Robin Anak Mawang v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 30 November 2005
• Neutral Citation: [2005] SGHC 222
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 117 of 2005
• Date: 30 November 2005
• Published date: 01 December 2005
• Year: 2005
• Plaintiff Counsel: Siaw Kheng Boon (Siaw Kheng Boon and Co)
• Citation: [2005] SGHC 222
• Defendant Counsel: April Phang (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Evidence,Quality of identification evidence,Corroboration,Whether absence of express finding of sufficiently compelling testimony warranting acquittal,Appellant admitting to punching and kicking victim,Whether necessary to prove appellant punched victim to establish charge of rioting,Whether trial judge relying solely on eyewitness's uncorroborated testimony in convicting appellant,Criminal Law,Rioting,Whether factors existing supporting identification evidence of good quality,Offences,Appellant member of unlawful assembly with common object of causing hurt,Public tranquillity,Witnesses,Sections 141, 146, 147 Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed)

30 November 2005

Yong Pung How CJ:

1 This was an appeal against the decision of a district judge (“the judge”), wherein the appellant was convicted of the offence of rioting and sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment. The appeal was against conviction. I now give my reasons for dismissing the appeal.

The undisputed facts

2 The victim, Alam Abdul Alim (“Alim”), was assaulted in front of the “This Fashion” store (“the store”) at the corner of Middle Road and Victoria Street on the evening of 12 June 2005 at about 5.35pm. As a consequence of the assault, Alim suffered several injuries to his head.

3 Prior to the assault, the appellant and one Joseph Anak Julin (“Joseph”), were at a nearby pub with at least seven other male persons. Joseph admitted to punching Alim. On his part, the appellant admitted that he had been in the vicinity and had walked past the crime scene.

4 Both parties were later arrested at the platform of Bugis Mass Rapid Transit (“MRT”) station, and brought back to the police station in the same patrol car. In the car, they had discussed the assault with each other.

5 Subsequently, they were similarly charged and jointly tried for the offence of rioting. In particular, the charge against the appellant was framed as follows:

You, Robin Anak Mawang, M/23 YRS, FIN: G7458333X, are charged that you, on 12 June 2005, at about 5:35pm, outside the ‘This Fashion’ store on the corner of Middle Road and Victoria Street, Singapore, together with one Joseph Anak Julin, M/20 yrs, and 3 other unknown male persons, were a member of an unlawful assembly whose common object it was to cause hurt to one Alam Abdul Alim, M/36 yrs, and in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, one or more of you did use violence, to wit, by punching and kicking the said Alam Abdul Alim, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 147 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.

Disputed facts

6 As Joseph had admitted to assaulting Alim, the central controversy in the trial below was over the involvement and participation of the appellant and three others in the assault.

Case for the Prosecution

7 Eight witnesses testified for the Prosecution. They consisted of Alim; the doctor who had examined Alim; one Mohd Fadzil bin Abdul Malik (“Fadzil”), a police officer who was a witness to the assault; and five other police officers, two of whom were involved in the arrest of Joseph and the appellant.

Fadzil’s testimony

8 It is essential for me to set out Fadzil’s testimony in detail, as one of the principal contentions raised by the appellant was that the identification evidence based on Fadzil’s testimony was of poor quality.

9 Fadzil, a police officer, was off duty when he witnessed the assault. On the material day at about 5.30pm, Fadzil was at a motor showroom with his family when he heard a loud bang, and noticed that a signage board (of Golden Crystal Niteclub) had landed in front of the entrance of the showroom. The impact prompted him to leave the showroom.

10 At that juncture, he saw a group of five foreign male persons behaving in a rowdy and chaotic manner. They were speaking in a language which sounded to him like Malay or Dayak. He then observed another commotion involving a separate group of five to ten persons. Fadzil called the police as he felt that a fight was about to ensue.

11 Fadzil then followed the first group of five foreign males who were walking towards the direction of a store. Along the way, one of them, a male who sported shoulder-length hair and wore a long-sleeved bright blue T-shirt, kicked another signage board (of Pool Fusion 3). He was later identified as Joseph during the trial. As the group continued their walk in the same direction, they linked their arms, and were pushing and shoving one another.

12 Fadzil testified that he noticed the attire of the other members to be as follows: one was in a short-sleeved, almost white shirt; another, who was quite stout and big built, was in a long-sleeved dark-coloured shirt; the other two were in normal short-sleeved white T-shirts. Fadzil paid particular attention to the male who was in a short-sleeved, almost white shirt, as he was linking arms with Joseph, and sported long hair that appeared “blown”, which was about five to six inches in thickness. He also had a truckers cap dangling from the left side of his pants. Fadzil later identified this male as the appellant.

