Kho Jabing

Kho Jabing (b. 4 January 1984 – d. 20 May 2016), later in life Muhammad Kho Abdullah, is a Malaysian of Chinese and Iban descent from Sarawak who was convicted of and sentenced to death in 2010 for the 2008 murder of a Chinese national during a robbery in Singapore. After a lengthy appeal process, he was executed in 2016.[1]

Kho Jabing
Born4 January 1984
Sarawak, Malaysia
Died20 May 2016
Changi Prison, Singapore
Other namesMuhammad Kho Abdullah (Muslim name)[2]
Criminal statusExecuted
Criminal chargeMurder
PenaltyDeath penalty (30 July 2010); life imprisonment with 24 strokes of the cane (August 2013); death penalty (14 January 2015)

Early life

Kho Jabing was born on 4 January 1984, the eldest of two children and the only son in his family.[3] His mother Lenduk Anak Baling reportedly gave birth to him in a taxi while on the way to the hospital.[4]

Kho grew up in Ulu Baram, Sarawak, living in a longhouse with his parents and younger sister Jumai Kho. His sister described him as a loving brother, never having fought with his teachers, friends or any others.[5] He was also said to be active, helpful, hard working and responsible. He left school after finishing Primary 6 because his family was not well-off and could not afford to send him to secondary school to further his studies.[6]

After he left schooling, Kho worked at his family's plantation, and later on as a technician for two years in Miri. It was at some point when Kho decided to leave Sarawak and move to Singapore to find employment, in hopes of earning a higher income to provide a better life for his family. While in Singapore, he would make phone calls daily - once in the morning, and once in the night - to his mother.[7]

Murder of Cao Ruyin

On the afternoon of 17 February 2008, Kho, then 24 years old and an employee of a rag and bone company, together with four others - Galing Anak Kujat, Vencent Anak Anding, Alan Anak Ajan, and Anthony Anak Jaban - agreed and intended to rob two Bangaladeshi construction workers and Vencent's colleagues from Vencent's workplace in Tiong Bahru. However, before the plan could be executed, the two workers had left with their boss. The five remained in Tiong Bahru for drinks.

After that, at about 7 pm, they all travelled to Geylang for more drinks, and for this, they had a quarrel over whether they should commit robbery in Geylang in view of their aborted robbery attempt earlier that day. Later on, Kho and Galing, then a shipyard worker, separated from the group. They walked for some distance before spotting two Chinese men walking along a pathway in an open space near Geylang Drive, forming a plan to rob the pair.

The two Chinese men - Chinese nationals and construction workers Cao Ruyin and Wu Jun - were walking together in that same area after dinner when they were unknowingly targeted by the two Sarawakians. Kho picked up a fallen tree branch, and used it to hit one of the men, Cao, from behind. As Kho began to assault Cao, Galing went after Cao's companion Wu and assaulted him, but the 44-year-old managed to escape from Galing with minor injuries. However, Cao was continually struck on the head by Kho. Galing later joined in by using his belt to hit Cao. The assault eventually stopped and the pair also took away Cao's mobile phone.

The unprovoked attack left Cao with 14 skull fractures, in which its severity also caused injuries to the brain. Cao was subsequently rushed to Tan Tock Seng Hospital where doctors operated on him twice to treat his head injuries, but despite the efforts of the doctors, Cao did not recover from these injuries and slipped into a coma. Six days later, on 23 February 2008, Cao Ruyin died at the age of 40. After Cao's death, forensic pathologist Teo Eng Swee conducted an autopsy on the deceased construction worker, and Teo later certified that it was the severe head injuries that killed him.

Arrest and trial

Arrests of Kho Jabing and Galing Anak Kujat

After robbing Cao, Kho Jabing and Galing Kujat regrouped with their three friends and they together sold Cao's mobile phone for $300. The five men each received $50, and the remaining $50 was used to pay for their drinks and food. Nine days later, police investigations based on the retrieved phone records from Cao's handphone led to the arrests of both Kho and Galing on 26 February 2008 (3 days after Cao's death).[8] They were charged with murder, which carries the mandatory death penalty under Singapore law.

Murder trial of Kho Jabing and Galing Anak Kujat

The trial of Kho and Galing began in July 2009. Kho was represented by lawyers Johan Ismail and Zaminder Singh Gill, while Galing was represented by lawyers Chandra Mohan s/o K Nair and Chia Soo Michael, while the prosecution consisted of Deputy Public Prosecutors Leong Wing Tuck and Gordon Oh of the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC). The case was heard before Justice Kan Ting Chiu in the High Court.

Teo, the pathologist who performed an autopsy on the victim Cao Ruyin, testified at the trial and presented his medical report, stating that he believed that the skull fractures on Cao was caused by at least 5 blows or more, and one of these were possibly caused by either a blow or a fall on the back of the head. He added that the first fractures were caused with severe force, and the subsequent ones resulted from less severe impacts on the head. When presented with Galing's belt buckle by the prosecution as a possible weapon used to cause the injuries, Teo could not make any conclusions, but he confirmed from Galing's account that the tree branch which Kho used to hit Cao was capable enough to cause the fractures on Cao's skull. When cross-examined by Kho's lawyer over the possibility of a fall might cause the fractures, Teo noted that he could not rule out that the fracture as being due to a fall, but the injuries were generally due to blunt force. When re-examined by the prosecution, Teo confirmed that a fall could not cause all the injuries sustained by Cao.

