Lau Lee Peng

13
Lau Lee Peng v Public Prosecutor [2000] 1 SLR(R) 448; [2000] SGCA 13 Suit No :Criminal Appeal No 30 of 1999 Decision Date :11 March 2000 Court :Court of Appeal Coram :L P Thean JA, Chao Hick Tin JA, Lai Kew Chai J Counsel :Subhas Anandan (MPD Nair & Co) and Lim Chong Boon (Ong Tay & Partners) for the appellant; David Lim Jit Hee (Deputy Public Prosecutor) for the respondent. Criminal Law – Offences – Murder – Appellant alleging "low intellect"' and grave and sudden provocation – Failure to mention allegations – Charge and warning explained to appellant – Whether drawing of adverse inference appropriate – Sections 122(6) and 123(1) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) Criminal Law – Offences – Murder – Defence of grave and sudden provocation – Two requirements for defence to apply – Subjective requirement of deprivation of selfcontrol – Whether court entitled to reject medical opinion on loss of selfcontrol – Objective requirement that provocation be "grave and sudden" – Application of "reasonable man" test – Nature and proportionality of appellant's reaction – Section 300 Exception 1 Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) Facts The appellant ("Lau") was charged with the murder of one Tan Eng Yan ("the deceased"). Lau had gone to the deceased's flat on the day of the murder to get someone's address from her. He became angry when she did not find it. The appellant claimed that the deceased then used vulgar and abusive language on him and his mother, and threatened to kill him as well. An altercation ensued and blows were exchanged. Thinking that the deceased was reaching for a chopper and fearing for his life, he grabbed it first and started slashing her on the neck until she was motionless. After his arrest, Lau placed the blame for the killing on one "Ah Meng", whom he later admitted was fictitious. At the trial, Lau did not deny inflicting the injuries on the deceased. Neither did he challenge the admissibility of his six police statements. He unsuccessfully raised the defences of grave and sudden provocation and sudden fight. The trial judge disbelieved Lau's allegations about the deceased as he had not mentioned any of these in his six statements and only raised them for the first time at the trial. He found that Lau himself caused much of the provocation, and that there was no evidence of any fight between them of such nature or intensity for Lau to fear for his life. Lau was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. On appeal, Lau only pursued the defence of grave and sudden provocation. He argued that he failed to mention the allegations about the deceased as he was of low intellect and did not understand the importance of doing so. Held, dismissing the appeal: (1) There were two requirements to the defence of grave and sudden provocation. The first was a subjective requirement that the accused was deprived of his selfcontrol by provocation. The second was an objective requirement that the provocation should have been grave and sudden. In respect of the latter, the "reasonable man" test applied. As such, the accused's emotional state of mind at the material time could be considered as that would affect the gravity of the provocation from the deceased: at [28] and [30] . (2) In respect of the first requirement, Lau failed to show that he was deprived of selfcontrol at the time of the incident: at [34] .

description

Lau Lee Peng

Transcript of Lau Lee Peng

  • Lau Lee Peng v Public Prosecutor[2000]1SLR(R)448; [2000]SGCA13

    SuitNo :CriminalAppealNo30of1999DecisionDate:11March2000Court :CourtofAppealCoram :LPTheanJA,ChaoHickTinJA,LaiKewChaiJCounsel :SubhasAnandan(MPDNair&Co)andLimChongBoon(OngTay&Partners)fortheappellant

    DavidLimJitHee(DeputyPublicProsecutor)fortherespondent.

    CriminalLawOffencesMurderAppellantalleging"lowintellect"'andgraveandsuddenprovocationFailuretomentionallegationsChargeandwarningexplainedtoappellantWhetherdrawingofadverseinferenceappropriateSections122(6)and123(1)CriminalProcedureCode(Cap68,1985RevEd)

    CriminalLawOffencesMurderDefenceofgraveandsuddenprovocationTworequirementsfordefencetoapplySubjectiverequirementofdeprivationofselfcontrolWhethercourtentitledtorejectmedicalopiniononlossofselfcontrolObjectiverequirementthatprovocationbe"graveandsudden"Applicationof"reasonableman"testNatureandproportionalityofappellant'sreactionSection300Exception1PenalCode(Cap224,1985RevEd)

    Facts

    Theappellant("Lau")waschargedwiththemurderofoneTanEngYan("thedeceased").

    Lauhadgone to thedeceased's flat on the day of themurder to get someone's address fromher.Hebecameangrywhen shedidnot find it. Theappellant claimed that thedeceased thenused vulgar andabusive languageonhimandhismother,andthreatenedtokillhimaswell.Analtercationensuedandblowswereexchanged.Thinkingthatthedeceasedwasreachingforachopperandfearingforhislife,hegrabbeditfirstandstartedslashingherontheneckuntilshewasmotionless.Afterhisarrest,Lauplacedtheblameforthekillingonone"AhMeng",whomhelateradmittedwasfictitious.

    At the trial, Lau did not deny inflicting the injuries on the deceased. Neither did he challenge theadmissibility of his six police statements. He unsuccessfully raised the defences of grave and suddenprovocationandsuddenfight.ThetrialjudgedisbelievedLau'sallegationsaboutthedeceasedashehadnotmentionedanyoftheseinhissixstatementsandonlyraisedthemforthefirsttimeat thetrial.Hefound that Lau himself causedmuch of the provocation, and that there was no evidence of any fightbetweenthemof suchnatureor intensity for Lau to fear forhis life. Lauwas convicted ofmurder andsentencedtodeath.

    Onappeal,Lauonlypursuedthedefenceofgraveandsuddenprovocation.Hearguedthathe failedtomention the allegations about the deceased as he was of low intellect and did not understand theimportanceofdoingso.

    Held,dismissingtheappeal:

    (1) Therewere two requirements to the defence of grave and sudden provocation. The first was asubjectiverequirementthattheaccusedwasdeprivedofhisselfcontrolbyprovocation.Thesecondwasan objective requirement that the provocation should have been grave and sudden. In respect of thelatter,the"reasonableman"testapplied.Assuch,theaccused'semotionalstateofmindatthematerialtimecouldbeconsideredasthatwouldaffectthegravityoftheprovocationfromthedeceased:at[28]and[30].

    (2) Inrespectofthefirstrequirement,Laufailedtoshowthathewasdeprivedofselfcontrolat thetimeoftheincident:at[34].

    QL113

    QL113

    QL113

    QL113

    QL113

    QL113

    QL113

    QL113

  • (3) In respect of the second requirement, the court rejected Lau's allegations of the abuse and/orthreatsutteredbythedeceasedashehadnotpreviouslymentionedtheminanyofhissixstatements.The court agreedwith the trial judge that Lau causedmuch of the provocation and the deceasedwasmerelyreactingto it. Even if theallegationswere true, Lauhadgrosslyoverreactedand a reasonablepersoninhispositionwouldnothavereactedwithsuchextremeviolence.Inthisrespect,thedefenceofgraveandsuddenprovocationwasnottoprotectthosewhowereexceptionallypugnacious,badtemperedoroversensitive:at[35]and[42].