13 From a distance of 10m to 15m away, Fadzil witnessed the assault on Alim who was standing alone, in front of the store at the junction of Middle Road and Victoria Street. When the group walked past Alim, Joseph suddenly used his right fist to punch Alim around the head and neck. Next, Joseph pulled Alim’s hair, causing him to fall to the ground. At this juncture, Joseph bent down, lifted Alim’s head and bashed it to the ground once. The appellant and the others then began kicking Alim’s upper body, with the appellant giving one kick, while the others kicked two or three times. After the kicking, the appellant held Joseph’s left arm and pulled him up, and the entire group continued walking along Victoria Street towards the direction of Bugis Junction.

14 Worried for Alim’s condition, Fadzil promptly approached Alim after the group had left, and inquired after his well-being. Alim murmured something in response. Having noticed that Alim was bleeding profusely from his head and was semi-conscious, Fadzil called for an ambulance. While he did this, he kept an eye on the group. He also called for his father to stay with Alim to wait for the police and ambulance to arrive. Fadzil testified that he was with his father and Alim for about half a minute.

15 Thereafter, Fadzil walked along Victoria Street and followed the group who subsequently stopped at the bus stop in front of Bugis Village. While Fadzil stood at an elevated pavement in front of the junction of New Bugis Street and Victoria Street observing the group, two police officers arrived in a patrol car that had its siren on. Upon seeing the patrol car, the group spilt into two groups. One group comprising the two males in the short-sleeved white T-shirts went into Bugis Village while the other group of three walked towards the underpass in the direction of Bugis MRT station. Fadzil testified that he decided to follow the latter group as the main assailant, Joseph, was in that group. Fadzil went ahead first, with the two police officers following him. However, when he reached the entrance of the underpass leading to Bugis MRT station, he lost sight of the group. Fadzil took a calculated decision to enter the platform of the station to look for the group of three.

16 Accompanied by the two police officers, Fadzil entered the platform, and spotted Joseph sitting on the bench, looking nervous. He identified Joseph to the police officers, and Joseph was accordingly detained. Fadzil then caught sight of the appellant who was standing by a pillar, and also appearing nervous. He approached the appellant, showed his warrant card and asked for the appellant’s work permit. Before the appellant could board a train, the police officers moved in to detain him. Fadzil declared that he was positive that the appellant was one of the assailants who had kicked Alim, as the appellant had a unique hairstyle and a truckers cap dangling from the left side of his pants. Fadzil had earlier seen the truckers cap in the same position on one of Alim’s assailants.

The arresting police officers’ testimonies

17 The testimonies of the police officers material to the events leading to the arrest of Joseph and the appellant were consistent with Fadzil’s account. When they arrived at the crime scene, they saw two broken signage boards, as well as Fadzil’s father with Alim who was bleeding from his head. After being informed that Fadzil had trailed the assailants, they proceeded (in the patrol car) to Fadzil’s position outside Bugis Village. The police officers then went with Fadzil to the platform of Bugis MRT station where Fadzil identified two males as the culprits. One of them was sitting on the bench while the other was standing at a pillar nearby. Both were subsequently arrested, brought to the crime scene, and later to the police station for questioning.

Other testimonies

18 Alim testified that he was caught unawares when he was assaulted in front of the store. A man had approached him and punched him on his left cheek. He fell to the ground and the next thing he remembered was someone asking him what had happened. As the first blow rendered Alim unconscious, he was oblivious of anything else that subsequently happened to him. However, he reiterated that prior to the assault, there was no confrontation between him and his assailant. The doctor who had examined Alim after the assault confirmed Alim’s lack of consciousness, and that he had suffered several injuries to his head, with no other injuries to the rest of his body.

19 The other police officers who gave evidence were those involved in the investigation of the incident. A pertinent aspect of their evidence was that a long-sleeved blue T-shirt and a short-sleeved white shirt were seized from Joseph and the appellant respectively.

Case for the Defence

20 Both Joseph and the appellant flatly denied that the latter was involved in the assault on Alim. However, they did not dispute the fact that the appellant was with Joseph in the pub prior to the assault, and that they were good friends.

Joseph’s testimony

21 Joseph testified that after a fight broke out in the pub, he, together with ten others (excluding the appellant), left the pub by the stairs. Joseph decided to walk ahead alone while some friends followed him from behind. He emphasised that the appellant was not with him and that the friends following behind him were known as Abing, Jali and Rambo. As Joseph was feeling intoxicated and agitated, he decided to vent his frustrations on Alim, a total stranger. Joseph punched...