Toh Sia Guan v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Andrew Phang Boon Leong JCA
• Judgment Date: 02 February 2021
• Neutral Citation: [2021] SGCA 7
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 9 of 2020
• Year: 2021
• Published date: 08 February 2021
• Hearing Date: 02 February 2021
• Plaintiff Counsel: The appellant in person
• Defendant Counsel: Eugene Lee, Claire Poh and Senthilkumaran Sabapathy (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Offences,Murder
• Citation: [2021] SGCA 7

Andrew Phang Boon Leong JCA (delivering the judgment of the court ex tempore): Introduction

This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court judge (“the Judge”) in Public Prosecutor v Toh Sia Guan [2020] SGHC 92, convicting the Appellant of one charge of murder under s 300(c) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“Penal Code”) and sentencing him to life imprisonment.

Facts

The facts of the case are straightforward. On 9 July 2016, the Appellant and the deceased were involved in a fight which resulted in the Appellant running away. The Appellant then purchased a knife. Returning to the scene of the fight, the Appellant encountered the deceased and engaged in a second fight in the course of which multiple stab wounds on the scalp, chest and arm, among other injuries, were inflicted on the deceased and culminated in his death. The fatal wound was a stab wound to the deceased’s upper right arm which caused heavy bleeding and was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

Our decision

In order for the Appellant to be convicted of murder under s 300(c) of the Penal Code, it must be shown that a bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death must be present on the deceased, and that the Appellant intended to inflict that injury. The Judge found beyond a reasonable doubt that the former requirement was satisfied on the objective facts. The Judge was also satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the latter requirement was made out on the basis of the following factual findings: the fatal stab wound was inflicted in the course of the second fight; the number, location and manner of the stab injuries found on the deceased’s scalp, chest and arm, the lack of knife injuries suffered by the Appellant and the Appellant’s conduct in purchasing the knife as well as the way in which he encountered and engaged the deceased in the second fight, taken together, indicated that the fatal injury was intentionally inflicted by the Appellant. The Judge also noted that the Appellant’s version of the facts did not square with the objective evidence and weakened his credibility as a whole. Finally, the Judge considered potentially available legal defences, even though it did not form part of the Appellant’s case, and held that they did not apply since the Appellant was found to be the aggressor in the second fight which he initiated some time after the first fight.

On appeal, the Appellant...