Cao's companion Wu Jun also testified how he was attacked by Galing and how he managed to escape and call the police, but he could not tell the court how his friend was attacked, whether himself or Cao was attacked first, or who attacked the deceased.[9]

Kho testified that he only struck the deceased twice, but claimed he did not know the force exerted or where he aimed at; the prosecution later indicated that he said so in his police statements that he hit the victim on the head twice. Kho also insisted that he did not have the intention to kill Cao Ruyin, but only to rob him, stating that he felt deep remorse for causing the death of the victim. Kho also added that he was drunk when he robbed and assaulted Cao.

Galing also claimed no intention to commit murder. His account differed from his police statements; he initially told police he saw Kho hitting the victim several times, but at the trial, he insisted that Kho hit the victim only once. The police officers interrogating Galing were called to the stand and cross-examined by Galing's lawyer over the alleged inaccuracy of the statements. The officers maintained that they did not record the statements incorrectly.

Sentence and verdict

The trial ended on 30 July 2010, around two years and five months after Cao's death. Kan found both Kho Jabing and Galing Kujat guilty of murder and sentenced both of them to death.[10]

In his judgement, Kan determined that both Kho and Galing shared a common intention to commit robbery. He also determined that Kho's actions of causing the injuries on the deceased victim was in the furtherance of the common intention of the pair to rob the victim and his friend, and that the injuries he intentionally caused were in the ordinary cause of nature to cause death, which constitutes an offence of murder committed under section 300(c) of the Penal Code. He also reject Kho's claim of alcohol intoxication as he cited that Kho was able to clearly recount the events that took place, showing full control of his faculties at the time. He stated that Galing's participation in the robbery was an indication of him knowing that his accomplice's actions were likely to cause death and thus he also has to bear that same responsibility as Kho and thus he also convict Galing of murder in lieu of both their common intention, and sentence him to death together with Kho.[10][11]

Defence's appeal

Hearing of appeal and outcome

After their conviction and sentence, both Kho and Galing jointly filed an appeal against their conviction and sentence. For the appeal process, one of Kho's original lawyers Johan Ismail was replaced by James Bahadur Masih, and Zaminder Gill Singh remained as Kho's defence lawyer. For Galing, his original defence counsel was completely replaced by lawyers N Kanagavijayan and Gloria James to help him in his appeal. Oh remained in the prosecuting team while his partner Leong was replaced by Lee Lit Cheng from the AGC. Both men's appeals were heard before Chief Justice (CJ) Chan Sek Keong and two Judges of Appeal (JA) V. K. Rajah and Andrew Phang in the Court of Appeal.

On 24 May 2011, the Court of Appeal released their judgement, and Chan delivered the verdict. For Kho's appeal, the three judges dismissed his appeal and upheld both his conviction and sentence. Chan stated that they were of the opinion that Kan was correct to convict Kho of murder as they agreed that Kho did intentionally caused the fatal injuries on Cao, which were sufficient to cause death even if he had no intent to kill the victim. They also agreed that from the review of evidence presented at the original trial, Kho had demonstrated a considerable amount of violence by inflicting several severe blows on the victim.[12] Kho had also petitioned to the President of Singapore for clemency, but it was rejected.

Fate of Galing Anak Kujat

Coming to the appeal of Galing Kujat, however, the Court of Appeal disagreed with Justice Kan's decision to convict Galing of murder. They agreed that Galing did share a common intention with Kho to commit robbery and cause hurt, but not to intentionally cause any lethal injuries on the victim. They also added that there was no evidence to show the type of injury inflicted by Galing on Cao, no evidence on any discussion or planning, and also no evidence of Galing making any moves to make Kho to assault Cao more easily to cause him to sustain fatal skull fractures and death.[13]

Therefore, the Court of Appeal found Galing not guilty of murder. Instead, they convict him of a lower charge of robbery with hurt under section 394 of the Penal Code, and ordered that his case was to be remitted to the original trial judge for re-sentencing.[14][13] For his part in the robbery of the Chinese nationals, Galing was re-sentenced to 18 years and six months' imprisonment and 19 strokes of the cane. The allowing of Galing's appeal left Kho Jabing the sole robber to hang for the murder of Cao Ruyin.

Changes to the law

Re-sentencing

In July 2012, the government decided to make a review of the mandatory death penalty applied to certain drug trafficking or murder offences. In the midst of this review, a moratorium was imposed on all the 35 pending executions in Singapore at that time, including Kho Jabing's.[15]

In January 2013, the law was amended to make the death penalty no longer mandatory for certain capital offences. The judges in Singapore were given an option to impose a discretionary sentence of life imprisonment with or without caning for offenders who commit murder but had no intention to kill (the death penalty remains mandatory only for murder offences committed with intention to kill, which came under section 300(a) of the Penal Code). This discretion is similarly applied to those convicted of drug trafficking, provided that they only act as couriers, suffering from impaired mental responsibility (eg. depression) or any other conditions. For this, all death row inmates were given a chance to have their cases to be reviewed for re-sentencing.[16][17]

For this, through his newly appointed defence counsel (which consisted of lawyers Anand Nalachandran, Josephus Tan and Keith Lim), Kho Jabing applied for re-sentencing. His case, together with that of another convicted murderer Bijukumar Remadevi Nair Gopinathan (who was eventually re-sentenced to life imprisonment and 18 strokes of the cane for the 2010 robbery and murder of a Filipino prostitute), became the first two cases to be sent back to the High Court for re-sentencing.[18] Kho's case was ordered to be remitted to the original trial judge for re-sentencing; however, by this time, Kan had retired from the Bench since 27 August 2011 at the age of 65, and Justice Tay Yong Kwang was appointed to do the work instead.[15]