    (4) Lau's claims that he was of low intellect, and that he failed to mention the allegations in hisstatementsbecausehedidnotunderstandtheimportanceofdoingso,wereunsustainable.Inconcocting"AhMeng"inhisstatements,heshowedthathewascleverenoughtothinkofafictitiouspersontobearthebruntoftheblameforthekilling:at[39].

    (5) In respect of Lau's s 122(6) statement, both the charge andwarningwere read, explained andinterpretedtohiminhisdialect.Ashedidnotdenythat,norallegethattheexplanationwasinadequate,thetrialjudgewasentitledtodrawanadverseinferenceagainsthiminrespectofhisfailuretomentiontheallegations:at[36],[37]and[40].

    (6)Intheresult,thecourtwassatisfiedthatthedefenceofgraveandsuddenprovocationfailedandtheappealwasdismissed:at[44].

    [Observation:Thetestofproportionalitywasprobablynotadistinctrequirementforraisingthedefenceofprovocation. Itwas a factor to be considered in determiningwhether the objective test of gravity andsuddenness was fulfilled. The fact that the retaliatory acts might have been out of proportion to theprovocationdidnotnecessarilymeanthatthedefencehadtofail:at[31].

    TherewasnorequirementinlawthattheProsecutionhadtoestablishapremeditateddesigntokill.An accusedwas guilty ofmurder if the intention to kill was proved to exist, however sudden such anintentionwasformed:at[43].]

    Case(s)referredto

    GovindasamyNvPP[19741976]SLR(R)654[19751977]SLR165(refd)

    KohSweeBengvPP[1991]2SLR(R)662[1991]SLR319(refd)

    LucThietThuanvTheQueen[1997]AC131[1996]3WLR45(refd)

    PPvKwanCinCheng[1998]1SLR(R)434[1998]2SLR345(folld)

    PPvTanBoonTat[1990]1SLR(R)287[1990]SLR375(folld)

    RvCamplin[1978]AC705[1978]2AllER168(refd)

    ShaifulEdhambinAdamvPP[1999]1SLR(R)442[1999]2SLR57(folld)

    WoYokLingvPP[19771978]SLR(R)559[19781979]SLR78(refd)

    Legislationreferredto

    CriminalProcedureCode(Cap68,1985RevEd)ss122(6),123(1)(consd)

    PenalCode(Cap224,1985RevEd)s300Exception1(consd)

    [Editorialnote:ThiswasanappealfromthedecisionoftheHighCourtin[1999]SGHC315.]

    11March2000

    QL113

    QL113

    QL113

    QL113

  • ChaoHickTinJA(deliveringthegroundsofjudgmentofthecourt):

    1TheappellantwaschargedwithandconvictedofthecrimeofmurderincausingthedeathofoneTanEngYanaliasTanAhLengaliasLily("thedeceased").Hewassentencedtosufferdeath.Theoffencewascommittedon26August1998,sometimebetween1.00pmand2.30pmatthedeceased'sflatatBlock467,TampinesStreet44,#08140.

    2Weheardtheappealon24January2000anddismissedit.Wenowgiveourreasons.

    EvidenceledbytheProsecution

    3 Thedeceasedandtheappellantwerefriendspriortothekilling.Theyhadknowneachotherforsome three years. Therewas no knownanimosity between them. The deceasedworked as a fruitstallassistantatthemarketsituatedatBlock475TampinesStreet43.Herworkforthedaywouldnormallyend at about 1.00pm. In the afternoons, she worked as a parttime hairdresser. The appellant was afishmongerataneighbouringstallinthesamemarket.

    4On26August1998,atorabout3.15pm,thedeceased'sdaughter,oneChenHuiMin,onreturninghomefromschoolnoticedatrailofbloodleadingtoherflat.Theirongatetotheflatwaswideopen,withthepadlockhangingfromitsmetalchain.Sheopenedthewoodendoorandenteredtheflat.She foundthe living room in amess and therewere blood stains all over the place. In the toilet adjacent to thekitchen,shesawhermother'slifelessbodylyinginaproneposition,withherfacesubmergedinapailofwater.Thepailwasplacedunderatapwhichwasstillrunning.Shecalledthepolice.

    5SergeantChuaCheeSanarrivedattheflatsomeminuteslater,atabout3.21pm.SgtChuanoticedthatthedeceasedhadsustainedmultiple injuriesonherhead,backandneck.Bothherwristshadalsobeenseverelyinjured,withthebonesexposed.Healsosawthattherewerebloodstainsonthetoiletwallandtheflooroftheflat.Abloodstainedchopperlayinthekitchensink.Hefurtherobservedthattherewasatrailofbloodwhichranfromtheflattoaparkinglotnumbered"34"behindBlock469.

    6Thedeceased'shusband,oneTanChengGuan,uponcheckingtheflatlaterthateveningdiscoveredthatasumofS$6,600wasmissing.ThisamountconsistedofS$2,200innotesandthebalanceincoinsindenominationsof10cent,20cent,50centandS$1.

    7DrWeeKengPoh,aforensicpathologistfromtheInstituteofScienceandForensicMedicinewhocarriedoutanautopsyonthedeceased,notedthatshehadsustainedatotalof58injuries.Theinjuriesconsistedoffatalslashwounds,multiplecuts,bruises,fracturesandaligaturemarkaroundherneck.Hecertified the cause of death to be acute exsanguination or haemorrhage due tomultiple slashwounds.FouroftheinjurieswereidentifiedbyDrWeetobefatalandeachofthemweresufficientintheordinarycourseofnaturetocausedeath.Thefourfatalinjurieswere:

    (a)injuryNo4,adeepslashwoundontheleftposteriorlaterallowerneck,measuring10cmby0.8cm

    (b)injuryNo16,adeepslashwoundontherightanteriorlateralupperneck,measuring11cmby2.5cm

    (c)injuryNo44,comprisingasetofmultipledeepcutsonthebackofthedeceased'sleftwrist,causingneartotalamputationofthewrist,leavingonlyastrandofskinonthefrontoftheleftwristand

    (d)injuryNo49,comprisingasetofmultipleslashwoundsontherightposteromedialhandandlowerthirdforearm,alsocausingneartotalamputationoftherightwrist.

    8IntheopinionofDrWee,thesefatal injurieswereall intentionally inflictedandwerenotcaused

    QL113

    QL113

  • accidentally.InjuryNos44and49werecausedbymultipleblowsofmoderatetosevereforce,severelyfracturing the underlying bones. These injuries were sustained while the deceased was on the groundtrying towardoff thoseblows.Theseverityof theblows couldbe seen from the fact that thoseblowsnearly amputated both her hands. All the injuries the deceased sustained were consistent with havingbeencausedbyaknifeorachopper.

