Tan Rui Leen Russell v PP

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 27 April 2009
• Date: 27 April 2009
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 297 of 2008
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Tan Rui Leen Russell

Plaintiff

and

Public Prosecutor

Defendant

[2009] SGHC 102

Chan Sek Keong CJ

Magistrate's Appeal No 297 of 2008

High Court

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Sentencing–Mitigating factors–Provocation by victim against backdrop of marital abuse

The appellant stabbed and slashed his wife, Goh Hwee Suan (“Goh”), during a quarrel, leaving her with over 80 scars. He pleaded guilty to a charge of voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means punishable under s 326 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) (“PC 1985”) and was sentenced by the district judge (“the District Judge”) to four years' imprisonment and eight strokes of the cane. The appellant appealed against his sentence on the ground that it was manifestly excessive.

The appellant claimed to have been provoked into attacking Goh. He alleged that Goh had previously abused him and their maids and had, in the year or so leading up to the incident, taken to filing false police reports against him to exasperate him. The appellant argued that it was against this backdrop of persistent spousal abuse that he had finally lost self-control on the day of the incident in the midst of a quarrel with Goh. Goh had humiliated him before their elder son by accusing him of molesting the maid and by saying that he had a small penis. With Goh's provocation weighing on his mind, the appellant snapped when she proceeded to make a police report alleging that he had hit her. He lost self-control and attacked her.

Held, allowing the appeal:

(1) There was documentary evidence to support the appellant's account of marital abuse. Tendered in evidence was proof of a police report filed by the couple's maid against Goh for assault and a record of a call which Goh had made to the police hotline accusing the appellant of molesting the maid (pursuant to which no police action was taken). Although the appellant's request to the Prosecution for production of the other police reports filed by Goh appeared to have been ignored, the documentary evidence actually produced showed that there was some reason to believe the appellant's story of provocation: at [22] to [24].

(2) In any case, the four medical reports tendered in evidence collectively stated that Goh's provocative actions had a severe impact on the appellant's mind. The appellant's belief that Goh's actions were harmful to their children had led to the build-up of severe mental stress in the appellant and, in turn, to his loss of self-control: at [5] and [35].

(3) The District Judge erred by discounting the appellant's mental state for sentencing purposes and by concluding that the appellant should not have lost his self-control at the time, especially since Goh had not physically abused him. Physical abuse was not the only way of provoking a person. It was common experience that verbal abuse could sometimes be more enraging as a form of provocation. This was the case here: at [27] and [28]

(4) If the appellant's version of the material events were accepted in its entirety by the court, the appellant would have established grave and sudden provocation and it would be open to the court to exercise its powers of revision to substitute the appellant's conviction with that of the lesser offence of causing grievous hurt on provocation under s 335 of PC 1985. However, it was not proper to do so in the present case as the appellant's version of the material events was not tested by cross-examination in the court below and he had also instructed his counsel not to rely on grave and sudden provocation as a defence: at [32]

(5) Where provocation had substantially or fully deprived the offender of his self-control, a deterrent sentence, whether in the form of a long term of imprisonment or caning, was pointless. In this case, the appellant committed the offence because he was provoked into losing self-control. In these circumstances, it was appropriate to reduce the appellant's sentence to three years' imprisonment with no caning: at [34] and [36].

Mohammed Ali bin Johari v PP [2008] 4 SLR (R) 1058; [2008] 4 SLR 1058 (refd)

PP v Kwan Cin Cheng [1998] 1 SLR (R) 434; [1998] 2 SLR 345 (refd)

PP v Luan Yuanxin [2002] 1 SLR (R) 613; [2002] 2 SLR 98 (refd)

PP v N [1999] 3 SLR (R) 499; [1999] 4 SLR 619 (refd)

Wong Leong Chin v PP [2000] 3 SLR (R) 560; [2001] 1 SLR 146 (refd)

Yeo Kwan Wee Kenneth v PP [2004] 2 SLR (R) 45; [2004] 2 SLR 45 (folld)

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985Rev Ed)ss 175 (2),268

Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act (Cap 184, 1997Rev Ed)s 13A

Penal Code (Cap 224,1985Rev Ed)ss 300Exception 1, 326,334, 335

Penal Code (Cap 224,2008Rev Ed)s 504

The appellant in person

Lee Jwee Nguan (Attorney-General's Chambers) for the respondent.