DPP Seraphina Fong, the prosecutor who took over the case in the retrial, argued that the death penalty should be reimposed on Kho. She raised the fact that Kho possess a high culpability by setting upon vulnerable victims, arming himself with a weapon and using excessive force. He had also exhibited violence and viciousness when bludgeoning the victim on the head with the tree branch. In her prosecution, Fong said that the death penalty ought to be imposed on persons who use "gratuitous violence without regard to the risk of fatality to their victims". In addition, she also said that Kho's crime "would outrage the feelings of the community" and called on the court to take a strong stance against "violent, opportunistic and heinous crimes". She also said that the crime was concocted out of Kho's greed and committed with a scant disregard for human life, which warrants severe condemnation and lack of condonement by the community. Fong described the self-induced alcohol intoxication by Kho as aggravating, and she said there should be no leniency even with the offender's remorse, personal circumstances and lack of criminal record, as Cao's family had suffered grief as a result of his untimely death at the hands of Kho himself.[15]

In defence, Anand and Tan argued that Kho may have had the intention to rob Cao Ruyin, but before that, he did not bring any weapons or masterminded the robbery of the Chinese nationals. They also cited their client's lack of criminal records or records of violent crime in Singapore and Malaysia in their arguments. They also argue over Kho's young age at that time, his deep remorse over the tragic incident and his wish to seek forgiveness from the victim's family, and the tragedies which his family had to face before, during and after the court proceedings of Kho, especially the death of Kho's father before his son's trial (it is mentioned from a source that Kho's father never got to see his son one last time before his death), and that the family were financially unable to visit him during his time in prison. They also pointed out the words of Kho's mother written in the clemency petition submitted earlier to the President, which said that her son's death sentence would also be a death sentence for her. The lawyers conceded that the victim Cao Ruyin's bereaved family could be in the same position as Kho's, but they said that "the loss of another life would only add to the tragedy and sorrow from this unfortunate and ill-fated robbery and would not serve the ends of justice."[15]

Not only that, the defence counsel also said that life imprisonment should be the “starting and default position” for all cases in subject to their respective factors, and that the death penalty should be imposed restrictively and “ought to be the exception rather than the rule”. They cited that there was a decline in the number of homicidal cases and the number of fatal assaults during a robbery throughout the years. They aso added that there was an unclear and undisputed sequence of events and circumstances of the crime, the insufficient aggravation surrounding the case, the brutality displayed was not exceptional to require a death sentence and that the fatal outcome of the injuries were inadvertent.[15]

As he was not the original trial judge for Kho's murder trial, Tay referenced Kan's written verdict, as well as that of the Court of Appeal in order to reach his decision in this case. It was on 14 August 2013 when Justice Tay released his decision, in which he decided that the death penalty would be inappropriate in the case of Kho Jabing, as he had taken into consideration Kho's young age (24 years old) at the time of the offence and his choice and use of weapon during the robbery, which was "opportunistic and improvisational". He additionally disagreed with the defence's earlier argument that a life term would be the starting and default position in sentencing when it comes to all cases in relation to its respective circumstances. Nevertheless, Tay set aside the death sentence passed upon Kho Jabing, and instead sentenced him to life imprisonment. He ordered that Kho's life sentence would commence from the date of his arrest on 26 February 2008. Tay also ordered that Kho was to receive the maximum of 24 strokes of the cane, based on the violence he exhibited during his attack on Cao and the resulting grievous consequences. Kho Jabing was the second convicted murderer to escape the gallows after convicted murderer and death row convict Fabian Adiu Edwin, who was re-sentenced to life imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane in July 2013 for robbing and murdering a security guard in 2008; Fabian was 18 years old at the time of the commission of his crime.[19] According to his lawyers, Kho was said to have expressed relief and gratitude to the fact that he would be not hanged before being taken away.[20][15][21]

Prosecution's appeal

Hearing of prosecution's appeal

In November 2013, the prosecution filed an appeal against the re-sentencing of Kho; it was the first time an appeal was made against the High Court's decision to re-sentence a convicted murderer to life imprisonment in Singapore.[22]

A rare five-judge Court of Appeal, consisting of two Judges of Appeal Chao Hick Tin and Andrew Phang, and three High Court Judges Chan Seng Onn, Lee Seiu Kin and Woo Bih Li, was set to hear the appeal. Normally, in the Court of Appeal, all appeals were heard before three judges. Proceeding with its appeal, the prosecution mainly argued for Kho to be sentenced to death instead of giving him life imprisonment with caning, on the grounds that during his attack on Cao Ruyin, Kho had done so in a extremely vicious manner and many other factors which they also raised at Kho's re-trial.[23]

Verdict

On 14 January 2015, the five-judge Court of Appeal returned with a 3-2 majority decision in favour of allowing the prosecution's appeal. As a result of this decision, the life sentence given to Kho was changed back to a death sentence.[24][25] Among the five judges, Chao, Phang and Chan were all in favour of allowing the appeal, while Lee and Woo dissented with separate judgements.[26]

Due to the fact that this particular appeal marked the first time when a decision of re-sentencing was challenged by the prosecution, the judges detailed their considerations that led to them reaching their decision. The central elements in the majority judgement were viciousness and a demonstrated blatant disregard for human life by the offender, which were the factors that made the death penalty appropriate. They also wrote, "It is the manner in which the offender acted which takes centre stage. For example, in the case of a violent act leading to death, the savagery of the attack would be indicative of the offender's regard for human life. The number of stabs or blows, the area of the injury, the duration of the attack and the force used would all be pertinent factors to be considered."[26]