    9 The police took blood samples from the flat for examination. Dr Chuah Siew Yeam from theDepartment of Scientific Services, Institute of Science and Forensic Medicine, who conducted theexaminationtoldthecourtthatcertainbloodsamplestakenfromtheflatmatchedtheDNAprofileoftheappellant.Somebloodsamples,however,werenothis.Nothingturnedonthatasitwasnothisdefencethathedidnotkillthedeceased.

    10Theappellantwasarrestedon31August1998.HewasreferredtotheAlexandraHospitalandwasexaminedbyoneDrDesmondChoo,whonoted,amongstothers,thattherewerelacerationstohisrightbigtoe,righthandandfoot,rightindexandmiddlefingersandalacerationbetweentheindexandmiddlefingersofhisrighthand.InDrChoo'sopinion,thewoundswerelikelytohavebledwhentheywerefresh.

    11 Onthedayofhisarrest, theappellant ledapartyofpoliceofficerstohismotorpickupbearingregistrationplatenumberGH5364SwhichwasthenparkedonthethirdlevelofthemultistoreycarparkatBlock96HavelockRoad.Thepickupwas rented fromoneChuaSiongHuat,who ranabusinessofhiringmotor lorries,pickupsandvans.Sixplasticbagsof coinshiddenbehind thedriver's seatofthepickupandanotherplasticbagofcoinsplacedundertheairconditionunitofthevehiclewererecoveredbythepolice.

    12On23October1998atabout11.25am,threepoliceofficersrecoveredtwotransparentplasticbagsofcoinsfromChuaSiongHuat'sflatatBlock286BTohGuanRoad#2132.ThecoinsinthesetwoplasticbagswerepaymentmadebytheappellanttoChuaon28August1998,beingtherentalofS$400forthepickup.

    13Therewasevidencethatthedeceasedwasafriendlypersonandmixedwellwithothers.Butshewasalsofondofshowingoffbytakingoutstacksofnotes fromherpouchandboastingthatshehadasubstantialamountofmoneyinherhouse.Theappellanthadheardthedeceasedsayingallthesethings.Therewasalsoclearevidencefromseveralotherhawkersthatasatthedateoftheincident,theappellantowed themvarioussumsofmoney.Therewasalsoevidence tosuggest that theappellantwas indebtbecausehehadlostmoneyinhorseracing.

    14Theaccountconcerningthecircumstancessurroundingthekillingofthedeceasedwasprovidedbythe appellant in sixwritten statements given by him to the police. The first wasmade to DSSgt CherKwong Chan shortly before his arrest on 31 August 1998 (Exh P168). The second was a cautionedstatement given on 1 September 1998, under s 122(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code ("CPC"), toInspectorLimSongChaioftheCriminalInvestigationDepartment(CID)(ExhP170).Thereafter,on fourdifferentoccasionsbetween4and10September1998theappellantgavefourmorestatementsunders121oftheCPC(ExhsP171toP174).Atthetrial,theappellantdidnotchallengetheadmissibilityofanyofthestatementsgivenbyhim.Thestatementswerethusadmittedinevidence.

    15Aswhatweresetoutinthestatementswerevitaltothecharge,aswellasthedefencesraisedbytheappellant,itisnecessaryforustosetouttherelevantpartsofhisstatementsinextenso.Theyareasfollows:

    ExhibitP168

    Blk467Tampineson the8th floorcornerhouse.ThismaleChinese isknown tome foralmostayearandIusedtoaddresshimas'AhMeng'.Ibelieve'AhMeng'isaMalaysian.

    Initially,Iusedaflowervasewhichwasplacedatthehalltohitdeceased'sheadandthereafterI

  • used a chopper taken byme from deceased's kitchen to attack her. AhMeng also joined in theattackuntilshecollapsedinthekitchen.AhMengpulledherheadandforceditintoaredcolouredplasticpailandleftthetapwaterrunningoverthedeceased'shead.Immediately,bothofuswentinsearchformoneyattheflat.Imanagedtolocatefourplasticcontainersofcoinsatthestoreroom.AhMengalsofoundsomecashatthekitchen.

    We fled the scene separately. AhMeng escaped by the lift and as forme, I fled by going downstaircasetothecarparknearby.Ialsoheldthetwocontainersofcoinsinmyhands.Iwouldliketoclarify that two of the containers aremetal tins.We escaped by usingmy pickup No GH5364SwhichwasearlierparkedatBlk469Tampinescarpark.

    ExhibitP170cautionedstatement

    Ihadnointentionofmurderingher.Iwenttherewith'AhMeng'tofindoutthewhereaboutsofthetontinehead.Shetoldmethattheaddresswaswrittenonapieceofpaperwhichwasathomeandinvitedmetofollowhertoherhouse.Shedidnotknow'AhMeng'.Wetookthelifttothe11thfloorandwalkedtoherflatatthe8thfloor.Sheopenedthedoorandweenteredthehouse.'AhMeng'wasfollowingusfromadistanceaway.Oncethedoorwasopened,'AhMeng'dashedintothehouseandclosethedoor.Lilyaskedmewho'AhMeng'was?Itoldherthat 'AhMeng' ismy friendandaskedhernottoaskfurther.Shebecameunhappy.SheaskedmewhetherwecametorobherandI denied. I told her to giveme 'Ah Poh' address. She toldme that someone had given her theaddressonapieceofpaper.Isawherstartedlookingforit.Later,shetoldmethatshecouldnotfind.Ithentoldherthatshewaslying.Shetoldmetoleavethehouseorelseshewouldscreamforhelp.'AhMeng'thenplacedhisarmaroundherneckandtheybothfelldown.Thedeceasedgrabbeda flowervaseand Iquicklygrabbed it fromherandplaced it on the floor. Iwasafraid that shemightbreakthevaseorshemightuseittohitme.Lilyrantothekitchenand'AhMeng'followed.Theystruggledatthekitchen.Isaw'AhMeng'usedachoppertoslashher.'AhMeng'didnotbringthechopperalong.Hegot it fromthekitchenfromthewashingbasin.Ipresumedhegot it fromthere.Itold'AhMeng'thathecannotslashher.'AhMeng'toldmethathehadnochoiceandaskedmetohelphim.Lilystartedscreamingwhentheystartedstruggling.Afterbeingslashed,Lilyfelltothefloor.'AhMeng'usedhishandtocoverLily'smouthorneck.'AhMeng'askedmetohelphim.Iused the flower vase to hit Lily. Lily caught hold ofmy hand. I saw the chopper on the floor. Igrabbeditandchoppedherhand.Ibecamedazeanddarenotlookather.Itold'AhMeng'nottokillher.'AhMeng'saidthatifshesurvive,Iwilldie.Isaw'AhMeng'pulledhertothebathroom.IhadsomebloodstainonmyarmandIwasheditatthebasin.Idonotknowwhat'AhMeng'wasdoingwithLilyinthebathroom.Iknewthatheturnedonthewatertap.Ihurried'AhMeng'toleavethehouse. 'AhMeng'askedmeto look forsomemoney. 'AhMeng' toldmetogoto theroomtosearch.IjustwentintotheroomandopenedthedrawerandIdidnotsearchandtakeanything.Iwenttothestoreroom.Thedoorofthestoreroomwasajar.Isawfourtinsofcoins.'AhMeng'askedmetotakethecoins.Iwenttothekitchentogetthepaperbagsandputallthecoinsinthepaperbags.Weonlytookthecoinswithoutthetins.Iagainwalkedtothekitchenandsawawadofdollarnotesand 'AhMeng'tookthem.Ihurriedhimto leave.Wecarriedthecoinsand left theplace.Iwalkeddownthestaircaseand'AhMeng'tookthelift.

