Anyway, it seems that the PP lives in a different timeline as us. For him, a 10 minutes statement of facts can last up to 1/2 hour. Or more. (I wasn't keeping count) What I do know, is that in court, it IS appropriate to cite a truckload of cases just to submit ONE point. Furthermore, one has to give a full summary of facts of each individual case to educate the unlearned judge unless he says otherwise. What surprised me was that the PP avoided the microphone. Instead, relying on his (not so) powerful voice to assert the judge that Lim Poh Ley should be sentenced under 300(c). I believe he had succeeded. Because I saw physical evidence that the judge was so fascinated by the PP's arguement that he was leaning forward on his high and mighty seat in all eagerness to lap up every word the PP said.
Though the PP was bad and couldn't be heard at all, the Defence for the 1st respondant (Lim!) was worse. He could be heard, coz he used the microphone, but made no sense. I will always remember this day in court because if you thought that our practice moots were bad, well... let's say you can still earn big bucks litigating. "Stabbing when the leg is moving.. very hard to intentionally cause stab wound #2. The leg very long. Got thigh and knee and calf...very long... moving.." That was probably his entire 10 minute point on why the stab wound #2 which caused death was unintentional. He said nothing else!
The Defence for the 2nd respondant was better in that he was clear. but he was like churning out one textbook example after another. He even cited Michael Hor! (Prononced w-hore~ oops, no offence~) But from his his examples and layout of his argument, it really seemed like he had consulted the latest Chan Wing Cheong, Ramraj and Michael Hor's textbook in preparing his submissions. Wonder if he bought it at $160. In all, the actual Court of Appeal was pretty boring. The judges didn't ask any relevant mind-boggling questions or try to make the Defence look stupid. He pretty much did that for himself. Heh.
The case itself I presume had the most number of 'viewers' today in court. Namely, us silly year 1 law students.
A brief summary of facts:-
The two accused, Lim (40+) and Koh (30+), together with a third man, Ng (still at large!), planned to rob the victim. They would abduct the victim in his car and force him to sign some cheques. They would then draw the cheques, drug the victim, leave him in his car, and flee. On Ng’s suggestion, they brought knives along to threaten or coerce the victim.
On 2 April 2004, the trio met up and abducted him in his car as planned. Whilst driving, they got hold of the victim’s chequebook, and forced him to sign several cheques. Throughout the journey in the car the victim made several attempts to escape. To prevent escape, the trio assaulted him. Lim stabbed the victim’s legs. The victim subsequently died. There were a total of 7 stab wounds to the thigh, 2 on the left, 5 on the right with stab wound #2 being the fatal injury.
They were charged under 300(c) but got reduced to one of robbery with hurt under s 394 of the Penal Code.
The High Court had referred to Tan Chee Hwee in making the decision of reducing the charge. The PP pushed for the objective Virsa Singh approach whilst the Defence kept citing Tan Chee Hwee and a string of other recent cases to show that the subjective approach had to be taken. The court accepted the argument that the stabbing of the leg to prevent escape was intentional, but it was done accidentally as in Tan Chee Hwee and hence the charge of murder should be put aside. Furthermore, there was no intention to kill. Plus no common intention on Koh's part to kill.
Honestly, I personally feel that the judgment was too light. 20 years plus 24 strokes of the cane for Lim and 15 years and 12 strokes of the cane for Koh. I prefer the objective approach of the culprits being guilty of murder just for causing the injury which resulted in death. Though an eye for an eye isn't very nice, but it was appropriate in such a circumstance. Let me explain as best as a year one Cow plus student can.
Poor Mr Bock (the victim!) was abducted. In other words, (To carry off by force; kidnap.) kidnapped. To be charged under the Kidnapping Act Cap 151 by itself and convicted would carry the death penalty. Was the PP too lenient in not considering this charge? Then came the question of whether the injury was supposed to be judged by the objective and subjective approach. Should it really be judged by the subjective? I will not go into the cases nor elaborate on the approaches becaue you'll probably read it better in the judgement when it's out (actually because I think I cannot construct an argument well le. That's why got Cow plus). Instead, we can discuss the facts. Fact #1: Kenna stab 7 times. <-- no intention to kill? Fair enough. Didn't know stabbing a person in the leg would cause such death, also fair enough. Fact #2: Locked up in the trunk of the car and deposited at a multi-storey carpark after being tied up and with chemicals in his eyes. <-- no intention to kill? I think not. Even though let's say he doesn't die from the 7 stab wounds inflicted. He would have suffocated to death. It was immaterial that he was found shortly after. (but dead from excessive loss of blood) The fact was that he was left for dead. Does that create an intention? CAN this create an intention? Then again, why should the intention be formed before the infliction of the injury and couldn't the act of leaving him for death construe the intention to kill? If they really have no intention to kill, might as well kick him out on the street albeit deserted street he got a higher chance of being found right?
This is how I *think* la. Quite unjust to get away with killing another person right? Which is why thinking this way, I get a Cow plus. Ah well. Sucky sucky.
Visually: Lim Poh Lye the 'murderer' (ok, robber cum accidental killer) had this look... very fierce (You play with me? Now I play with you!). He reminds me of an actor on TV. The uncle uncle one. Plus their memorials are damn big lah. They referred to up to 6 volumes (or more). Each volume had like 600+ pages. Then still got color photos of the victim's stab wounds. Wooo. We should really take more pictures in Thailand. (Save Tatap people!)
Therefore, I believe they should hang (for the above stupid reasons that I thought of... Errr... Fair, Just and Reasonable?). Save government resources and taxpayers money in running the prison too. Then again. Moo.
Finally, I managed to find this little post on the crime library website. I'll just copy and paste it here. But take it with a pinch of salt as it's an online forum. But if it's true. Well... quite sad if true:-
Pauline Tan
Member
pailan@singnet.com.sg
Posted - 01/25/2005 : 20:34:28
A planned robbery cum kidnapped of businessman Mr Bock Tuan Thong after court trial to pass verdict of coldblooded murder to 20 yrs with 24 cane and 15 yrs with 20 cane? Pls remember it was happened in our Singapore in broad daylight where more than 60 witnesses witness the cruelty of both man stabbed the poor old man and leave him at back of car boot to justify and said not murder. How can our law be justified in this way and it will bring to the public a very bad impression that if if happen to see through what the law covered, "You can escape death" From the first trial to the final verdict, the two murderer trying to cover up lot of untrue stories as the dead cannot speak. I would like to announce to the public to have your say about this case. I would like to hear more justice to be seen, frankly speaking the death person was my beloved brother in law who was filial to parents, loving to brothers and sisters and like a father to us as both our parents passed away. He also generously donated and helped friends to overcome difficulties without fail but last yr 2004 on April the 2nd, friend of him together with the other 2 plotted against him and lead to his death. A life of a good man struggled through yrs of hardship just prepare to have his retired yrs ahead had been murdered, died so cruelly at the back of car boot with lot of bruises, cut and punched with blood stained over the car boot. This tragedy only lead to the 2 murderer 20/15 yrs. How can this case answered to the public, pls have your say! I always proud of Singapore even my brother in law said that our country are safe to live but he died in the hand of the "safe country" in the broad daylight where the three of the murdered never put Singapore law in their brain but put law in their own hands. Pls friends, the whole trial the deceased as described by the murderer that he was very obliging adhere to what was told to do but they killed him at last but stories was told that they only want to rob but not killed. Verdict should not be like that to show the public what our law really are!
Posted on the day of the verdict. So how? Subjective or Objective approach?! It's sad that in applying the law, we neglect to consider the feelings of the victim's family. Sigh. Is this law?
No comments:
Post a Comment