Chao, who delivered the majority judgement in the court, stated that they found that in Kho's case, he simply did not care less as to whether Cao would survive even though his mere intention was, together with his accomplice Galing Anak Kujat, to rob Cao and his companion. The verdict also found that "this was a case where even after the deceased was no longer retaliating (after the first blow), the Respondent (referring to Kho Jabing) went on to strike the deceased an additional number of times, completely unnecessary given that his initial intention was merely to rob him." In addition, Chao also addressed the minority judges' view of insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Kho did struck Cao on the head at least thrice or more (a point which Chao, Chan and Phang disagreed with). From the verdict, Chao said, "Even if we were to accept the position that it was unclear as to how many times the Respondent had struck the head of the deceased, what is vitally important to bear in mind is that what we have here was a completely shattered skull. Bearing in mind the fact that the alleged intention of the Respondent and Galing was merely to rob the deceased, what the Respondent did underscores the savagery of the attack which was characterised by needless violence that went well beyond the pale."[26]

On the other hand, the remaining two dissenting judges - Lee and Woo - made a total reconsideration over the finding of facts made by the Court of Appeal when Kho was sentenced to death the first time. In their separate, but dissenting judgements, both Lee and Woo agreed with the majority that the discretionary death penalty should be applied to those particular murder cases where an offender demonstrated viciousness and/or a blatant disregard for human life despite having a substantiated lack of intention to kill, as laid out by the majority. However, they disagreed with the fact that Kho had substantially demonstrated any of the above to warrant a death sentence for his case.

In his individual judgement, Lee said that there is no clear evidence of the exact number of blows Kho inflicted on Cao's head - Kho's statements and oral testimonies in court said that he only hit the victim twice; Galing told police that he saw Kho hitting the victim repeatedly, yet he said in court that Kho did it only once; the medical evidence had suggested one or more blows from each man and a possible fall causing one of the fractures - or that he had inflicted more than two strikes with great force on Cao's head, as well as many other facts. As such, he concluded that the life sentence and reprieve given to Kho should be upheld while dismissing the prosecution's appeal, as there is insufficient evidence to suggest a repeated cycle of assaults on the victim by Kho and that the injuries were intended minimally to incapacitate the victim. Woo reflected his agreement with Lee's finding of facts through the writings in his own individual dissenting judgement, though he additionally stated that there is some risk relying on Galing's evidence due to the discrepancies in his evidence to the police and on court and that he might be inclined to concoct some of it to deflect blame from himself for Cao's unfortunate death. Kho's lawyer Anand Nalachandran told reporters that Kho's feelings were one of "understandably hopeful" after the sentence was passed. The only hope left for him, was an appeal to the President of Singapore for clemency.[27]

Later years and execution

Second clemency plea

After he was sentenced to death the second time, Kho Jabing filed for clemency a second time, to President Tony Tan to have his death sentence commuted to life imprisonment. During that time, or long before that presumably, Kho began to convert from Christianity to Islam, and adopted a Muslim name, Muhammad Kho Abdullah.[28]

On 19 October 2015, on the advice of the Cabinet, President Tony Tan decided to not grant Kho Jabing clemency and turned down his petition. Soon after, an execution order was set for Kho, scheduling him to be hanged on 5 November 2015. Kho's family were not informed of the pending execution long beforehand.

James Masing, a senior state minister from Sarawak, acknowledged the execution and said it would not be appropriate for the Malaysian government to interfere in Singapore's justice system, just as they themselves do not want other countries to interfere with their country's judicial system. He also urged Sarawakians working overseas to respect and abide by the law of the other countries where they currently work or live in.[29]

Stay of execution granted

On the night before Kho's execution, Kho's family engaged another lawyer, Chandra Mohan K Nair (Galing Kujat's original defence lawyer), to take over Kho's case. After being appointed, Chandra filed a criminal motion to reduce his client's sentence; and petitioned for a stay of execution to allow more time to prepare his client's case.

The next day, the Court of Appeal granted a stay of execution, effectively suspending Kho's scheduled execution while pending the outcome of the appeal. The prosecution objected to this decision, arguing that there were no arguable issues raised in the criminal motion. Chandra told reporters that he wanted the court "to give us a second chance to go back to the hearing to go through all those all over again before the trial judge". He also said that Kho's original trial did not go into details of the evidence surrounding the severity of the injuries and the degree of force exerted to inflict these injuries.

The appeal was heard on 23 November 2015. The case caught the attention of Amnesty International and We Believe in Second Chances (WBSC), an anti-death penalty group in Singapore.[30] At the same time, Malaysian lawyers from the Malaysian Bar, Advocates' Association of Sarawak and Sabah Law Association lobbied the Malaysian government to intervene and commute Kho Jabing's sentence to life imprisonment, if the appeal were to fail and the death sentence on Kho Jabing was maintained.[31] WBSC also facilitated a press conference with Kho's family and several activist groups appealing to the President of Singapore for clemency.[32]

Appeal dismissed: Kho Jabing's death

On 5 April 2016, the five-judge Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed Kho Jabing's appeal and maintained the death sentence. Justice Chao Hick Tin stated in the judges' verdict that the defence had rehashed their arguments and produced little new material, much less compelling ones to sufficiently made them re-consider their earlier decision to sentence Kho to death. They also took note of the rise in numbers of applications made to reopen concluded criminal appeals (including Kho Jabing's); he said that the court would only reopen exceptional cases where there is new and compelling evidence to show that there had been a miscarriage of justice, or that a decision is wrong, tainted by fraud or is a breach of natural justice, for which Kho's case was not one of them. The judgement considered "the present application ... an attempt to re-litigate a matter which had already been fully argued and thoroughly considered". A new date was to be set once again to carry out the hanging of Kho. Before he was led away, Kho told his mother and sister to accept his fate. Kho's family members, including a young niece, declined to speak to the media.[33][34]

