Public Prosecutor v Toh Sia Guan

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Aedit Abdullah J
• Judgment Date: 06 May 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] SGHC 92
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Criminal Case No 17 of 2019
• Published date: 13 May 2020
• Year: 2020
• Hearing Date: 02 March 2020,19 November 2019,20 November 2019,08 August 2019,07 August 2019,06 August 2019,21 November 2019,06 February 2020,12 February 2020
• Plaintiff Counsel: Eugene Lee Yee Leng, Claire Poh Hui Jing and Senthilkumaran Sabapathy (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Defendant Counsel: Wong Seow Pin (S P Wong & Co) and Wong Li-Yen Dew (Dew Chambers)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Offences,Murder
• Citation: [2020] SGHC 92

Aedit Abdullah J: Introduction

The accused, Toh Sia Guan, was charged with murdering the deceased, Goh Eng Thiam, in the course of a fight in the Geylang neighbourhood,¹ pursuant to s 300(c) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“Penal Code”). He was convicted after trial and sentenced to life imprisonment. He has now appealed against both his conviction and sentence.

Background The charge

The charge read that:²

[The accused], on 9 July 2016, sometime between about 7.55 am and 7.57 am, at Lorong 23 Geylang, Singapore, did commit murder by causing such bodily injury as is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of one Goh Eng Thiam, and [he had] thereby committed an offence under s 300(c) and punishable under s 302(2) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed).

The punishment prescribed under s 302 of the Penal Code was either death or imprisonment for life.

Agreed Facts

A Statement of Agreed Facts was signed by the parties under s 267(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) (“CPC”).³ The material portions were as follows.

First information report

On 9 July 2016, at about 7:58 am, Mr Ong Yong Teck (“Mr Ong”), a taxi driver, informed the police via call that: there was a Chinese man (the deceased) standing at Lorong 23 Geylang with blood all over his body; he had a wooden pole with him; and another Chinese man (the accused) also with blood on his body was seen walking towards Lorong 21.⁴ Paramedics arrived at about 8:09 am.⁵ By that time, the deceased lay in a pool of blood with his head on the kerb.⁶ A paramedic found that there was no pulse, he was not breathing and his pupils were dilated.⁷ An electrocardiogram test performed on the deceased showed an asystole (a flat line); as such, the deceased was pronounced dead at 8:11 am.⁸ The paramedic saw that there was a bloodied knife sheathed in its plastic cover (“the murder knife”), on the right side of the deceased, and a wooden stick (“the wooden stick”) lying near his left leg.⁹

The first fight

At about 7:39 am that day, the accused encountered the deceased at Victoria Food Court at No 2 Lorong 23 Geylang.¹⁰ The accused had stopped his bicycle near the food court where the deceased was sitting.¹¹ The accused thought the deceased was staring at him; to defuse the tension, the accused asked the deceased whether he sold Chinese medicine.¹² This made the deceased angry and he shouted Hokkien vulgarities at the accused.¹³ A fight ensued (the “first fight”), and was captured by CCTV cameras, showing the time to be about 7:40 am.¹⁴

After the first fight, the accused went and bought a pair of slippers and the murder knife from a shop at No 43 Lorong 25 Geylang.¹⁵ In the meantime, the deceased approached Wang Heng, an acquaintance of his, at the back of a restaurant at 9 Aljunied Road, to clean himself up, and also spoke on the phone with Yeo Kok Chong (“Yeo”), his flatmate.¹⁶

The second fight

Shortly after, the accused then returned to Lorong 23 Geylang where he encountered the deceased, and at about 7:55 am, another fight ensued between the accused and deceased (the “second fight”); this fight was again partly captured by CCTV cameras.¹⁷ The accused left the scene at about 7:57:22 am, with his shirt bloodstained and wearing only one slipper.¹⁸

The accused’s movement after the second fight

After leaving the scene, the deceased removed his bloodstained shirt and put on another shirt which he took from a clothesline in the area.¹⁹ He then purchased slippers from a supermarket.²⁰ He left the Geylang area and did not return there.²¹ Twelve days later, he was arrested at Labrador Park MRT station, following a sighting in the area.²²

Subsequent reports

An autopsy was performed on the deceased by Dr Paul Chui (“Dr Chui”), who certified the cause of death to be a stab wound to the right upper arm that was V-shaped (the “fatal injury”).²³ It was subsequently clarified that the deceased had two groups of injuries, namely:²⁴ incised/stab wounds which could have arisen from contact with a bladed weapon such as a knife; and other injuries which were minor injuries. The fatal injury was amongst the first category, and it was a through and through stab wound on the inside of the right upper arm that could in the ordinary course of nature cause death.²⁵

Toxicology reports indicated the absence of alcohol and drugs in the samples of the deceased’s blood and urine.²⁶

Forensic analysis showed that eight recent areas of damage were found on the deceased’s bloodied red and white striped collared T-shirt:²⁷ Six cuts on the left sleeve; A 30 mm long linear cut on the left chest region; and A two-segmented cut with segments measuring 40 mm long and 28 mm long on the right sleeve.