    ExhibitP171

    3Atabout1.15pm,Iparkedmymotorpickupatthecarparkbehindblock469TampinesStreet44 ... When I alighted frommy pickup, I saw Lily was walking at the void deck of block 467TampinesStreet44andIshoutedforher.Iwalkedacrossandmetherattheliftlobby.SheaskedmewhyIwaslateandshetoldmethatshewasabouttoleave...SheaskedmehowmuchIwasgoingtopayher.ItoldherthatIwasgoingtopayherthreehundreddollars.Ithenaskedherfor'AhPoh's'addressandshesaidthatshehadleftitinherflat.ShetoldmetofollowherifIwanted'AhPoh's'address.

    4...Sheinvitedmetogointothehouse.Itookoffmysandalsandenteredthehouse.Lilyclosed

    QL113

    QL113

  • the wooden door. She offeredme drink and I accepted. ... I hurried her to give me 'Ah Poh's'address.Lilytoldmethatshewasalso inahurrytogooff forahaircutappointment.IsawLilysearchingthebedrooms,thestoreroom,kitchenand thehall forAhPoh'saddress.The lastplaceshesearchedwasamongfewbooksplacedonthetelephonetable.Lilytoldmethatshecouldnotfind Ah Poh's address. Lily then started searching the blackcoloured bag, which she had earlierplacedonthefloorneartothekitchenentrance.Shetoldmethatitwaswrittenonasmallpieceofpaperandshedonotknowwheresheplacedit.Iwasangryandshetoldmetoleaveasshehadtogotowork.Itoldhernottokeeponlyingtome.Iscoldedherwithvulgarwords.ShescoldedmethatIwasmad.ItoldherthatIamgettingmadandIwillbeatherup.SheagaintoldmetoleaveherhouseIrefusedandtoldhertogivemeAhPoh'saddress.Atthattime,wewerestandingfacingeach other. I pushed her with both hands and she fell. I also fell as the floor was slippery.Westruggledonthefloor.Whilewewerestruggling,Lilytoldmetotalkthingsover.ItoldherthatshekeptlyinganddidnotgiveAhPoh'saddresstome.IalsoaccusedherofconspiringwithAhPohtocheatme.ShedeniedandaskedmetogivehersometimetolookforAhPoh'saddress.Westoppedstruggleandstoodup.LilythreatenedtocallthepoliceifIdidnotleaveherhouse.Ibecameveryangryandtoldherthatsheneednotcallforthepoliceandmightaswellwedietogether.Wewerestandingneartothekitchenentrance.Suddenly,Isawherliftingaflowervasewithbothhands.Ithoughtshemightuseittohitme.Iquicklygrabbedovertheflowervaseandplaceditonthefloor.Thevasetoppledbutdidnotbreak.

    5 I tried to block theblowand the cupdropped and breaks [sic]. At that juncture, I becomeconfusedandIlostmyhead.Inoticedthatthereweretwotothreeknivesontopofthewashingbasin.Itookachopperandswungitathermanytimes.IstoppedwhenLilycollapsed.Iputdownthechopperonthefloor.Iwasverynervousandmyhandswereshivering.IthenrealisedthatLily'sneckwasbleedingprofusely.ShewasscreamingbutIcouldnotmakeoutwhatshewassaying.IsetmymindtoputhertodeathandIalsowantedtodietogetherwithher.IalsodonotknowwhatIwasdoing.Iwassquattingbesideher.Suddenly,shegrabbedmyhand.Itookthechopper,whichwasnearmeandchoppedherhandsrepeatedlyasifIwaschoppingfishes.Shortly,IrealisedthatLilywasmotionlessandquiet. Iwasvery frightened.My face,hands and legswere stainedwithblood.Ialsorealisedthatmyrighttoewascut.Iwenttothetoiletandturnedonthetaptowashup...

    6 Afterwashingup, I sawLily lyingmotionless facingdownwardoutside the toilet entrance. Ipulledherintothetoiletwithmybothhands.I liftedherheadandplacedit intothe redcolouredplasticbasin,whichwasfullofwaterfromthetap.Ithendecidedtoleavethehouse.Iwenttothedoorstepsandputonmysandals.WhenIwasabouttoleave,Idecidedtolookforanyvaluablesinthehouse.Ireturnedtothehousewithmysandalson.

    7IthenwalkedintothebedroomandsearchedthecupboarddrawerhopingthatIcouldfindAhPoh'saddress. I left thebedroomafter I failed to findAhPoh's address. I then realised that thestoreroomdoorwasajar.IcheckedthestoreroomforAhPoh'saddress,butcouldnotfind.Isawsomecoinsintinsandplasticcontainersatthecornerofthestoreroom.Icarriedthetwotinsoutfrom the store room.When I tried to carry theplastic container, I felt that itwas very soft anddecidednottocarrythem.Thereweretotaltwotinsandtwoorthreeplasticcontainers.Iwenttothekitchenandtooktwoplasticbags.Iplacedthetwotinsofcoinsinsidetheplasticbag.Iplacedtwoplasticbagstogetherasthetwotinswereveryheavy.Itookanothertwoplasticbagsfromthekitchen. I went into the storeroom and poured all the coins from the plastic containers into theplasticbags.Ialsousedtwoplasticbagsasitwasveryheavy.Ithendecidedto leavethehouse.Aftersecondthought,Ifoundthatitwasverydifficulttocarry.Iwenttothekitchenandtooktworedcolouredpails.Iplacedthetwobagsofcoinsintothepails.Iwenttothekitchenbasintowashmyhand.WhenIwasleavingthekitchen,Inoticedsomepapersontopofthecabinetsneartotheentrance.IsearchedforAhPoh'saddress.Isawsomedollarnoteswrappedinatransparentplasticbag.Itookitandkeptinmytrouserpocket.