Judgment reserved.

Chan Sek Keong CJ

Introduction

1 This is an appeal against the sentence of four years' imprisonment and eight strokes of the cane imposed on the appellant, Russell Tan Rui Leen (“the Appellant”), by the district judge (“the District Judge”) in PP v Russell Tan Rui Leen [2008] SGDC 379 (“the GD”). The Appellant had pleaded guilty to one charge of voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means, which is punishable under s 326 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) (“PC 1985”) as follows:

1. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.

   326. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335 [vis-à-vis causing grievous hurt on provocation], voluntarily causes grievous hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine or to caning.

The facts of the case

2 The Appellant is a 40-year-old Chinese male. At the time of his arrest and prosecution, he had been married to the victim, Goh Hwee Suan (“Goh”), for six years, and the couple (“the Couple”) had two sons aged five and two (referred to hereafter as, respectively, “the elder son” and “the younger son”, and collectively as “the Children”). The Appellant was then working as an investment analyst and, until this conviction, had no antecedents. At around 6.30pm on 30 September 2007, the Appellant stabbed and slashed Goh during a quarrel at their matrimonial home (“the Flat”); the attack (“the Incident”) eventually left Goh with over 80 scars. The Appellant's neighbour (“the complainant”) tried to intervene and called the police when the Appellant did not stop attacking Goh. The Appellant was subsequently arrested and charged as follows:

[Y]ou, on the 30^th day of September 2007, at or about 6.30 pm, at Blk 409 Pasir Ris Drive 6, #07-409, Singapore, did voluntarily cause grievous hurt to one Goh Hwee Suan, by means of a knife with an 18 cm long blade, an instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, to wit, by using the said knife to stab and slash the body of Goh Hwee Suan, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 326 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224 [ie, PC 1985].

3 The Appellant pleaded guilty to the offence charged and admitted unreservedly to the statement of facts tendered by the Prosecution (“the Statement of Facts”). The relevant paragraphs of the Statement of Facts read as follows:

1. 4. On 30 September 2007 at about 6.34pm, the complainant called for police assistance [stating] that 'There is a lady who is dying here. She has been stabbed a few times with a knife. Send the police here.' The incident location given was the [Flat].

2. 5. Investigations revealed that on the same day at about 6pm, while [Goh] was watching television in the living room with [the Couple's] children, the [Appellant] confronted [Goh] over some family issue and a dispute subsequently broke out between them.

3. 6. [Goh] wanted to leave the [Flat] and picked up her house keys to open the pad lock [sic] to the gate. However, the [Appellant] stood in front of her and questioned her as to where she was going. As [Goh] was unable to get past the [Appellant], she then walked into the kitchen to prepare dinner. Whilst doing so, [Goh] made a call to the police [stating] that the [Appellant had] refused to let her leave the [Flat].

4. 7. Upon hearing this, the [Appellant] got angry and pulled [Goh's] hair from the back. The [Appellant] then grabbed a knife from the kitchen counter and started stabbing [Goh] over her chest and shoulder. The [Appellant] also slashed [Goh] over her arms and legs. When the [Appellant] realised that the knife was bent, he threw it aside and picked up a larger knife. The [Appellant] then continued stabbing and slashing [Goh]. [Goh] pleaded with the [Appellant] to stop but her pleas were ignored.

5. 8. At about 6.30pm, the complainant heard [a] loud commotion from the [Flat] and decided to go over to check. He saw a set of keys hung in the keyhole of the pad lock [sic] to the gate of the [Flat]. The complainant then opened the gate and entered the [Flat]. Therein, he saw [Goh] squatting on the kitchen floor in a pool of blood and the [Appellant's] back facing him.

6. 9. As the complainant walked towards the kitchen, the [Appellant] turned and faced him. The complainant saw that the [Appellant was] holding a knife in his knife [sic]. At this time, [Goh] then uttered some words which the complainant could not make out. The [Appellant] suddenly turned towards [Goh] and stabbed [her] back three times. The complainant tried to talk to the [Appellant] to ask him to stop but the [Appellant] walked...