At Geylang, the convicted person and Galing walked some distance away from their fellow countrymen and spotted two possible male prey, Cao Ruyin who is the deceased person named in the charge (“the deceased”) and Wu Jun, walking along a path in an open space near Geylang Drive. Galing assaulted Wu Jun with a belt wrapped around his fist with the metal buckle exposed. The convicted person attacked the deceased with a piece of wood that he had picked up while approaching the deceased. Galing also assaulted the deceased with the metal buckle.
The deceased suffered severe head injuries from the attack and passed away in a hospital on 23 February 2008. The cause of death was certified by a pathologist to be severe head injury. Wu Jun escaped with minor injuries and called the police. When they went to the scene of crime, the deceased was lying on the ground unconscious, with his face covered in blood.
The deceased’s mobile phone was taken away by Galing. The five Sarawakians regrouped at a coffee shop in Geylang where Galing sold the said mobile phone to Vencent for $300. The five of them took $50 each from the sale proceeds and spent the remaining $50 on food and drinks...
... Relying on the three factors spelt out in [15] above, the prosecution submitted that the convicted person had acted in a vicious and pernicious manner. The Court of Appeal described his act of raining heavy blows on the deceased’s head, a vulnerable part of the body, as a “violent assault”. The forensic pathologist had testified that the injuries suffered required “very severe” or “huge” blunt force from multiple blows. Galing had described the deceased’s head as “cracked open”. Wu Jun had testified that the convicted person and Galing attacked him and the deceased stealthily from behind.
The prosecution highlighted that the attack occurred in an open public place. The “sheer brazenness of the convicted person and Galing, and their gratuitous use of violence would bring disquiet to society. Also, the fact that the brutal attack was prompted only by greed leaves the public in fear that such ill-fortune may befall on them some day”.
The personal culpability of the convicted person was also high. He targeted vulnerable or “easy” victims – those walking alone or with only one other person. He armed himself with a piece of wood that he had picked up. Excessive force was used to immobilize the deceased. Even after the deceased fell to the ground facing up and there was blood coming out from his head, the convicted person did not stop his attack but swung the piece of wood at him a second time. There was no provocation by the deceased whatsoever.
The only motivation for this cold-blooded and wanton use of violence was greed. There was scant regard for human life. As the Court of Appeal opined at [37] of the Court of Appeal’s judgment, such violent crimes cannot be condoned in any civilised society and severe condemnation is required.
The defence of intoxication was raised at the trial and on appeal and was rejected by both courts. Indeed, the law is that self-induced intoxication is an aggravating, rather than mitigating, factor. The convicted person was able to recount the events with details and that showed his mind was clear at the time of the offence despite his evidence that he was drunk. His personal circumstances, absence of previous conviction and remorse do not warrant “exceptional leniency”.
...The issue of intoxication was raised and rejected at both levels and it is not open to the convicted person at this stage to revisit this issue. The AVA’s media release was in 2009 and if it was relevant to the defence of the convicted person, then such evidence should have been adduced during the trial or, in any case, at the appeal after leave has been obtained to adduce fresh evidence. It is certainly improper to attempt to introduce the fresh evidence before me during the re-sentencing submissions."
From Kho Jabing and another v Public Prosecutor [2011] SGCA 24
The requirements of s 300(c) are set out in the hallowed passage from [12] of Virsa Singh v State of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 465 (“Virsa Singh”), which was referred to by the trial judge (at [61] of the GD):
First, [the prosecution] must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily injury is present;
Secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved; These are purely objective investigations.
Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury, that is to say, that it was not accidental or unintentional, or that some other kind of injury was intended.
Once these three elements are proved to be present, the enquiry proceeds further and,
Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type just described made up of the three elements set out above is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This part of the enquiry is purely objective and inferential and has nothing to do with the intention of the offender.
The first two Virsa Singh requirements are clearly satisfied in this case: the deceased had suffered horrific head injuries consisting of multiple skull fractures, swelling of the brain, and severe haemorrhaging.
In relation to the third Virsa Singh requirement, Jabing’s evidence throughout was that he had hit the deceased (with the piece of wood) twice, and in court he maintained that he had not been aiming for the deceased’s head, nor was he aware of the force he had used (see [50] of the GD). Although he testified in court that he could not remember where the second blow landed, this was inconsistent with his statements, in which he admitted hitting the deceased on the head on both occasions, and, indeed, his statements indicate that Jabing was in fact aiming for the deceased’s head, or was intending to strike it. The trial judge in evaluating the evidence noted that Jabing had admitted in his first statement of 26 February 2008 that he swung the piece of wood towards the head of the deceased and that the single blow caused the deceased to fall onto the ground (see [56] of the GD).
This account was confirmed by Galing’s statements to the police as follows:[note: 1]
[M]y friend Jabing was too violent when hitting the Chinese man until he bled profusely. I saw him hitting the Chinese man several times and his head cracked open. … I really regretted that Jabing hit him so many times until he died ...
Galing also stated:[note: 2]
When Jabing neared both of them, he used both his hands and swung the wood towards the right side of the bigger built male Chinese …
… I gave up the chase and turned back towards Jabing who was hitting the other Chinese with the wood in his hands repeatedly …
Although Galing later attempted to question the accuracy of these statements in what appears to be a belated attempt to downplay Jabing’s culpability (see [12] above), there was little reason to doubt that they had been correctly recorded. Galing’s statements, therefore, were evidence that Jabing struck the deceased more than twice, and with considerable violence.
The violent assault on the deceased was corroborated by the medical evidence (summarised at [22]–[29] of the GD), which was that the deceased had sustained life-threatening injuries to his head and brain. There was evidence from the forensic pathologist, Dr Teo Eng Swee (“Dr Teo”), that there could have been more than five blows to the deceased’s head, and both Dr Teo and Dr Ho Chi Long (the physician who first attended the deceased at the accident and emergency room) were of the opinion that at least some of the injuries required “very severe” or “huge” blunt force from several blows to be inflicted. Dr Teo added that one of the fractures that resulted in the initial fragmentation of the skull required “severe force”.
In light of all this evidence, as well as the fact that the severe injuries found on the deceased were concentrated at the region of his head, it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that Jabing intended to, and did, inflict multiple head injuries on the deceased, and that such injuries were certainly not accidental or unintentional."
RIP Cao Ruyin
No comments:
Post a Comment