Tengku Jonaris Badlishah v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Karthigesu JA
• Judgment Date: 22 March 1999
• Neutral Citation: [1999] SGCA 21
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 24 of 1998
• Date: 22 March 1999
• Year: 1999
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Peter Fernando (Leo Fernando) and Rajah Retnam (David Rasif &Partners)
• Citation: [1999] SGCA 21
• Defendant Counsel: Jasbendar Kaur and Daniel Yong (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Reviewing trial judge's decision in electing conflicting opinions of expert witnesses,Conflicting expert evidence,Whether defence made out,Admissibility of evidence,Murder,Evidence,Offences,s 300 Penal Code (Cap 224) , Exception 7,Diminished responsibility,Criminal Law

(delivering the grounds of judgment of the court): The appellant was convicted in the High Court on the following charge and was sentenced to death:

That you, Tengku Jonaris Badlishah bin Tengku Abdul Hamid Thani, on 20 April 1998 at or about 6.40am, at the bus-stop No B02 along Marina Mall, opposite Superbowl Golf and Country Club, Singapore, did commit murder by causing the death of one Poh Bee Eng, female aged 42 years, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 302 of the Penal Code (Cap 224).

We dismissed his appeal against the conviction and the sentence. We now give our reasons.

The facts

The appellant was a free lance producer and props assistant at the time of his arrest. Between 17 to 19 April 1998, he had been working on a project for Yarra Films (S) Pte Ltd (`Yarra Films`), a company involved in producing films for the advertising industry. The deceased, who was a free lance beautician, had been working on the same project as a make-up artist.

The facts leading up to and surrounding the deceased`s death were not in dispute. They were comprehensively set out in the appellant`s cautioned statements to the police, which were admitted at the trial after the defence neither objected to their admission nor challenged their voluntariness. The facts narrated in these statements were as follows.

The appellant came from a broken family. In the months leading up to the killing of the deceased, life had been miserable for him and suicide was always on his mind.

Sometime in October 1997, the appellant met a Thai prostitute, Saifon Ngammoo (`Saifon`), at a brothel at Lorong 18, Geylang. He felt comfortable in her presence and began to visit her frequently. They subsequently fell in love with each other.

On 17 April 1998, while working on location for Yarra Films, the appellant noticed that the deceased was wearing a Rolex watch. He thought it would be wonderful if he could give a watch of that kind to Saifon for her 32nd birthday, which fell on 21 April 1998. He knew, however, that he could not afford to buy such an expensive watch. He then thought of robbing the deceased of her watch so as to give it to Saifon as a birthday present. He became more serious about this idea when he saw the deceased wearing the Rolex watch again the following day. From that point in time onwards, he kept thinking of ways to carry out the robbery.

On 19 April 1998, it dawned on the appellant while he was at Marina Park that the Park would be the ideal place to rob the deceased as there were not many people around. He formed a plan to meet the deceased at the bus-stop opposite the Superbowl Golf and Country Club at Marina South on the pretext of engaging her services for a photo shoot. He would arrive at the bus-stop before she did so that he could surprise her from behind when she reached there and take the Rolex watch from her. Accordingly, the appellant paged the deceased that night. When the deceased returned his call, he introduced himself as `Nigel` and told her that he needed a free lance make-up artist for a photo shoot. He offered to pay her $1,000 for the job, which she accepted without hesitation. He then arranged to meet her at the bus-stop opposite the Superbowl Golf and Country Club at 6.30 am the following day.

On 20 April 1998, the appellant left his home for Marina South early in the morning. He brought with him the pouch which he usually had with him at work. He also brought along an extra T-shirt in case the T-shirt which he was wearing became torn or stained with blood while he was committing the robbery. He reached the designated bus-stop at about 6.40 am, and found that the deceased was already there. He directed the deceased to park her car in a side road nearby and waited for her at the bus-stop while she did so. By this time, he realised that his original plan to rob the deceased from behind would not work as she had already seen him. He felt confused and thought of abandoning the whole idea of robbing her. Meanwhile, the deceased returned to the bus-stop after parking her car and sat down. The appellant paced up and down while deliberating whether to proceed with the robbery. On the spur of the moment, he decided to do so. He took out a hammer from his pouch and hit the deceased twice on her head, whereupon she collapsed backwards. He grabbed her by the armpits before she fell to the ground and dragged her behind the bushes, where he removed the Rolex watch from her left hand. At this point, the deceased suddenly regained consciousness and tried to stand up. The appellant panicked when he saw this and hit her at the back of her head repeatedly until she lost consciousness again. He then ran back to the bus-stop where he had left his pouch, took out a cutter from the pouch and used it to slash the deceased once on each wrist. Following this, he put the hammer and the cutter back in his pouch and walked to Marina Park, where he changed into the extra T-shirt which he had brought along. He then headed for the Westin Stamford Hotel, where he washed himself in the hotel toilet before returning home.

