Public Prosecutor v Tan Teck Hin

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 03 December 1993
• Date: 03 December 1993
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 39 of 1993
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)

Ng Soo Hin

Plaintiff

and

Public Prosecutor

Defendant

[1993] SGCA 94

L P Thean JA

,

Goh Joon Seng J

and

Warren L H Khoo J

Criminal Appeal No 39 of 1993

Court of Appeal

Criminal Law–Special exceptions–Diminished responsibility–Accused appealing against conviction of murder–Defence of diminished responsibility–Whether accused discharged burden of proving defence–Section 300 Exception 7 Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed)–Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Appeal–Accused appealing against conviction of murder–Whether appellate court should disturb trial court's findings of fact

The appellant was convicted of murder. At the trial, a separate count of murder was stood down. The appellant did not challenge the Prosecution's case and stated from the outset that his defence was that of diminished responsibility. The defence psychiatrist opined that at the time of both killings the appellant suffered from one or several types of mental disorders which substantially impaired his mental responsibility.

The prosecution psychiatrist was of the view that the appellant was not suffering from any mental illness or personality disorder and that at the time of the commission of the offence, the appellant was still in bereavement over his father's death. While the appellant would show depressive features because of the bereavement, this was not a mental disorder. The prosecution psychiatrist also stated that it was in a fit of jealousy and from a passion of unrequited love that he brutally stabbed the deceased to death. The trial judge rejected the defence psychiatrist's evidence in favour of the prosecution psychiatrist's evidence. The appellant appealed against his conviction.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) The appellant bore the burden of proving diminished responsibility on a balance of probabilities. This was a question of fact which was to be decided in the light of all the evidence before the court, including medical opinion: at [12].

(2) An appellate court would not disturb the trial court's findings of fact unless they were clearly reached against the weight of the evidence. In examining the evidence, an appellate court had always to bear in mind that it had neither seen nor heard the witnesses and had to therefore pay due regard to the trial judge's findings and his reasons. The trial judge arrived at his finding after a careful review of all the evidence before him. The finding was not reached against the weight of the evidence: at [63] and [64].

Chia Chee Yeen v PP [1991] 2 SLR (R) 653; [1991] SLR 312 (folld)

Lim Ah Poh v PP [1992] 1 SLR (R) 192; [1992] 1 SLR 713 (folld)

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) ss 121 (1), 122 (6)

Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 300 Exception 7 (consd)

Gopalan Raman (G Raman & Pnrs) and Cheong Aik Chye (Judy Loke & Cheong) for the appellant

Jennifer Marie and Norul Huda d/o V Mohamed Rashid (Deputy Public Prosecutors) for the respondent.

Judgment reserved.

Goh Joon Seng J

(delivering the judgment of the court):

1 The appellant was charged with two counts of murder. The charge for which he was convicted in the court below was for the murder of one Foo Chin Chin (“Ah Chun”) on 24 March 1990 at about 10.00pm at East Coast Park between Bedok Jetty and car park number F1, Singapore. The other charge for the murder of one Ng Lee Kheng (“Ah May”) on the same day but earlier at 7.40pm at Block 37, Circuit Road, Singapore was stood down. Upon the conviction of the appellant in the court below for the murder of Ah Chun, the charge of murder of Ah May was withdrawn by the Prosecution. The appellant now appeals against his conviction for the murder of Ah Chun.

2 From the outset of the trial in the court below counsel for the defence made it clear that the Defence was not challenging the prosecution case as the defence was one of diminished responsibility. To run this defence, counsel wanted evidence relating to the death of Ah May to be led and this was done.

3 The prosecution case is that on 24 March 1990 at about 10.00pm the appellant was seen by four prosecution witnesses dragging Ah Chun into some bushes at the East Coast Park bird sanctuary. Ah Chun was heard pleading with the appellant to let her go. The appellant subsequently emerged from the bushes and fled, pursued by these witnesses. Ah Chun's body was later discovered near some bushes inside the bird sanctuary.

