213 of the Criminal Procedure Code (‘CPC’), ordered to be detained during the President’s pleasure.

3 Save for certain aspects in relation to the statements given by the second accused, much of the prosecution evidence was not disputed by the defence. In their closing submissions, counsel for both accused submitted that the accused persons should be convicted for an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under s 304(a) of the Penal Code which provides:

Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished –

(a) with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine or to caning if the act by which death is caused is done with the intention of causing death or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; …

4 The contention by the prosecution on the other hand was that acts of both accused on that day together with Ng Beng Kiat constituted murder under s 300(c) of the Penal Code which reads:

Except in the cases hereinafter excepted culpable homicide is murder –

(c) if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person, and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death;

5 At the conslusion of the case, after considering all the evidence and arguments, I convicted both the accused on the charge of murder and sentenced them to be detained during the President’s pleasure as provided under s 213 of the CPC, since both of them were below the age of 18 at the time they committed the offence. Both now appeal against my decision and my grounds now follow.

Prosecution evidence

6 The prosecution led evidence by way of conditioned statements from 48 witnesses and oral evidence from two witnesses. As mentioned earlier, there was little debate on the evidence presented by the prosecution and the material aspects thereof can be summarised as follows.

7 Aik Kah Hwee (Jia Hui) (PW-20) and Ng Hui Leong (Hui Leong) (PW-21) testified that they had known the deceased (Li Li) since their childhood days. Sometime in 1993, the three of them became acquainted with the two accused as well as Bulldog whilst playing basketball at a court located near Block 44 Teban Gardens Road. The two accused as well as Bulldog were members of the Tiong Meng Kok secret society.

8 Sometime during the later part of 1993, the deceased joined the Pak Hai Tong secret society, a rival group to the Tiong Meng Kok secret society. From then on the deceased, Jia Hui and Hui Leong avoided going to the basketball court which was situated somewhere between Block 44 Teban Gardens Road and the fitness corner adjacent to a children’s playground nearby. The layout plan produced at the trial showed that Blocks 33, 34, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 and 48 of Teban Gardens Road were all quite close to each other.

9 At about 8.30pm on 5 January 1994, Jia Hui and Hui Leong met the deceased at a coffee shop at Block 49 Teban Gardens Road. After spending an hour or so at the coffee shop, they left for home. Jia Hui and Hui Leong parted with the deceased near Block 48. Thereafter the deceased was seen walking alone to his home at Block 34. At that time the deceased was not armed with a wooden stick or any implement.

10 The testimony of Siew Kok Pieng (‘Kok Pieng’) (PS-28/PW-17), Tan Chak Wee (‘Chak Wee’) (PS-29/PW-18) and Chang Hiang Hseng (‘Chang’) (PS-30/PW-19) who were the friends of the deceased was that the two accused, Bulldog and a few others were at the void deck of Block 44 from about 7.30pm on 5 January 1994. At about 9.45pm Bulldog was seen walking towards the fitness corner from Block 44. As he reached the fitness corner, he stopped and looked towards Block 48. He then turned to his friends who were at the ground floor of Block 44 and whistled to them. At that time, Jia Hui and Hui Leong were entering the lift at Block 48 whilst the deceased was on his way from Block 48 to his flat. Suspecting that the accused persons and Bulldog were going after the deceased, they tried to warn him by shouting out his name. The deceased, apparently, did not seem to have heard them as he kept on walking towards his flat at Block 34.

11 They then ran towards the deceased but lost sight of him just beyond the corner of Block 45. Kok Pieng and Chak Wee (PS-29/PW-18) could see Bulldog first but as they finally arrived at the lift lobby of Block 34 they could not find the deceased, Bulldog or the accused persons. But Kok Pieng and Chak Wee heard voices coming from within the lift. It sounded as if someone was being assaulted inside the lift. Chang’s evidence was that at the time Kok Pieng and Chak Wee were trying to alert the deceased, he saw Bulldog and the second accused armed with a stick measuring about 2½ feet in length each.

12 Ms Ee Heng Geok (PS-17/PW-16), a resident of Block 34, in her evidence said that on 5 January 1994 at about 10.10pm while she was at lift lobby B on the 13^th floor of Block 34 waiting for the lift, she discerned that the lift was taking longer than usual to arrive. She also heard noises coming from within the lift compartment below. When the lift carriage finally arrived, she saw a piece of wood lying on the lift floor. When she reached the ground level, she noticed the deceased being attended to by a group of residents. She recognised the deceased and soon went to inform the parents of the deceased.

13 Another resident of Block 34, Mdm Leow Chu Fong (PS-16/PW-6) said that at about 9.30pm on 5 January 1994, as she was watching some television programmes at her ground level flat, she heard a commotion outside her flat at the lift lobby. She came out of her flat and noticed the deceased lying unconscious inside the lift. She then reported the matter to the police.

14 Ambulance officer Salbiah bte Sulaiman (PS-8) said that when she arrived at the scene at about 10.13pm on 5 January 1994, she found the deceased unconscious. She felt two large haematoma at the lower back of the deceased’s head. The victim was then conveyed to the National University Hospital (NUH).

15 The evidence of Dr Eu Tieng Juoh Wilson (PS-9/PW-8) and Dr Chou Ning (PS-10/PW-10) was that the injuries sustained by the patient particularly those found on his head were of such a serious nature that it warranted an emergency operation. The patient was therefore at once referred to the Neurosurgical Unit of the Division of Neurosurgery at the NUH and was attended to by Dr George Sy, a Research Fellow of the Division. However despite all the medical and surgical efforts by the doctors, the patient succumbed to his injuries and died on the operating table.

16 Dr George Sy was not available. However his medical report (exh P-40) was referred to by Dr Chou Ning and admitted without any objection from the defence. In the said report Dr George Sy had noted that when the patient arrived at the accident and emergency unit of the NUH he had a glasgow coma scale of 4/15 (the 3 being the lowest score) and when craniotomy was done on the patient, there was depressed comminuted fracture at the right parietal with fracture line extending into the frontal, posterior parietal and temporo-occipital area. There was dural laceration at the posterior parietal and the severely contused brain was noted. When asked to clarify what was meant by contused brain, Dr Chou Ning said: ‘red and angry looking.’

17 Dr Wee Keng Poh (PS-11/PW-9), a senior forensic pathologist from the Department of Pathology, Institute of Science & Forensic Medicine, testified that he performed an autopsy on the deceased at about 9.00am on 6 January 1994. According to him the fatal injuries were those found on the head of the deceased. Dr Wee added that underlying the bruises on the head of the deceased, were two linear fracture lines at the base of the skull. He certified the cause of death as ‘contused brain due to fractured skull.’ He opined that these injuries were consistent with that sustained as a result of multiple blows to the head by a blunt object such as the wooden poles shown in photographs P-2 and P-3 (part of the wooden poles normally used by building contractors for old-fashioned wooden scaffolding). Dr Wee expressed the view that severe force was required to inflict the injuries found on the deceased’s head. In his opinion the fatal injuries found on the deceased’s head were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

18 The cautioned statements recorded from the two accused persons (exh P-50 as regards the first accused and exh P-51 as regards the second accused) as well as three long statements (exh P-54, P-55 and P-56) recorded from the second accused were admitted in evidence as being voluntarily made without any objection from the accused persons or their...