  • ExhibitP172

    21InowrememberthatafterImanagedtoblockoffthecup,whichLilythrewatme,Iwasveryangryand I took the flower vasenear to the kitchen entrance and rushed towards her. Lilywasstandinginfrontofthewashingbasinwithherbackfacingthekitchenwindow.IfIamnotwrong,Iholdtherimoftheflowervasewithmyrighthandandthebasewithmylefthand,IliftedtheflowervaseupandhititonLily'sheadandthevasebroke.Lilyfellbackwardsandshewasstillholdingacup.Shetriedtohitmewiththecupshewasholding.Itriedtograbthecupfromher.Finally,thecupfellbutIdonotknowwhetherthecupbrokeornot.Lilywasshouting.Itookapieceofclothfrom the floor to cover hermouth to prevent her from shouting. I then realised that therewerepieces of porcelain from the vase scattered around. I used the cloth to sweep them away. Fewpiecesofbrokenporcelainweresweptintothetoilet.Itwasatthatjuncture,Isawthechopperinthe container on the washing basin. I took the chopper and started to slash her at her neck topreventherfromshoutingfurther.Suddenly,LilygrabbedholdofmyhandandIstartedtochopherhandsas ifIwasmad.Iwantedtokillmyselfat that time.Finally,LilybecamemotionlessandIstopped.IknewthatLilywasdead....

    28TheSaturdaybeforetheincident,whenIwasleavingthemarket,LilytoldmethatsomebodyhadgivenherAhPoh'saddress.AsIwasinahurryforhorsebetting,Ididnotaskfurther.Thenextday,Iaskedherandshetoldmethatshewouldgivemetheaddresslaterasshewasbusy.

    29OnTuesday,ImetLilyatthestallandaskedforAhPoh'saddressandshetoldmethatshehad left it in her flat and askedme to go to her flat to collect it. After I closedmy stall I hadforgottenaboutthematterandleftwith'Allan'.

    30Thenextday(Wednesday)atabout11am,IagainaskedherforAhPoh'saddressandalsotoldherthatIwantedtopayhersomemoney.Shetoldmetomeetheratthevoiddeckofherflatbetween1.15pmand1.30pm.

    31IwasangrywhenLilydidnotgivemeAhPoh'saddress.Atthattime,IfeltshehadconspiredwithAhPohtocheatme.Istartedtoquarrelwithherresultedintoafightandcausedherdeath.

    ExhibitP173

    Question1:Inyourpreviousstatementsrecordedon31August98and1Sep98,youmentionedthat'AhMeng'wenttoLily'sflatwithyou.Whois'AhMeng'?

    Answer:Thereisnosuchperson.Ididitalone.Therewasnootherpersoninvolved.ImakeitupwhenIwasquestioned.

    ExhibitP174

    ...She...startedtosearchforAhPoh'saddressamongabundleofdocumentsontopofthecabinet

    ... She then searched the storeroom. I saw some coins in containers when she opened thestoreroom door. At that juncture, the phone rang and she answered the phone in Malay. TheconversationwasshortandLilytoldmethatshewasinahurrytogooff.Lilytoldmeto leave.IrefusedtoleaveandtoldherthatunlessshegivemeAhPoh'saddress.WestartedtoquarrelandIwasveryangry.LilythreatenedthatifIdidnotleave,shewouldcallthepolice.Ibecameangryandscoldedhervulgarwords.Suddenly, I sawLily tooka flowervaseand Igrabbed it. Iplaced theflower vase on the floor but it toppled. However, it did not break. Lily ran to the kitchen and Ifollowed.Shegrabbedacupfromthecabinetandthrewitatme.Thecupdroppedontothefloor.Ifoughtwithherinfrontofthewashingmachine.Lilyfellontothefloorwithherheadpointingatthewindowandherlegspointingattheentrance.Iquicklyrantothehallandgrabbedtheflowervase.IusedtheflowervaseandhitLily'shead.Lilytriedtocatchholdofme.Inoticedthattherewerefewknivesintheholderontopofthebasin.ItookachopperandstartedtoslashLily'sneck.Lily

    QL113

  • stilltriedtocatchholdofme.Iwasveryangryandchoppedherhand.Ichoppedherbothhands.Shewasmotionless.Iwantedtogotothetoilettowashmylegs.Thereweremanypiecesofbrokenporcelain.Iusedapieceofclothtosweepthemintothetoilet.Ithenwashedmylegsandhandsinthe toilet.Therewasa redcolouredbasinunderneath the tap. I turnedon the tapandused thewaterinthebasintowashup.IdraggedLilyintothetoileteitherbypullingherhairorhercloth.Iliftedherheadandplaceditintotheredcolouredbasinwithherfacefacingdown.Thetapwasstillrunning. I walked out of the toilet and noticed that my right toes was bleeding. I went to thebedroomstosearchforAhPoh'saddress.IfailedtogetAhPoh'saddress.Idecidedtoleave.Iwenttothedoorstepandputonmysandals.IwasnotsatisfiedandwalkedbacktothekitchenwithmysandalsontolookforAhPoh'saddress.IcannotfindanythingbutItookawadofdollarnotesfromthe kitchen cabinet. I walked to the storeroom and took the coins which I had described inmystatement.Ithenleftthehousewithtwopailsofcoins.Iclosedthewoodendoor.

    IwishtoaddthatafterIplacedLily'sheadintothebasininthetoilet,Icameoutandpickedupthechopperfromthefloorandplaceditinthewashingbasin.Iwashedmyhandsatthewashingbasin.Thatisall.

    16 It should be noted from the statements of the appellant that thewhereabouts of one "Ah Poh"playedasignificantpart intheoccurrenceonthatfatefulafternoon.AhPoh'srealname isPhaiSaiPohandshewascalledbytheProsecutiontotestify.SheadmittedhavingstartedatontinegroupinAugust1996 comprising some17members. The appellantwas one of them.She discontinued the group on 1January1998asshewasinfinancialdifficultiesandwasunabletopayoutmoneyowedtomemberswhohadsuccessfullybid.BecauseofthatshewentintohidingattheendofMay1998anddidnottellanyoneofhernewaddress.Shesaidsheowedtheappellantonly$4,000.

    Defence

    17 The appellant did not, at the close of the Prosecution's case,make a submission of no case toanswer. He gave evidence in his own defence and did not deny having inflicted those injuries on thedeceased.Hisdefencewastwofold.First,heinflictedthoseinjuriesundergraveandsuddenprovocationfromthedeceased.Second,thatthedeceased'sdeatharoseoutofasuddenfightbetweentheparties.

    18Theappellantsaidthatheandthedeceasedwerefriends.Hehadborrowedmoneyfromheraswellasfromothersduetohisgamblinglosses.HejoinedAhPoh'stontinegroupsomethreeyearsback.HehadpaidAhPohinrespectofthetontineatotalofabout$10,000.Shehadonlyrepaidhim$1,000afterrepeated requests. Thereafter, he could not locate her. Five days before the date of the incident, thedeceasedtoldhimthatshehadAhPoh'saddress.However,inthenextfewdaysforvariousreasons,hedidnotmanagetomeetupwiththedeceasedtogettheaddressfromher.Itwason26August1998thathefinallymetthedeceasedatthevoiddeckbelowherflat.ThedeceasedtoldhimthatshecouldnotfindAhPoh'saddressandinvitedhimtogouptoherflattohelpsearchforitifhedidnotbelieveher.