Eventually, a second death warrant was made. In the execution order, Kho's execution was scheduled to be carried out on the morning of 20 May 2016. On 2 May 2016, the final 18 days before Kho's imminent hanging, Kho's family and activist groups gathered at another press conference in Sarawak, once again asking for clemency. The WBSC also attempted to gather signatures to petition the President for clemency.[35]

Despite the efforts to save his life, including two last-minute appeals filed by his lawyers, 32-year-old Kho Jabing was finally executed in Changi Prison at 3.30 pm on the Friday afternoon of 20 May 2016, shortly after the dismissal of his final appeal on that morning itself. This was the first execution in Singapore not conducted at the usual timing of 6 am.[1]

Impact on other cases

Murder of Yuen Swee Hong

The outcome of the prosecution's appeal set the main guiding principles for judges to decide when the death penalty should be warranted - whether an offender had demonstrated a blatant disregard for human life or viciousness or both during the killing - and when it was inappropriate based on the circumstances of whichever case. Directly, it impacted on another appeal made by the prosecution against another High Court decision to re-sentence a murderer to life imprisonment.

Another appeal filed by the prosecution for the re-sentencing of a murderer was that of convicted murderer and Chinese national Wang Wenfeng. Wang was initially sentenced to death for killing 58-year-old taxi driver Yuen Swee Hong during an attempted armed robbery, but he was eventually re-sentenced to life imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane on 14 November 2013 after the new death penalty laws took effect in January of that same year. Wang committed the crime on 11 April 2009 when he tried to rob Yuen and threatened him from behind the driver's seat with the knife. A struggle ensued, and the driver was injured with knife wounds and bled heavily. Panicked upon seeing the driver's limp body, Wang tought that the man had died and abandoned the body in a nearby forest. He later attempted to extort ransom by using Yuen's phone to contact Yuen's widow, Mdm Chan Oi Lin, lying to her that her husband was kidnapped. Chan, who had a son and daughter with Yuen, contacted the police without the realisation that her husband had died. Wang was promptly arrested and despite his denials of the crime, Wang later confessed to the killing out of eventual guilt. Wang was charged with murder and later sentenced to death in September 2011; he also lost his appeal sometime before his re-sentencing. The reasons behind his re-sentencing was that he had no intention to murder but to rob, and there was no premeditation to cause death.

DPP Bala Reddy, who lead the prosecution in the re-sentencing trial, argued in that trial itself that Wang's case deserved the death penalty because Wang had shown a high degree of premeditation and planning in committing the crime and the time he chosen to commit the crime - 4 in the morning - was the time likely to have a lower risk of detection of his crime, and there should be a deterrence of future crimes committed against public transport workers, especially taxi drivers; and the courts should severely punish those who commit violent, opportunistic and heinous offences. Wang's defence lawyer Wendell Wong meanwhile, argued for a life term with not more than 10 strokes of the cane, pointed out that there is no increase in the number of cases where taxi drivers were killed, a point which Justice Lee Seiu Kin (the High Court judge presiding Wang's original trial) agreed with. He also said if Wang had wanted to kill Yuen, he would not have to wait for the struggle to erupt. Wong also said, "He (referring to Wang Wenfeng) had every opportunity and the upper hand to stab Yuen the moment he stepped into the rear passenger side of the taxi." But Wang did not do so.[36]

Like in Kho Jabing's case, the prosecution filed an appeal for the death penalty on Wang. At the time of the delivery of the judgement of the appeal over Kho's case, the prosecution is still appealing against Wang's sentence. While pending its appeal, the prosecution reviewed Wang's case extensively while they referred to the written verdict of Kho's case. Eventually, they decided to drop the appeal against Wang, effectively making Wang Wenfeng ultimately escaping the gallows, as the degree of decomposition of Yuen Swee Hong's corpse made it so that the prosecution could not assess the brutality of Wang's attack on the deceased victim. They also took note that unlike Kho's premeditated assault on Cao Ruyin, Wang injured the taxi driver during a struggle.[37] Wang is currently in prison serving his life sentence. He was the fifth convicted murderer to escape the gallows since the changes to the law, as preceded by Kamrul Hasan Abdul Quddus, a Bangladeshi national who was re-sentenced to imprisonment for life with 10 strokes of the cane for the 2007 murder of his girlfriend.[38]

2010 Kallang slashings: the murder of Shanmuganathan Dillidurai

The guiding principles set by the judgement of Kho's case had also made an impact on some subsequent murder cases and appeals. One example is the 2010 Kallang Slashings, where a group of robbers from Sarawak committed a series of violent robberies around Kallang Area, leading to the violent death of Indian construction worker Shanmuganathan Dillidurai during the last of these robberies. One of the perpetrators, 30-year-old Micheal Anak Garing, who used a 58 cm long parang to fatally attack and slash Shanmuganathan while robbing him, was convicted of murder in 2014 and executed in 2019;[39] in upholding Micheal's death sentence, the Court of Appeal, with reference to the judgement of Kho's case, were satisfied that Micheal, unlike one of his accomplices and co-defendant Tony Imba (who received a life sentence with caning for murder), had attacked Shanmuganathan in a savage and merciless manner and demonstrated a blatant disregard for human life during the attack.[40]