The Forensic Pathologist who examined the deceased`s body at the scene of the killing and later performed the autopsy was of the opinion that the deceased`s death was caused by a fractured skull, namely, the comminuted depressed fracture at the back of her head, which was actually a cluster of fractures. According to the forensic pathologist, these fractures resulted from blows from a blunt instrument to that part of the deceased`s head. The semi-circular pattern of blood stains found at the bus-stop indicated that the initial blows had been inflicted on the deceased there. Subsequently, more blows had been struck on her head behind the bushes before her body was dragged to its final resting place a few metres away. The forensic pathologist was of the opinion that the initial blows to the deceased`s head did not cause death, although they were sufficient to stun a person. The subsequent blows inflicted behind the bushes were, however, sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and had not been accidentally caused. As for the cuts on the deceased`s wrist, these injuries were not fatal.

In light of the forensic pathologist`s evidence and the appellant`s admission in his cautioned statements that he had dealt many blows to the deceased`s head with a hammer in effecting the robbery of the Rolex watch, the trial judge found that the prosecution had made out a prima facie case to the charge of murder under s 300(c) of the Penal Code. Accordingly, he called upon the appellant to enter his defence.

The defence

There were essentially two limbs to the appellant`s defence at the trial below - first, that at the time of the killing, he suffered from depression which caused him to rob the deceased of her Rolex watch; and second, that he suffered from an abnormality of mind due to the effects of cannabis intoxication, which substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his actions in causing the deceased`s death.

The appellant elected to give evidence. In support of the first limb of his defence, he testified that his childhood had been an unhappy one. He was born in Malaysia, but came to Singapore when he was two to three years old with his mother, Elizabeth Seet, and his brother after his parents separated. From the age of three to fifteen, he was punished practically everyday by his mother and his step-father. His punishment consisted of being caned, having clothes pegs put on his lips, ears and tongue, kneeling in a dark room for hours, and being made to chew raw chillies. He had always wondered what it felt like to have a loving mother or a father, and had contemplated running away and leading a wonderful life without pain. His harsh childhood was, however, ameliorated by the love of his grandmother, who cared for him, loved him and was always there in his need.

Around 1994 or 1995, he joined Box Office, a company owned by his uncle, Allen Seet, who produced films for the advertising industry. He was paid a gross salary of $1,500 per month. During his time at Box Office, his uncle made him work hard and constantly treated him as though he was useless or slipshod. He left the company after one and half years to do free lance work in the same industry. He worked for a number of companies including Yarra Films, and earned between $2,000 to $6,000 per month.

All this while, he was depressed and felt that no one understood him. At one stage while he was working at Box Office, he experienced dizziness, saw a lot of colours and could not walk straight or work. He was advised by doctors that he was suffering from stress and depression. His mother brought him to see a faith-healer, one Arulsamy, in 1995 or 1996, and he subsequently visited the latter on several occasions up to 1998. He was instructed to bathe in holy water with flowers, put ashes on his forehead, and perform certain other rituals. Since 1994, he had suffered from insomnia, and he took sleeping pills to alleviate this problem. His sleep disorder worsened at the end of 1997. It was also during this period that he started feeling `very miserable`, `very depressed` and `basically very sick of life`. He had suicidal thoughts and was even prepared to jump off a block of flats in Bishan at one stage to end his life.

He did, however, feel comforted in the presence of Saifon. Nonetheless, his relationship with her also worsened the financial problems which he was already encountering even before he met her. He spent about $4,000 each month on visiting her and buying presents for her. In early 1998, he thought of buying a Rolex watch for her as a birthday present after she told him that she had once been given such a watch but had subsequently lost it. He also felt that, by giving her the watch, he would be repaying her a loan of $6,000 which she had earlier made to him. From then onwards, he kept...