    19Aftersomesearchingatherflat,shestillcouldnotfindtheaddress.Soshetoldhiminanormaltone "... well, couldn't find, you can't find Ah Poh you have lost some money, forget about it". Theappellant got angry when the deceased again told him to forget about it. He accused her of being incollusionwithAhPohtocheathim.Itwasatthispointthatthedeceasedstartedusingabusiveandvulgarlanguageontheappellant.

    Gohomeandfuckyourmother.Youareaman.Howcomeyouarecheatedbyawoman?Youareamanbeingcheatedbyawoman.Areyouaman?

    20 The appellant became extremely angry and told the deceased that no one had ever used suchabusive language on his mother. He, in turn, used abusive words on the deceased, whereupon thedeceasedaskedhimtoleavetheflat,failingwhichshewouldcallthepolice.Hethengaveherapushandtheybothfelldown.Therewasastruggleandblowswereexchanged.Thedeceasedgrabbedaflowervasefromthelivingroom.Shewantedtostriketheappellantwiththevasebuthegrabbeditfromherandput

  • it on the floor outside the kitchen. She ran into the kitchen. She then threw a porcelain cup at theappellantbut itmissedhittinghishead.Theappellanttooktheflowervasefromthefloorandtoldher:"Youwanttoplay?"towhichsheretorted:"Don'tcomenear.Ihaveaknifehere.Iwillkillyou."Hethentoldher that theycouldbothdie together.Another cup fell on the floor in theappellant'sdirection.Herushedatthedeceasedandhitherontheheadwiththevase.Hesawherstretchingoutherrighthandandthoughtthatshewasgoingtograbaknifeontopoftheflatsurfacenexttothekitchensink.Inhismind,itwaseitherhislifeorherlife.Buthemanagedtograbholdoftheknifefirstandstartedslashingherontheneck.Thedeceasedshoutedthatshewouldkillhim.Shethengrabbedholdofapieceofthebrokenvaseandtriedto"jab"theappellantwithitwhereuponheslashedatherhandsuntilshebecamemotionless.Hesaidhewasfrightened.Hethenwashedhisbloodyhands.Hisrightthumbandtoewerebleeding.Heproceededtoimmersethedeceased'sfaceinapailofwaterandplacedtheknifewhichhehadusedtoslashherintothekitchensink.

    21Thereafter,theappellantmadeanunsuccessfulattempttosearchforAhPoh'saddressintheflat.Insteadhefoundsomecurrencynotesinanenvelopeandcoinsofvariousdenominationsincontainers.Hetook the currency notes and placed the containers of coins into plastic bags which he took from thekitchen.Uponrealisingthatthecoinsweretooheavyfortheplasticbags,hetransferredthecoinsintotwoplasticpailsandtookthemawaywithhim.Hedroveoffinhispickup.

    22Itshouldbenotedthatthesignificantdifferencebetweenwhattheappellantsaidtothecourtinhistestimony and what he stated in the various statements made to the police was the absence in thestatementsoftheabuseand/orthreatsutteredbythedeceased.Heexplainedthatthiswasnotmentionedinhisstatementsbecausehewasnotquestionedabouttheoralexchangesbetweenthem.Neitherdidhementioninhisstatementsthatthedeceasedhadtriedtoreachforaknifenexttothekitchensink.

    Thedecisionbelow

    23Thelearnedtrialjudge,AmarjeetSinghJC,rejectedboththedefencesraisedbytheappellant.Hedisbelieved theappellant's testimony that thedeceasedhadusedabusiveor threateningwordsonhim.Furthermore,hisallegationthatthedeceasedhadreachedoutforaknifeorchopperontopofthekitchensinkandhad"jabbed"athimwithapieceofbrokenporcelainwerealsodisregardedbythetrialjudgeasthe appellant had failed tomention any of thesematters in his six statements to the police. As theseallegationswereonlyraisedforthefirsttimeatthetrial,thetrialjudgedrewthe"irresistibleinference"thattheseallegationswereafterthoughts,contrivedbytheappellantfortheverypurposeofadvancinghisdefence. With these being rejected what remained, even as alleged by the appellant, were clearlyinsufficienttoconstitutegraveandsuddenprovocation.Infact,heheldthattheappellantcausedmuchoftheprovocation.Theappellantwastoldtoleavetheflatbutdidnot.Heinsistedonremainingintheflatagainsttheowner'swishes.Hehadalsopushedthedeceasedfirst,causinghertofall.Heractsofraisingthevaseandthrowingthetwocupsattheappellantwerethusmerelyretaliatoryoftheappellant'sownshowofviolence.ThetrialjudgecouldnotacceptDrWee'sevidencethattheappellant'sactswerethoseofapersonwhohadlosthisselfcontrolandwasinafrenzy,ashefeltthatthepathologist'sopinion"didnotcondescendonthetotalityoftheevidenceadducedincourt".

    24 Inanycase, the learned trial judgeheld thateven if theabusiveandvulgarwordswere indeedutteredbythedeceased,theinsultswerenotsograveastocausetheappellanttolosehisselfcontroltotheextentofsoviciouslyandfatallyinjuringthedeceased.

    25Asregardsthedefenceofsuddenfight,thetrialjudgefoundthattherewasnoevidenceofanyfightbetweentheappellantandthedeceasedofsuchnatureor intensityfortheappellanttofearforhis life.Whattheevidenceshowedwasasavageattackbytheappellantuponthedeceased.Theappellanthadtakenundueadvantageandhadactedinamostcruelmanner.Accordingly,thedefenceofsuddenfightwasrejected.

    Theappeal

  • 26Beforeus,counselfortheappellantpursuedonlythedefenceofgraveandsuddenprovocation.Theargument advanced was that the learned trial judge placed too much emphasis on the fact that theappellantdidnotmentionabouttheutteranceoftheprovocativewordsbythedeceasedinhisstatements.Counselarguedthat theappellant,beinga fishmongerof low intellect, failedtomentionthesaidwordsbecausehedidnotunderstandtheimportanceofdoingso.

    Provocation

    27Exception1tos300ofthePenalCode(Cap224)providesthatculpablehomicideisnotmurder"ifthe offenderwhilst deprived of the power of selfcontrol by grave and sudden provocation, causes thedeath of the person who gave the provocation ...". The "Explanation" to that Exception provides that"whethertheprovocationwasgraveandsuddenenoughtopreventtheoffencefromamountingtomurderisaquestionoffact".

    28 HowException1shouldbe interpretedandappliedwasrecentlyconsideredbythiscourt inPPvKwanCinCheng[1998]1SLR(R)434whereitheld(at[44]):

    Asthelawhasdeveloped,therearetwodistinctrequirementsfortheprovocationdefencetoapply:first,a 'subjective' requirement that the accusedwas deprived of his selfcontrol by provocationandsecondly,an'objective'requirementthattheprovocationshouldhavebeen'graveandsudden'.Thelatterrequirementinvolvestheapplicationofthe'reasonableman'testacceptedinVijayanvPP([17]supra)at[30]andcitedinIthininbinKamarivPP([17]supra)at[34]:

    In our judgment, under our law, where an accused person charged withmurder relies onprovocationandclaimsthebenefitofException1ofs300,thetesttobeappliedis,wouldtheact or acts alleged to constitute provocation have deprived a reasonable man of his selfcontrolandinducedhimtodotheactwhichcausedthedeathofthedeceasedandinapplyingthistestitisrelevanttolookatandcomparetheactofprovocationwiththeactofretaliation.