Murder of Dexmon Chua Yizhi

Another example is a 58-year-old murder convict named Chia Kee Chen, whose life imprisonment sentence was overturned by the Court of Appeal upon the prosecution's appeal and was given the death penalty in June 2018 for the brutal murder of his wife's 37-year-old lover Dexmon Chua Yizhi. On 28-29 December 2013, Chia abducted the victim with two accomplices, Indonesian Febri Irwansyah Djatmiko and Singaporean Chua Leong Aik, and inside their van, he and Febri grievously assaulted the victim until he died. Chua Leong Aik, who acted as driver, was given a five-year jail term while Febri went on the run till today. The Court of Appeal, in sentencing Chia to death, citing the guiding principles set by Kho's case, stated that the unremorseful Chia had "exhibited such viciousness and such a blatant disregard for the life of the deceased, and are so grievous an affront to humanity and so abhorrent that the death penalty is the appropriate, indeed the only adequate sentence", given that he masterminded the abduction out of revenge for his wife's adultery, shown a high degree of premeditation and planning and his only regret for not giving the victim Dexmon Chua more suffering before his unfortunate death. As of August 2020, Chia is still on death row and has yet to be hanged.[41][42][43]

Chan Lie Sian v Public Prosecutor

The prosecution's appeal against Chia Kee Chen's case, as well as the case of Kho Jabing, was also crucial to helping 55-year-old brothel owner Chan Lie Sian to escape the gallows. Chan, alias Benny Seow, was initially sentenced to death on 31 May 2017 for the 2014 murder of 35-year-old William Tiah Hung Wai, but he later won his appeal on 30 July 2019 and was re-sentenced to incarceration for life by the Court of Appeal.[44][45] Chan's case was that he found some $6,500 in cash missing from his brothel, and suspected Tiah, who pimped at his brothel, as the one who stole the money. After Tiah came to the brothel as summoned by Chan, Chan physically assaulted Tiah (who denied stealing the $6,500) by using a dumbbell to hit him while asking for the whereabouts of the missing money until the victim fell unconscious. 10 injuries were caused on Tiah's head and it landed him to hospital, where he would die exactly a week later on 21 January 2014, the day before Tiah's 36th birthday.[46]

Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, and Judges of Appeal Andrew Phang and Judith Prakash, who heard Chan's appeal, found that Judicial Commissioner Hoo Sheau Peng had erred in convicting Chan of murder under Section 300(a) of the Penal Code and sentencing him to the mandatory penalty of death, as there was no intention on Chan's part to cause death, and that some of William Tiah's injuries were caused by "interventing objects" and not from Chan's assault as evidenced by the forensic expert's court testimony. Furthermore, if Chan intended to cause death, he would have done it during those moments where there were no witnesses and the victim being helpless on the bed, and he would not have splashed water on Tiah's face to attempt to revive him and threatened to further attack the victim once he woke up under the eyes of a witness. Hence, they instead convicted Chan of murder under Section 300(c) of the Penal Code. With regards to the sentence, the Court of Appeal also found that from the facts of the case, Chan did not deserve the death penalty as he did not exhibit any blatant disregard for human life or viciousness in contrast to Kho Jabing's case. They also accept that Chan was not aware of the fatality of the injuries he caused to Tiah from the time of and aftermath of the attack. Chan had surrendered himself to the police 2 days after the assault, with the assumption that Tiah's injuries were not fatal, and he would be charged and tried for voluntarily causing grievous hurt. Hence, Chan escaped with his life and received a life term instead. No caning is imposed due to his age.[47]

2016 Gardens by the Bay murder

Through Chia Kee Chen's case, the guiding principles from Kho's case had also indirectly determined the final fate of 51-year-old Leslie Khoo Kwee Hock, who was sentenced to life imprisonment on 19 August 2019.[48][49] He was convicted of murder under Section 300(b) of the Penal Code the month before for the death of his 31-year-old lover, Chinese national Cui Yajie, whom he met in 2015.[50] When they first met, Khoo pretended to be a divorcee owning a laundry business when he was actually married with a son and was a retail manager of that same laundry business he claimed was his. The relationship would later on be riddled with quarrels over Khoo spending less time with Cui and a debt of $20,000 which he owed her for making investment with that same amount of money in gold (half of that amount was paid back by Khoo asking a former lover to remit the money in Cui's father's bank account). It was on that fateful day when Cui wanted to go to Khoo's workplace, supposedly to expose Khoo's lies, but Khoo intercepted her, taking her to a secluded place near Gardens by the Bay to calm her down. It was then during a heated quarrel, Khoo strangled Cui to death. He later took the body to Choa Chu Kang and burnt it for several days before his arrest. This case was known as the Gardens by the Bay Murder in media reports.

High Court judge Audrey Lim noted in her judgement that in contrast to Chia Kee Chen's case (and indirectly, Kho Jabing's case), Leslie Khoo did not show any blatant disregard for human life or viciousness from the manner of killing, for which his case would not warrant the death penalty. She also accept that there is no premeditation of killing Cui Yajie on Khoo's part, as his intention all along was just to calm her down and dissuade her from confronting his supervisors, before the tragic incident. She also noted that even though Khoo had gone to great lengths to dispose the body to cover up his crime and never called for help when Cui went motionless, it was not an relevant factor to be considered during sentencing. Khoo, who denied having an affair with Cui and claimed abnormality of mind and other factors in his defence throughout the court proceedings, was spared the cane as he was above 50 years old at the time of sentencing.[51] He is currently appealing against his murder conviction and sentence.[52]

Public Prosecutor v Toh Sia Guan

Kho Jabing's case, as well as Chia Kee Chen's, was once again mentioned in the case of 67-year-old Toh Sia Guan, a rag and bone man who murdered a 52-year-old coffee shop assistant named Goh Eng Thiam by inflicting a fatal stab wound across Goh's right upper arm, which cut through a major blood vessel and caused him to bleed to death. Earlier before the incident on that fateful day of 9 July 2016, Toh was involved in a dispute with Goh, and got into a fight before Toh left to purchase a knife to settle scores with the man once more. This resulted into a second fight which cost Goh Eng Thiam his life.Toh was arrested 12 days later at Labrador Park MRT station and charged with murder, and his trial started on 6 August 2019.

