Public Prosecutor v Wang Wenfeng

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lee Seiu Kin J
• Judgment Date: 07 February 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] SGHC 23
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Criminal Case No 4 of 2011
• Published date: 17 February 2014
• Year: 2014
• Hearing Date: 13 November 2013
• Plaintiff Counsel: Bala Reddy, Ilona Tan and Kelly Ho (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Defendant Counsel: Wendell Wong and Alfian Adam Teo (Drew & Napier LLC)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Offences,Murder,Re-sentencing
• Citation: [2014] SGHC 23

Lee Seiu Kin J:

On 20 September 2011, Wang Wenfeng (“Wang”) was convicted of murder under s 300(c) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed). At the time of the conviction, the offence was punishable with a mandatory death penalty under s 302 of the Penal Code. Wang appealed, but the Court of Appeal (“CA”) upheld the conviction and sentence. On 1 January 2013, the Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2012 (Act No 32 of 2012) came into operation, with the effect that the death sentence is no longer mandatory under s 300(b), (c) and (d) of the Penal Code. Consequently, on 16 August 2013, the CA remitted the case back to the High Court for re-sentencing and, on 13 November 2013, I exercised my power under s 4(5)(g) of the Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2012 to re-sentence Wang to imprisonment for life and to 24 strokes of the cane. The prosecution has filed an appeal against the sentence and I now give the grounds for my decision.

The background

The full facts of this case are set out in my judgment delivered at the end of the trial in Public Prosecutor v Wang Wenfeng [2011] SGHC 208 (“HC Judgment”), as well as in the grounds of decision of the appeal in Wang Wenfeng v Public Prosecutor [2012] 4 SLR 590; [2012] SGCA 47 (“CA Judgment”). I shall therefore set out only the salient facts below.

Wang is from Fujian Province in the People’s Republic of China. He came to Singapore to work, but at the time of the offence in April 2009, he was out of work and was required to leave Singapore by 15 April 2009. At that time, he could not afford a plane ticket home. He tried to borrow money from his younger sister and his wife but they did not lend him any. On Friday 10 April 2009, Wang decided to resort to robbery to get the money for his airfare.

In the early morning of 11 April 2009, Wang set off to Sun Plaza at Sembawang Drive, carrying with him a haversack containing a fruit knife, a pair of cotton gloves and a small bottle of water. He thought that taxi drivers would be good targets, so he flagged down a taxi. It was driven by the deceased, Yuen Swee Hong (“the Victim”). Wang directed the Victim to drive to “Bao Ping Chun” and, as they neared the destination, he directed the Victim to Jalan Selimang. When the taxi stopped at the end of Jalan Selimang, Wang had already put on his gloves and taken out his knife.

Wang used his left hand to hold the knife against the Victim’s chest and his right hand to hold onto the backrest of the driver’s seat. He told the Victim to hand over his money. A struggle ensued between Wang and the Victim and, in the course of the struggle, Wang stabbed the Victim on his chest. The Court of Appeal (“CA”) found that the Victim was stabbed at least five times (CA Judgment at [36], [38]). The injuries inflicted on the Victim were severe enough to have caused heavy bleeding (HC Judgment at [24]) such that, within two minutes, the struggle ceased and the Victim went limp. This led Wang to believe that the Victim had died. He decided to hide the body in the secondary jungle nearby. After carrying the body to a location well inside the jungle, Wang searched the Victim’s pockets and took the money he found.

Wang subsequently washed himself at a nearby beach and drove the taxi to a multi-storey car park at Canberra Road. He parked the taxi at one of the higher levels. Using the water he brought, he cleaned away the blood from part of the front cabin. He also cut the cables connecting the credit card machine which he thought was a Global Positioning System (“GPS”), took money and the Victim’s mobile phone from the taxi, cleaned the door handle, and left for home.

Sometime later on the same day, Wang went out to dispose of the incriminating items, such as the soiled clothes he had worn. He left the haversack containing these items in a forested area near Nee Soon Road. As he was journeying on a bus, he received a missed call from the Victim’s wife on the Victim’s mobile phone. He alighted and returned a call to the Victim’s wife. He told the Victim’s wife that he was holding the Victim captive and demanded $150,000 from her. Over the course of two days, from 11 April 2009 to 12 April 2009, Wang gave instructions to the Victim’s wife to make payment. When she still did not remit the money to the account number he provided, he reminded her that the Victim had not eaten for two days.

Meanwhile, Wang had secured a place on a flight departing on 14 April 2009. But before he could leave the country, he was arrested by the police on 13 April 2009.

The prosecution’s submissions

The Indian courts adopt the position that the default punishment for murder is life imprisonment and that the death penalty is an exception (see Bachan Singh v State of Punjab AIR 1980 SC 898 at [151]). This, the prosecution submitted, was untenable in Singapore for two reasons. First, the legislative framework in India is different. There is no mandatory death penalty for s 300 cases in India, whereas the death penalty is still mandatory for s 300(a) cases in Singapore. Secondly, there is considerable uncertainty in India on the punishment to be ordered in capital offences (see Sangeet and another v State of Haryana AIR 2013 SC 447 at [81]).

The prosecution thus submitted that where the law, in this case, s 300(c), provides for a discretionary death penalty, neither life imprisonment nor the death penalty should be viewed as the default position. The correct approach is to consider all the facts and circumstances to determine if the offender ought to suffer the death penalty (see Sia Ah Kew and others v Public Prosecutor [1974–1976] SLR(R) 54 (“Sia Ah Kew”) at [8]).

Sia Ah Kew is a case of kidnapping under s 3 of the Kidnapping Act (Cap 101, 1970 Rev Ed). The CA in that case similarly faced the binary choice of death or life imprisonment, and had opined that the maximum sentence of death penalty would be appropriate where the manner of the kidnapping or the acts or conduct of the kidnappers were such as to outrage the feelings of the community (at [5]).

The prosecution also referred the court to the Parliamentary speech by the Minister for Law when introducing the amendments to the mandatory death penalty regime (see Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (9 July 2012) vol 89):

In deciding whether and how to apply the death penalty to a particular offence, several factors have to be considered. In particular … three interconnected factors: (1) the seriousness of the offence, both in terms of the harm that the commission of the offence is likely to cause to the victim and to society, and the personal culpability of the accused; (2) how frequent or widespread an offence is; and (3) deterrence. [emphasis added]

Each of the factors was analysed by the prosecution in light of the facts of this case.

In terms of the seriousness of the offence, the prosecution submitted on three main aspects. First, the offence was committed in a cruel manner. The prosecution argued that there was a high degree of premeditation and planning, which was demonstrated by Wang’s intention to commit robbery at the wee hours of the morning, his preparation of items such as a knife, spare change of clothes and a water bottle, his deliberate choice of victim (a taxi driver), and his direction to the Victim to drive to a deserted area (“Bao Ping Chun”). The prosecution further pointed to the way Wang had armed himself with a dangerous weapon, a knife with a 12.5cm blade, and had focused his attack on a vulnerable part of the Victim’s body, viz, the chest. Two of the stab wounds suffered by the Victim were described by the CA as “likely to have been very deep, with [one of them] achieving full, or near-complete, penetration of the knife’s 12.5cm blade” (CA Judgment at [25]). As a result, the Victim suffered an agonizing and painful death. Secondly, Wang’s culpability was high. The prosecution examined Wang’s post-murder actions and argued he was unremorseful. Particular attention was paid to how Wang robbed from the Victim after he killed him, took steps to conceal the murder, attempted to extort money from the Victim’s family, prepared to flee from Singapore and, even after arrest, led the police on a wild goose chase and gave several false...