Wo Yok Ling v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chua F A J
• Judgment Date: 13 September 1978
• Neutral Citation: [1978] SGCA 27
• Citation: [1978] SGCA 27
• Defendant Counsel: Glenn J Knight (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Datuk David Marshall (David Marshall)
• Date: 13 September 1978
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 14
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: s 300 Penal Code (Cap 103, 1970 Ed),Provocation,Criminal Law,Whether act reasonably commensurate with provocation offered,Special exceptions

(delivering the grounds of decision of the court): The appellant, Wo Yok Ling, was convicted by the High Court for the murder of his wife. At the conclusion of the argument we dismissed his appeal against his conviction and we now proceed to give our reasons.

The only ground of appeal was that the trial judges erred in rejecting the defence of grave and sudden provocation having regard to all the evidence. The relevant facts are these.

The appellant, his wife and their two young sons lived in a Housing and Development Board flat rented by his brother-in-law. It was a two-room flat comprising a hall and a bedroom. At the rear of the flat is the kitchen with a bathroom and a toilet room adjoining it. Besides the appellant and his own family there were five persons living in the flat, the mother-in-law, her two sons and her other daughter and a granddaughter. The bedroom was partitioned into two by a curtain. The appellant and his wife slept in one of the partitioned portions and their two sons, the mother-in-law and the daughter slept in the other.

The appellant and his wife quarrelled frequently. One source of discontent was that the appellant wanted to move out but his wife preferred to remain because her mother could help to look after her young sons. They had in fact moved out on many occasions but each time they returned to live in the flat.

On the morning of 29 August 1976 at about 10am the mother-in-law returned to the flat after her marketing. Her two young grandsons and her granddaughter were at home. Later that morning, the appellant and his wife returned to the flat and the wife sat on a chair by a table in the hall. The wife`s mother was also sitting in the hall carrying the youngest grandson aged three with the older grandson standing near her. The appellant walked towards the kitchen and stood near the entrance to the kitchen. The wife then said to the appellant `if you want to move out you can move out alone`. Thereupon the appellant walked towards his wife and hit her from behind on the neck with a chopper. The wife cried out in pain and fell on the floor. Her mother went forward to assist her. The appellant attacked her and hit her head with the chopper saying `you will have to die also`. She tried to ward off the blow with her left hand and then she ran out of the flat. From outside the flat she looked in and saw the appellant repeatedly attacking his wife on the head with the chopper. She ran downstairs and near the Housing and Development Board Area Office she shouted for help.

A Mr Tan Peng Gek, an officer of the Housing and Development Board, was at the area office. Earlier that morning he had seen the appellant and his wife getting out of a taxi in front of the area office. About 15 minutes later an old lady whose clothes were covered with blood entered the office shouting and in a hysterical state. He...