High Court judge Aedit Abdullah, who found Toh Sia Guan guilty and convict him of murder under Section 300(c) of the Penal Code in February 2020 before reserving his judgement until 2 March 2020, accepted that Toh did not reflect any blatant disregard for human life or viciousness during the fight with Goh Eng Thiam, because of the absence of premeditation and planning as compared to Chia's case, and also unlike Kho Jabing (who injured Cao Ruyin by surprise and further assaulted him even after he was down), Toh injured the victim during a fight where he is still retaliating against him and never further made any additional injuries on the victim. Because of these above factors, and the absence of outrage of the feelings of the community from Toh's actions, Justice Aedit found the death penalty inappropriate in Toh's case and hence sentenced him to imprisonment for life with effect from 21 July 2016, the date of Toh's remand. Toh was not subjected to caning due to his age. Not only did Justice Aedit referred to Kho Jabing and Chia Kee Chen's cases in his verdict while making his decision, he also cited the cases of Chan Lie Sian and Micheal Anak Garing while determining whether Toh acted in a manner where it particularly warranted the death penalty while murdering Goh. Toh is currently appealing against his conviction and sentence.[53][54][55][56]

Circuit Road Flat Murder

The murder of Zhang Huaxiang at a rented flat in Circuit Road on 22 March 2016 was another case where Kho Jabing's case was once again, mentioned and referred to. The 28-year-old Chinese national and nurse was found strangled to death on her bed, and the owner of the flat and Zhang's murderer, then-47-year-old Boh Soon Ho, fled Singapore into Malaysia, where he was arrested on 4 April of that same year. Boh was said to have a close relationship with Zhang sicne 2011 or 2012, regarding her as his girlfriend but his feelings for her were not reciprocated and they never been physically intimate. He found out that she was seeing other men and was angry and suspicious. When he asked her about it and received an reply that she did, Boh was enraged and used a towel to strangle her to death, before attempting to have sex with Zhang's corpse. The case became known as the Circuit Road flat murder.

Boh, who was represented by prominent lawyer Eugene Thuraisingam, was subsequently brought to trial in September 2019 and convicted of murder under Section 300(c) of the Penal Code on 7 February 2020, as the trial judge, Justice Pang Khang Chau, rejected Boh's defence of grave and sudden provocation and loss of self-control despite acknowledging that Boh was indeed provoked into killing Zhang, as he found the provocative acts from Zhang was not sufficiently grave enough to have Boh convicted of a reduced charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The next day, 51-year-old Boh Soon Ho was sentenced to life imprisonment, nearly 4 years after the death of Zhang Huaxiang. Justice Pang stated in his judgement that he accepted Boh's killing of Zhang was not premeditated, and that there were no viciousness or blatant disregard for human life in the case as compared to Kho Jabing's case, which made the death penalty inappropriate in Boh's case; the judge also took note of Boh's low IQ of 74 and his remorse over the incident during sentencing. Thuraisingam confirmed that Boh will file an appeal against his conviction and sentence, which is currently pending.[57][58]

