Sek Kim Wah v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 10 July 1987
• Date: 10 July 1987
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 11 of 1985
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)

Sek Kim Wah

Plaintiff

and

Public Prosecutor

Defendant

[1987] SGCA 22

Wee Chong Jin CJ

,

A P Rajah J

and

Chan Sek Keong JC

Criminal Appeal No 11 of 1985

Court of Appeal

Criminal Law–Offences–Murder–Defence of diminished responsibility–Relevance and weight of expert medical evidence–Whether trial court entitled to reject expert's evidence–Section 300 Exception 7 Penal Code (Cap 103, 1970 Rev Ed)

The accused Sek was found guilty on three charges of murder and convicted accordingly. He appealed against conviction arguing that the defence of diminished responsibility under Exception 7 of s 300 of the Penal Code (Cap 103, 1970 Rev Ed) had been made out on expert evidence called by the Defence which should have been accepted by the trial judges.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) The verdict as to abnormality of mind is a finding of fact which must be founded on all the evidence including medical opinion. Trial judges may reject medical evidence, if there are other facts on which they could do so: at [33].

(2) There was overwhelming evidence on which the trial judges were entitled to make the finding which they did. It would be wrong for the appellate court to disturb that finding. Further, the appellate court did not in any event disagree with the trial judges' finding that there was no abnormality of mind: at [34].

R v Patrick Joseph Byrne (1960) 44 Cr App R 246 (folld)

R v Stefan Ivan Kiszko (1978) 68 Cr App R 62 (refd)

Walton v R (1978) 66 Cr App R 25 (folld)

Arms Offences Act 1973 (Act 61 of 1973)s 33

Penal Code (Cap 103,1970 Rev Ed)s 300Exception 7 (consd)

Loh Lin Kok (Loh Lin Kok) for the appellant

Sowaran Singh (Deputy Public Prosecutor) for the respondent.

Wee Chong Jin CJ

(delivering the judgment of the court):

1 The appellant was found guilty by the High Court on three charges of murder and convicted accordingly. He appealed against his conviction.

2 The appellant had accepted the Prosecution's evidence that he had killed the three deceased persons named in the charges against him. The appellant had, however, claimed trial to all three charges, relying solely on the defence of diminished responsibility under Exception 7 of s 300 of the Penal Code.

3 The unchallenged facts relating to the killings are as follows.

4 On 22 July 1983, the appellant got together some friends, including one Nyu Kok Meng (“Nyu”), and took them to the vicinity of a petrol kiosk at Serangoon Garden Estate, planning to rob the kiosk. The robbery did not take place as the appellant's friends thought the police were following them.

5 The appellant then decided to go to Marine Parade to commit robbery. Only Nyu accompanied him. On the way, the appellant changed his mind and took Nyu to Andrew Road where he pointed out the house of his former employer, Robert Tay, whom he said they would rob the next morning. This house was at 4 Andrew Road.

6 The next morning, on 23 July 1983 the appellant and Nyu went to Andrew Road and kept observation on 4 Andrew Road whilst pretending to repair the appellant's motorcycle. Nyu was armed with a knife while the appellant was armed with a rifle.

7 When the opportunity came, both the appellant and Nyu rushed into the house. Five persons were then present in the house: Robert Tay, his wife Annie Tay, their maid Lovita Virador, their ten-year-old daughter Dawn Tay, and their daughter's tutor Mdm Tang. All five were forced into one of the rooms. The appellant then tied their hands behind their backs with raffia strings.

8 The appellant then began ransacking the house while Nyu stood guard over the victims. After he was through, the appellant was still dissatisfied with what he had found. He demanded a cheque from Annie Tay. Annie Tay wrote a cheque for $5,000. The appellant took the cheque and left the house to cash it, leaving Nyu to keep watch over the victims.

9 The appellant cashed the cheque and returned half an hour later. He then left the house a second time, this time with Robert Tay. The appellant brought Robert Tay to withdraw a total of $7,000 from the latter's Post Office Savings Bank account. They returned to 4 Andrew Road at about 12.45pm. After Robert Tay entered the room, the appellant again tied his hands behind his back.

10 The appellant next gagged all five victims. He then led Annie Tay to the master room where he strangled her with raffia string. Annie Tay died from asphyxia due to strangulation.

11 Half an hour later, the appellant returned to the room where the rest of the victims were held and this time led Robert Tay to the study room. The appellant first strangled Robert Tay with raffia string and then hit him on the head with a wooden stool. Robert Tay died from a fractured skull.

12 Twenty minutes later, the appellant returned and grabbed hold of the maid, Jovita. He led the maid to the master bedroom and strangled her with raffia string. Like Annie Tay, Jovita too died from asphyxia due to strangulation.

13 Sometime after...