    29However,thefactthatthesecondrequirementistobedeterminedobjectivelydoesnotmeanthatany characteristics of the accused, includingmental infirmities, could not be taken into account if theyaffected the gravity of the provocation. But individual peculiaritieswhichmerely affected the accused'spower of selfcontrol but not the gravity of the provocation should not be taken into account: seeRvCamplin[1978]2AllER168at175perLordDiplockandLucThietThuanvTheQueen[1997]AC131[1996]3WLR45.

    30InKwanCinCheng,itwasheldthatindeterminingiftheobjectiverequirementwassatisfied,theemotionalstateofmindof the accusedat thematerial time could properly be taken into account as itwouldaffectthegravityoftheprovocationfromthedeceased.Thepurposeofthisobjectivetestisreallytodenythedefence topersonswhooverreactsimplybecause theyare "exceptionallypugnacious, badtemperedandoversensitive".

    31 Some earlier authorities also appear to speak of a separate or distinct requirement ofproportionality, over and above the two requirements relating to the defence discussed above. Thisproportionality test suggests that the retaliation taken must be commensurate with the provocationofferedwhichcausedtheaccusedtolosehisselfcontrol:GovindasamyNvPP[19741976]SLR(R)654WoYokLingvPP[19771978]SLR(R)559andKohSweeBengvPP[1991]2SLR(R)662.Inthelightofthediscussion inKwanCinCheng, the test of proportionality is probably not a distinct requirement forraising the defence of provocation. It is a factor to be taken into account in determining whether theobjectivetestofgravityandsuddennessisfulfilled.Therefore,thefactthattheretaliatoryactsmayhavebeenoutofproportiontotheprovocationoffereddoesnotnecessarilymeanthat thedefencemust fail.This isbecausewhere the provocation defence in Exception 1 to s 300 is raised, the accused's acts ofretaliationwouldexhypothesialwayshavebeenofanextremedegree,resultinginthedeathofanotherperson.Aninquiryinto"proportionality"doeslittletoanswertheessentialquestionofwhetheranordinarypersonwould,uponreceivingtheprovocationinquestion,havereactedinthesamewaytheaccuseddid.

    QL113

  • Wastheappellantdeprivedofhisselfcontrol?

    32Wenowturntodeterminewhethertheappellanthad,infact,beendeprivedofthepowerofselfcontrol.Itisnecessarytolookattheobjectivefacts.Mereassertionwouldnotsuffice.InExhP172,theappellantsaidthathestartedtoslashatthedeceased'sneckinordertosilenceherandtopreventherfromshoutingfurther.Thiswouldindicateheknewwhathewasdoing.InExhP171,hecategoricallysaidthat he set his mind to put the deceased to death. These words show that the appellant had a clearpurpose inmindwhenheattackeda vulnerablepart of the deceased's body, ie her neck. In court, hetestified thatas thealtercationcontinued, itbecameaquestionofeitheroneof themdying.When thedeceasedattemptedtograbhimwithherhandsinordertodefendherself,theappellantaimedspecificallyatherhandsandchoppedatthemrepeatedly.Assoonasthedeceasedbecamemotionless,theappellant,despite claiming that he was frightened, nevertheless had the presence of mind to sweep the brokenpiecesofporcelainintothetoilettoprotecthimselffrombeingcut.Furthermore,insteadofrunningawayinpanicaftertheattack,theappellanttookhistimetowashhishands,placedthechopperbackintothesinkandwentroundthe flat looking forAhPoh'saddress.Hedidnot find theaddressbut found somemoney(innotesandincoins)ofseveralthousanddollars,whichhetookwithhim.Thewayhewentabouttakingawaythecoinsshowedthathewasveryconsciousatalltimesofwhathewasdoing.Takingalltheforegoingaspectsintoaccount,theydonotrepresenttheactionsofsomeonewhodidnotappreciatewhathewasdoing.Whatisjustassignificantisthat,aftertheincident,herememberedandmadeitapointtokeephisappointmentswithLeeHooGuan("PW13")andGohSeowEk("PW15"),whichwerealittlelaterthatday.Thesetwopersonswerethecreditorsoftheappellant.Therewasnoirrationalbehaviouronhispart.

    33 As regardsDrWee's opinion that the deceased's injurieswere likely to have been caused by apersonwhohadlosthissenseofselfcontrolandwas inafrenzy,weagreedwiththetrial judgethat itwasobviouslyaviewbasedpurelyonthenumerous injuries inflictedby theappellanton thedeceased.Thecourtwasentitledtotestandrejectitinthelightoftheobjectivefacts,ifthatviewwasnotconsistentwith those facts. In this instance, for the reasons dealtwith in the last paragraph, the trial judgewasamplyjustifiednottoacceptthatopinion.

    34Onthisgroundalone,theappellantwouldhavefailedinthisappeal,ashehadnotshownthathehadmetthefirstrequirementnecessarytoestablishthedefenceofgraveandsuddenprovocation.

    Wastheprovocationgraveandsudden?

    35 Wenext turntoconsider thesecondrequirement.Theallegedprovocation lay inhisassertion incourtthatthedeceasedhadabusedandinsultedhismotherandhimselfwithvulgarwords.Furthermore,thedeceasedhadattemptedtoreachoutforcertainkniveswhichwereplacedontopofthekitchensinkandhadthreatenedtousethemtokillhim.Buttheseallegationswere,however,notmentionedinanyofthesixstatementswhichtheappellantgavetothepolice.

    36Beforehegavethecautionedstatement(P170),hewas,asrequiredunders122(6)oftheCriminalProcedureCode,informedthat:

    Ifthereisanyfactonwhichyouintendtorelyinyourdefenceincourt,youareadvisedtomentionitnow.Ifyouholditbacktillyougotocourt,yourevidencemaybelesslikelytobebelievedandthismayhaveabadeffectonyourcaseingeneral.

    Itisnottheappellant'scasethattheabovewarningwasnotreadoutorexplainedtohimatthetimehegavehiss122(6)statement.Infact,InspLimSongChaiwhorecordedthestatementspecificallystatedatthestartofthestatementthatboththechargeandthenoticeofwarningwerereadout,explainedandinterpretedtotheappellantintheTeochewdialect.Theappellantdidnotchallengethat.