References
  1. Lum, Selina (20 May 2016). "Convicted murderer Jabing Kho hanged after latest bid to escape gallows fails". The Straits Times. Retrieved 18 May 2020.
  2. "Counsellor shares final moments with Kho Jabing". AsiaOne. Retrieved 4 July 2020.
  3. "Public Prosecutor v Kho Jabing" (PDF). Supreme Court Judgements. Retrieved 2020-05-18.
  4. "The life of Kho Jabing". Malaysiakini. Retrieved 3 July 2020.
  5. "Family of Sarawak man Kho Jabing, who is on death row, pleads with Singapore to spare his life". The Straits Times. Retrieved 3 July 2020.
  6. "Jabing's story". YouTube. Retrieved 5 July 2020.
  7. "The life of Kho Jabing". Malaysiakini. Retrieved 3 July 2020.
  8. "Victim's cellphone led to arrest of attackers". National Library Board. Retrieved 5 July 2020.
  9. "I saw only one assailant, says man hurt in attack". National Library Board. Retrieved 5 July 2020.
  10. "Public Prosecutor v Galing Anak Kujat and Another" (PDF). Supreme Court Judgements. Retrieved 2020-05-18.
  11. "Sarawakian duo get death sentence for murdering Chinese worker". The Star. Retrieved 5 July 2020.
  12. "Kho Jabing and another v Public Prosecutor" (PDF). Supreme Court Judgements. Retrieved 18 May 2020.
  13. "Malaysian man escapes gallows". National Library Board. Retrieved 5 July 2020.
  14. "新加坡两大马嫌犯抢劫中国客工致死 1人逃脱死刑". 环球网 (in Chinese). 26 May 2011. Retrieved 18 May 2020.
  15. "Public Prosecutor v Kho Jabing" (PDF). Supreme Court Judgements. Retrieved 2020-05-18.
  16. "The Big Read: Capital punishment — a little more conversation on a matter of life and death". Today Singapore. Retrieved 6 July 2020.
  17. "Singapore completes review of mandatory death penalty". Channel NewsAsia. Retrieved 6 July 2020.
  18. Lum, Selina (1 May 2013). "Two death row cases sent back for review". The Straits Times. Retrieved 20 June 2020.
  19. Abu Baker, Jalelah (16 January 2015). "Murderer fails to escape the gallows: 6 other cases involving the revised death penalty laws". The Straits Times. Retrieved 18 May 2020.
  20. "Second convicted murderer escapes gallows". Today Singapore. Retrieved 7 July 2020.
  21. "Murderer gets life in prison instead of death sentence". AsiaOne. Retrieved 7 July 2020.
  22. "First appeal made against resentencing of convicted murderer". Today Singapore. Retrieved 8 July 2020.
  23. "Public Prosecutor v Kho Jabing" (PDF). Supreme Court Judgements. Retrieved 8 July 2020.
  24. "Convicted murderer fails to escape gallows a second time". The Straits Times. Retrieved 10 July 2020.
  25. "Apex court sentences man to hang for murder, cancelling reprieve". Today Singapore. Retrieved 10 July 2020.
  26. Abu Baker, Jalelah (16 January 2015). "Murderer fails to escape the gallows: 6 other cases involving the revised death penalty laws". The Straits Times. Retrieved 18 May 2020.
  27. "Public Prosecutor v Kho Jabing" (PDF). Supreme Court Judgements. Retrieved 8 July 2020.
  28. "Counsellor shares final moments with Kho Jabing". AsiaOne. Retrieved 11 July 2020.
  29. "Sarawak won't interfere in Kho Jabing's S'pore execution: M'sian minister". Today Singapore. Retrieved 12 July 2020.
  30. "Eleventh-hour stay of execution for man sentenced to hang". Today Singapore. Retrieved 12 July 2020.
  31. "Malaysian lawyers urge government to save Sarawakian on death row in Singapore". Today Singapore. Retrieved 12 July 2020.
  32. "Kho Jabing's family pleads to Singapore for clemency". AsiaOne. Retrieved 12 July 2020.
  33. "Jabing Kho to hang after bid to commute sentence fails". Today Singapore. Retrieved 12 July 2020.
  34. "Kho Jabing asks family to accept his fate". The Star. Retrieved 12 July 2020.
  35. "Family of Sarawakian Jabing Kho, on death row in Singapore, to make last-gasp bid for clemency". The Straits Times. Retrieved 12 July 2020.
  36. Lee, Amanda (14 November 2013). "Man spared the gallows despite killing cabbie". Today. Singapore. Archived from the original on 2016-01-29. Retrieved 25 January 2015.
  37. Lum, Selina (20 April 2015). "Murderer escapes death after prosecution drops appeal". The Straits Times. Retrieved 18 May 2020.
  38. Lum, Selina (12 November 2013). "Bangladeshi escapes death penalty for girlfriend's murder". The Straits Times. Retrieved 7 August 2020.
  39. "Kallang slasher hanged after clemency bid fails". The Straits Times. Retrieved 1 July 2020.
  40. "Micheal Anak Garing v Public Prosecutor and Public Prosecutor v Tony Anak Imba" (PDF). Supreme Court Judgements. Retrieved 1 July 2020.
  41. Lum, Selina (27 June 2018). "Businessman who murdered wife's ex-lover sentenced to death upon prosecution's appeal". The Straits Times. Retrieved 11 July 2020.
  42. "Public Prosecutor v Chia Kee Chen and Chia Kee Chen v Public Prosecutor" (PDF). Supreme Court Judgements. Retrieved 1 July 2020.
  43. "【林厝港弃尸案】商人改判死刑 死者父母：终于为儿讨公道". 联合早报 (in Chinese). Retrieved 11 July 2020.
  44. Lum, Selina (1 June 2017). "Brothel operator gets death for murdering pimp". The Straits Times. Retrieved 8 August 2020.
  45. Lum, Selina (31 July 2019). "Brothel operator gets life term, instead of death, for murdering pimp". The Straits Times. Retrieved 8 August 2020.
  46. "Brothel owner spared the gallows for murdering pimp, jailed for life instead". Today Singapore. Retrieved 8 August 2020.
  47. "Chan Lie Sian v Public Prosecutor" (PDF). Supreme Court Judgements. Retrieved 1 July 2020.
  48. Lum, Selina (19 August 2019). "Gardens by the Bay murder trial: Leslie Khoo sentenced to life imprisonment for killing lover, burning her body". The Straits Times. Retrieved 11 July 2020.
  49. "林厝港烧尸案被告逃过死刑　高庭两大原因判终生监禁". 红蚂蚁 (in Chinese). Retrieved 11 July 2020.
  50. Lum, Selina (18 July 2019). "Gardens by the Bay murder trial: Man who strangled China mistress and burned her body found guilty". The Straits Times. Retrieved 11 July 2020.
  51. "Public Prosecutor v Khoo Kwee Hock Leslie" (PDF). Supreme Court Judgements. Retrieved 1 July 2020.
  52. Lam, Lydia (24 September 2019). "Gardens by the Bay murderer to appeal against conviction, life imprisonment sentence". Channel NewsAsia. Retrieved 11 July 2020.
  53. "Public Prosecutor v Toh Sia Guan" (PDF). Singapore Law Watch. Retrieved 1 July 2020.
  54. Low, Dominic (3 March 2020). "Man jailed for life for murdering coffee shop assistant". The Straits Times. Retrieved 11 July 2020.
  55. Vijayan, K. C. (15 May 2020). "Killer spared the gallows as factors weighed in his favour: Judge". The Straits Times. Retrieved 11 July 2020.
  56. "Murderer spared gallows as factors weighed in his favour: Judge". The New Paper. Retrieved 11 July 2020.
  57. Lum, Selina (8 February 2020). "Circuit Road murder: Man, 51, gets life sentence for strangling nurse". The Straits Times. Retrieved 11 July 2020.
  58. "Public Prosecutor v Boh Soon Ho" (PDF). Supreme Court Judgements. Retrieved 1 July 2020.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.