Fibre examination, damage examination and results of the simulation experiments showed that the murder knife could have caused the cuts.²⁸

DNA analysis showed that the deceased’s DNA was found on the wooden stick, the murder knife, the plastic sheath, and his collared T-shirt, whereas the accused’s DNA profile was not found on all of these.²⁹ Both the accused’s and deceased’s DNA were found on a pair of pants worn by the accused on the day of the incident.³⁰

Medical analysis of the accused showed that the accused had old healing injuries:³¹ wounds over the back of his right hand; and bruising over his left hand.

A psychiatric assessment found that the accused:³² was not suffering from any mental disorder or intellectual disability; was not of unsound mind at the time of the alleged offence; would have been aware of the nature of his actions at the time of the alleged offence; and was fit to give his plea.

Various statements were recorded from the accused, which were given voluntarily.³³

The Autopsy report

There was an autopsy report by Dr Chui adduced in the agreed bundle, although not included in the agreed facts.³⁴ The autopsy report set out the injuries suffered by the deceased, amongst which included, of note:³⁵ a slicing tangential laceration injury to the left side of the face;³⁶ multiple stab wounds on the scalp,³⁷ likely to have been caused by vertical downward actions;³⁸ a stab wound on the chest;³⁹ and the fatal injury: a through and through V-shaped stab wound to the inside of the right upper arm, formed by two stab wounds joined at the apex of the “V”, completely cutting the right branchial artery and cutting into the basilic vein.⁴⁰

The “two stab wounds” of the fatal injury described in the autopsy report was later clarified by Dr Chui at trial to refer to a singular cut/ impact, with one entry wound and one exit wound, together forming the V-shape.⁴¹

Witnesses and Video recording

Only one of the Prosecution’s witnesses, Mr Ang Yong Ping (“Mr Ang”), was a direct witness to a part of the fight.⁴² The Prosecution did not adduce other direct witnesses, although it seemed that there were some, since Mr Ang in his statement testified that there had been other on-lookers.⁴³ The CCTV footage also showed that there were passer-bys which should have had seen the fight.⁴⁴

The CCTV footage captured part of the first fight and a fraction of the second fight, but they did not capture the causing of the fatal injury or the other stab wounds. The available footage only recorded a few seconds showing the lower half of the bodies of the accused and deceased during the second fight.⁴⁵

The Prosecution’s Case

The Prosecution argued that there were four elements to prove murder under s 300(c) of the Penal Code, as set out by the Court of Appeal in Public Prosecutor v Lim Poh Lye and another [2005] 4 SLR(R) 582 (“Lim Poh Lye”) at [17] citing Virsa Singh v State of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 465 (“Virsa Singh”):⁴⁶ It must be objectively established that a bodily injury is present; The nature of the injury must be proved; There must have been an intention to inflect that particular bodily injury, ie. it must not have been accidental or unintentional, or that some other kind of injury was intended; and The injury inflicted must be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

With regards to the third element, it is not necessary to show that the accused appreciated the seriousness of the wounds or that it would lead to death (Lim Poh Lye at [18] and [40]); the enquiry necessarily proceeds along broad lines based on common sense (Virsa Singh at [21]); and the Prosecution only has to show that the accused intended the particular but not the precise injury (Lim Poh Lye at [37]).⁴⁷

The Prosecution contended that the only issues in dispute were whether the accused had inflicted the fatal injury (the “actus reus”), and whether he had had the intention to inflict that particular injury (the “mens rea”).⁴⁸ It was argued that the mens rea would be fulfilled if the Prosecution proves an intent to stab the deceased’s upper arm torso area.⁴⁹ The other elements were not in dispute.⁵⁰

The Prosecution’s case is that both elements were satisfied, relying solely on circumstantial evidence.⁵¹ Where the prosecution relies solely on circumstantial evidence, the test is that the evidence must inevitably and inexorably lead the court to a single conclusion of the accused’s guilt (Public Prosecutor v Chee Cheong Hin Constance [2006] 2 SLR(R) 24 at [85]).⁵² This was argued to be met in the present case.

The circumstantial evidences relied on for proving both actus reus and mens rea were largely the same.

Firstly, the Prosecution pointed to the accused being the aggressor:⁵³ the accused was enraged, purchased a knife, promptly returned to Lorong 23 Geylang and had charged first at the deceased, sparking the incident; the accused did not desist his attack, delivering several effective punches even whilst and after the deceased tried to disarm the knife; and the accused suffered little injury from the incident.

Second, even though Mr Ang did not witness the causing of...