4 Professor Chao Tzee Cheng, the senior forensic pathologist who arrived at about midnight on 24 March 1990, examined Ah Chun's body at the scene. He estimated the time of her death to be around 10.30pm. He found 14 stab wounds, seven were penetrating wounds. There were two defensive wounds on her left arm consistent with that sustained during a struggle when she raised her arm to shield herself from the assailant. Two of the penetrating wounds were fatal wounds. The deepest wound was 15cm. These two stab wounds had entered the chest and penetrated the lobe of the right lung. Both lungs had collapsed. The cause of death was haemorrhage due to stab wounds in the right lung. In Prof Chao Tzee Cheng's view the fatal wounds were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

5 Following police investigation, the appellant was arrested on 26 March 1990. In a statement made by the appellant on 26 March 1990 between 6.43pm and 7.23pm under s 122 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68), the appellant stated:

I do not know what to say. What is there to say? Since I have killed the person I must expect retribution. If I am to be sentenced to death, then let it be soon. That's all.

6 He then added:

Previously I had trusted her too much. In the end she deceived me. That is all.

7 In an earlier statement made by him under s 121 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code on the same day between 8.10am and 1.35pm, he had given an account of how Ah May had fallen from the 15th floor of Block 37, Circuit Road, that he brought Ah Chun to Marine Parade but instead got off at East Coast Park. Whilst they were walking in the Park, Ah Chun's pager started beeping. He then said:

The next instant I brought her to a bridge that leads out to the sea. Actually this is a jetty. Whilst there, I picked up a knife about nine inches long (inclusive of the handle) … I slipped this knife into the left pocket of my baggy pants. This was done without Ah Chun detecting it. Soon after this, we retraced our steps back along the jetty and I brought her to a field after some distance. I killed her with a knife. I threw away the knife whilst making good my escape. I went directly home after that. After that I went to sleep …

8 When asked why he killed Ah Chun, the appellant said: “I could not stand her because she was heartless.”

1. Q: What do you mean by she was heartless?

2. A: Now that I had killed her, what is the use of talking about this?

3. Q: I am asking you what do you mean by 'she was heartless'?

4. A: Rather than saying that she was heartless, I might as well say I have too much feelings for her.

5. Q: What was/were the actual reason/s of you killing Chun Chun?

6. A: I just could not stand the way she behaved when I talked to her.

7. Q: When was it that you found her behaviour intolerable?

8. A: It was during the time I talked to her at Marine Parade. There I was on tenterhooks and yet she could go to make a telephone call when her pager rang. I told her that I urgently wanted to talk to her about Ah May's matter and that her outing was only of secondary importance. She did not heed me and instead went on to telephone her friend. Whilst she was making the phone call, I paced up and down anxiously. Yet, she did not cut her phone call short and kept talking away on the telephone. It was then that it crossed my mind that I had always been a gentleman with her and yet she behaved like that towards me. I had always treated her well since our acquaintance more than a year ago. I had never bullied her. On one occasion when I went to her house, she had lied to her mother that she had known me for a month. Her mother spoke to me rudely and I could not tolerate Ah Chun for lying like that. All thoughts went through my mind whilst she was busy on the telephone. In fact I had told her not to fool around with my feelings. I told her that I was not the person to fool with and that she could find some other guys to fool around with if that was what she wanted. I overheard her discussing with the other party on the phone as to where they should go for their outing. Ah Chun mentioned that she wanted to go to the Expo or something. Subsequently when she hung up, my heart was hardened. That was why I stole the knife on the jetty. After taking the knife, I still didn't have the guts to kill her. I did not attack her immediately with the knife. We walked for some distance. As I was walking, I thought to myself. I tried to calm myself and in my mind I was prepared to give ourselves a chance to talk. After walking for a good distance, we turned around and walked back. In that frame of mind I knew that I spoke to her incoherently. She was insensitive to my feelings and raised her voice at me. I pointed out to her that when I adopted the soft approach, she was hard with me. By right, I told her that she should meet me halfway. I told her that every time I gave her an inch she took a foot. At the same time I told her that when she was in my company she should not mention about other men in front of me. But it was as if I was talking to a ghost. One moment she was smiling and the next she was cool and unresponsive. At times during our talk, she even muttered to herself. Somehow, we continued walking and I do not know when we came to this field, ie the place where she died. When we walked into the field I saw three men already there. I was not bothered by it and continued walking further in. Later, I told her that I wanted to ease myself and she was to wait there for me. I...