Sim Min Teck v Public Prosecutor
Judge | Lai Kew Chai J |
Judgment Date | 24 February 1987 |
Neutral Citation | [1987] SGCA 3 |
Citation | [1987] SGCA 3 |
Defendant Counsel | Sowaran Singh (Deputy Public Prosecutor) |
Published date | 19 September 2003 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Edwin Chan (Lee Chan & Partners) |
Date | 24 February 1987 |
Docket Number | Criminal Appeal No 6 of 1985 |
Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
Subject Matter | Offences,Constitutional Law,Allegation of discrimination,Murder,Murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder,Prosecutorial discretion,Whether appellant unfairly discriminated,ss 34 & 300 Penal Code (Cap 103, 1970 Ed),Equality before the law,Attorney-general,Whether conviction properly,Criminal Law,Appellant and accomplice charged and convicted different offences,Common intention,Equality in exercise of discretion,arts 12(1) & 35(8) Constitution of the Republic of Singapore |
(delivering the grounds of decision of the court): The appellant, Sim Min Teck, was convicted by the High Court on two charges that he on 2 November 1980 at about 8.50am at Block 35, Unit 201, Fishery Port Road, the office of M/s Siang Huat Fish Agent, with Beh Meng Chai and Chng Meng Joo, also known as Sam Mau alias Ah Joo, in furtherance of a common intention committed murder by causing the deaths of Lee Cheng Tiong and Teo Keng Siang. He was sentenced to death. His appeal against both convictions was dismissed by us. We now give our reasons.
The facts of the case can be briefly stated. The appellant met Beh Meng Chai (Beh) and Chng Meng Joo (Chng) on 1 November 1980. The appellant and Chng planned to commit robbery and invited Beh to join them. The three of them met on the following morning and boarded a bus and went to a fish market in Jurong. Two of them, namely, the appellant and Chng, were then each armed with a knife and they went to Block 35, Unit 201, Fishery Port Road, which is the office ofM/s Slang Huat Fish Agent. They entered the premises, and while Beh waited at the outer office, the appellant and Chng entered the inner office where they found the proprietor, Lee Cheng Tiong (Lee). They confronted Lee but the latter put up a fight, in the course of which he was stabbed and killed.
After Lee was killed, the appellant took the deceased`s money in the inner office, and Beh and Chng then removed the gold chain from the deceased`s neck. When they were about to leave the premises, a youth, Teo Keng Siang (Teo) came in. Teo at that time was working for Mui Tong Fish Agent whose premises, Unit 209, were on the same floor, a few doors way from Lee`s office. He was sent there by his employer to change money with Lee. Teo was told by one or two of them that Lee was not in, but he insisted that he was in and went into the inner office. Upon entry, he discovered that Lee had been killed. Teo was subsequently also stabbed and killed by one or more of the three namely: the appellant, Beh and Chng and some money in his possession was taken.
Professor Chao Tzee Cheng, the Senior Forensic Pathologist, carried out autopsies on the bodies of Lee and Teo and submitted his autopsy reports. He found nine stab wounds in Lee, of which two were fatal, namely: one was a combination of two stab wounds just above the right nipple caused by a knife which cut the second costal cartilage and penetrated the chest downwards and inwards to a depth of ten cm and penetrated the lower part of the right upper lobe of the lung and cut the right pulmonary vein, and the other was a wound slightly to the right of the left nipple of the deceased also caused by a knife which entered the chest horizontally and inward to a depth of eight cm cutting the left fourth costal cartilage and cutting the interior wall of the left ventricle of the heart one cm in length. Both these...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Yong Vui Kong v Attorney-General
... ... Public Prosecutor v Yong Vui Kong ... [2009] SGHC 4 (“ Yong Vui Kong ... ...
-
Ramalingam Ravinthran v AG
...Lai Swee Lin Linda [2001] 1 SLR (R) 133; [2001] 1 SLR 644 (folld) Racal Communications Ltd, Re [1981] AC 374 (folld) Sim Min Teck v PP [1987] SLR (R) 65; [1987] SLR 30 (folld) Sinniah Pillay v PP [1991] 2 SLR (R) 704; [1992] 1 SLR 225 (refd) Teh Cheng Poh v PP [1979] 1 MLJ 50 (folld) Thirus......
-
Thiruselvam s/o Nagaratnam v Public Prosecutor
... ... [Emphasis is added.] ... A more direct authority on the point is the case of Sim Min Teck v PP [1987] SLR 30 ... There, the appellant, Sim Min Teck, was convicted of two charges of murder, namely, that he with two other persons, in furtherance of a common intention, committed murder by causing the deaths of two persons. One of the two accomplices was charged on the same facts with ... ...
-
Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-General
...had exercised his discretion unlawfully. Teh Cheng Poh has been followed by the Court of Appeal in two cases, viz, Sim Min Teck v PP [1987] SLR(R) 65 and Thiruselvam s/o Nagaratnam v PP [2001] 1 SLR(R) 362. [emphasis in original] As stated in this passage, even though the prosecutorial powe......
-
PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION AND THE LEGAL LIMITS IN SINGAPORE
...the administration of justice requires that it be, and be seen to be, even-handed.” 51Sim Min Teck v Public Prosecutor (“Sim Min Teck”)[1987] SLR(R) 65 concerned co-offenders involved in the same criminal enterprise but charged with different offences. The Court of Appeal in Ramalingam Ravi......
-
Administrative and Constitutional Law
...(at [36] and [41]) of the uncritical application of Teh Cheng Poh v PP to the Singapore decisions of Sim Min Teck v Public Prosecutor[1987] SLR(R) 65 (‘Sim Min Teck v PP’) and Thiruselvam s/o Nagaratnam v Public Prosecutor[2001] 1 SLR(R) 362 (‘Thiruselvam v PP’) as Teh Cheng Poh v PP did no......
-
Administrative and Constitutional Law
...with different offences, Tan J (Ramalingham at [20]), took note of Wee Chong Jin CJ's endorsement in Sim Min Teck v Public Prosecutor[1987] SLR(R) 65 of Lord Diplock's following statement in Teh Cheng Poh v Public Prosecutor[1979] 1 MLJ 50 at 56: There are many factors which a prosecuting a......
-
Administrative and Constitutional Law
...was located in Teh Cheng Poh v PP[1979] 1 MLJ 50, which the Singapore Court of Appeal subsequently followed in Sim Min Teck v PP[1987] SLR 30 and Thiruselvam s/o Nagaratnam v PP[2001] 2 SLR 125. 1.54 Second, the Attorney-General in the exercise of prosecutorial powers ‘may not use it so as ......