    37Inrelationtothefourstatementsgivenbytheappellantsubsequenttothecautionedstatement,s123(1)oftheCPCispertinentanditreads:

    QL113

    QL113

    QL113

    QL113

  • Where in any criminal proceedings against a person for an offence evidence is given that theaccused,onbeingchargedwiththeoffenceorofficiallyinformedthathemightbeprosecutedforit,failedtomentionanysuchfact,beingafactwhichinthecircumstancesexistingatthetimehecouldreasonablyhavebeenexpectedtomentionwhensochargedorinformed,asthecasemaybe,thecourt,indeterminingwhethertocommittheaccusedfortrialorwhetherthereisacasetoanswer,andthecourt,indeterminingwhethertheaccusedisguiltyoftheoffencechargedmaydrawsuchinferencesfromthefailureasappearproper,andthefailuremay,onthebasisofthoseinferencesbe treated as, or as capable of amounting to corroboration of any evidence given against theaccusedinrelationtowhichthefailureismaterial.[emphasisadded]

    38 Counselfortheappellantcontendedthattheappellant,beingafishmongerof lowintellect,couldhave failed to mention the crucial allegations in his statements because he did not understand theimportanceofdoingsoattherelevanttime.Inourview,thisargumentwasplainlyunsustainable.Wedidnotseehowthisargumentcouldbevalidasthecautionadministeredwassimpleenough.Inourviewthefollowingobservationof thetrial judges inPPvTanBoonTat[1990]1SLR(R)287 at [38],whichwasapprovedonappeal([1992]1SLR(R)698),wasonpoint:

    ...thewarningiscouchedinverysimplelanguagewhichiseasilycomprehensiblebythosewhoreadEnglish.We do not seewhat else there is and how else one ought to explain the warning it iscertainlyunsafe tosimplify itor,on theotherhand, toelaborateoramplify itanysuchattemptmayconveyawrongmeaningorimplicationtotheaccused.ItfollowsthatifanaccuseddoesnotreadandspeakEnglish,andthechargeandthenoticeofwarningarebothaccuratelyinterpretedtohiminalanguagewhichheunderstands,itwould,inouropinion,amounttoanexplanationtohimofthechargeandthewarninghewouldhaveunderstoodfromtheinterpreterthesubstanceofthechargeandtheimplicationofthewarning.[emphasisadded]

    39Therewasanotherreasonwhywethoughttheclaimthattheappellantwasoflowintellectcouldnotstand.Inhisfirsttwostatementshehadthepresenceofmindtothinkof"AhMeng"tobearresponsibilityforthecrime,whichpersonhelateradmitteddidnotexist.Hetriedtoexplainthatitwasthewayinwhichthepolicequestionedhim thatmadehim thinkof "AhMeng". Thiswasneverput to thepolice officerswhen they testified. So hewas not of such low intellect after all. He was clever enough to think of afictitiouspersontobearthebruntoftheblameforthekilling.Andwiththatkindofamind,howcouldhehavemissedoutthoseallegedabusesorthreatsutteredbythedeceased,ortheactionsofthedeceasedintryingtoreachoutfortheknives,ifthosethingsdidinfactoccur?

    40 What inference should ultimately be drawn under s 122(6) and 123(1) of the CPC against anaccusedforanomissionisreallyamatterofjudgmentforthetrialjudge,whowouldnodoubtconsideritin the light of the nature of the omitted fact(s) in relation to the charge the accused faced. Anotherpertinentfactorwouldbewhetheranychallengehasbeenraisedbytheaccusedconcerningtheadequacyoftheexplanationgiventohim.Therecouldalsobeotherfactors.Butinsofarasthepresentcasewasconcerned, itwas not alleged that the explanation givenwas inadequate. Having heard the appellant'sevidence,thetrial judgewascertainlyentitled, inthecircumstanceshere,todrawanadverse inferenceagainst the appellant. There was simply no basis for this appellate court to interfere with thatdetermination.

    41Therefore,whatremainedtofoundprovocationwerejustthese:thatthedeceasedhadfailedtogivetheappellantAhPoh'saddressthatshetoldhimtoleavethehouseandthreatenedtocallthepoliceifhedidnotthat,onhisrefusal,shehadliftedavaseintendingtothrowathimthatonbeingpursuedtothekitchenshethrewoneortwoporcelaincupsathim.Inthewordsofthetrial judge(PPvLauLeePeng[1999]SGHC315at[18.6]):

    ...Ifoundthattheaccusedinfactcausedmuchoftheprovocation.HehadnospecialrelationshipwiththeDeceased.Hewastold to leavethe flat.Hedidnot.Hewastold thatshewouldcall thepolice.Hestilldidnotleavetheflat.Shewasentitledtoaskhimtoleavetheflatandcallforthepoliceorejecthimfromitasitwasherhome.TheAccusedwaswantingtoremainthereagainsther

    QL113

    QL113

    QL113

    QL113

    QL113

    QL113

    QL113

  • wishes.Hehadalsoinpushingherandcausinghertofallusedphysicalviolenceonherfirst.Herraisingtheporcelainvaseafterthat(whichhegrabbedfromher),herthrowingoftwocupsathimwere as far as her actswere concerned objectively not grave acts of provocation. Shewas onlyrespondingtotheAccused'slayinghishandsonher.

    42Lookingatallthecircumstancesobjectively,theonlythingonecouldconsiderthedeceasedtobeatfaultwasthatshecouldnotfindtheaddressofAhPohafterhavingmadeasearch.Bynostretchoftheimagination could that have amounted to a grave and sudden provocation. Indeed thereafter, as thelearned trial judge rightly pointed out, it was really the appellant who was creating trouble and thedeceased was merely reacting. It was clear to us that the appellant had grossly overreacted to thesituationbeforehim.Evenaccepting that theappellantwasangryat thedeceased for failingto findAhPoh'saddress,areasonablepersoninthepositionoftheappellantwouldnothavereactedtothesituationinthewaytheappellantdidwithsuchextremeviolence.Asmentionedbefore,thedefenceofgraveandsudden provocation is not to protect those who are exceptionally pugnacious, badtempered or oversensitive.

    43Thequestionmaybeaskedwhatwasthereasonormotiveforthekilling.TheProsecutionhadnotexpresslysuggestedanymotiveanditwasnotnecessarytodoso.Itsonlyburdenwastoshowthattheappellant intendedto inflict the injuriescaused,and thisburden ithaddischargedbeyondareasonabledoubt.Thefactthattheappellantmightnothavegonetothedeceased'sflatwiththeintentionofkillingherwasimmaterial.Thereisnorequirementinlawthatapremeditateddesigntokillmustbeestablished.Iftheintentiontokillisprovedtoexist,howeversuddensuchanintentionwasformed,thatwouldamounttomurder:seeShaifulEdhambinAdamvPP[1999]1SLR(R)442.Inthiscasetheappellantdidinfactkillthedeceased.

    Judgment

    44Forthereasonsgivenabove,weweresatisfiedthatthedefenceofgraveandsuddenprovocationwasclearlynotavailabletotheappellantandwe,accordingly,dismissedtheappeal.

    HeadnotedbyTanKhengSiongStanley.