Lau Lee Peng v PP: Grave and Sudden Provocation in Murder Case
In Lau Lee Peng v Public Prosecutor, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal by Lau Lee Peng, who was convicted of murder for causing the death of Tan Eng Yan. Lau Lee Peng raised the defense of grave and sudden provocation. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the defense of grave and sudden provocation was not available to the appellant.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Lau Lee Peng was convicted of murder. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal, rejecting his defense of grave and sudden provocation.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | David Lim Jit Hee of Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Lau Lee Peng | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of Appeal | Yes |
| Lai Kew Chai | Judge | No |
| L P Thean | Justice of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| David Lim Jit Hee | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Subhas Anandan | MPD Nair & Co |
| Lim Chong Boon | Ong Tay & Partners |
4. Facts
- The appellant was charged with and convicted of murder for causing the death of the deceased.
- The appellant and the deceased were friends prior to the killing.
- The killing occurred at the deceased's flat on 26 August 1998.
- The deceased sustained 58 injuries, including fatal slash wounds.
- The appellant claimed he was provoked by the deceased's words and actions.
- The appellant did not mention the provocative words or actions in his police statements.
- The appellant took money from the deceased's flat after the killing.
5. Formal Citations
- Lau Lee Peng v Public Prosecutor, Cr App 30/1999, [2000] SGCA 13
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Offence committed | |
| Appellant arrested | |
| Appeal heard | |
| Appeal dismissed |
7. Legal Issues
- Defence of Grave and Sudden Provocation
- Outcome: The court held that the defense of grave and sudden provocation was not available to the appellant.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Deprivation of self-control
- Grave and sudden nature of provocation
- Proportionality of reaction
- Related Cases:
- [1998] 2 SLR 345
- Adverse Inference from Failure to Mention Facts
- Outcome: The court drew an adverse inference against the appellant for failing to mention key facts in his statements to the police.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to mention allegations
- Low intellect of appellant
- Charge and warning explained to appellant
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
9. Cause of Actions
- Murder
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PP v Kwan Cin Cheng | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR 345 | Singapore | Cited for the interpretation and application of Exception 1 to section 300 of the Penal Code regarding grave and sudden provocation. |
| Vijayan v PP | N/A | Yes | [1975] 2 MLJ 8 | N/A | Cited for the 'reasonable man' test in relation to provocation. |
| Ithinin bin Kamari v PP | N/A | Yes | [1993] 2 SLR 245 | N/A | Cited for the 'reasonable man' test in relation to provocation. |
| DPP v Camplin | N/A | Yes | [1978] 2 All ER 168 | N/A | Cited regarding characteristics of the accused that can be taken into account when determining the gravity of provocation. |
| Luc Thiet Thuan v R | N/A | Yes | [1997] AC 131 | N/A | Cited regarding characteristics of the accused that can be taken into account when determining the gravity of provocation. |
| N Govindasamy v PP | N/A | Yes | [1976] 2 MLJ 49 | N/A | Cited regarding the proportionality test in relation to provocation. |
| Wo Yok Ling v PP | N/A | Yes | [1979] 1 MLJ 101 | N/A | Cited regarding the proportionality test in relation to provocation. |
| Koh Swee Beng v PP | N/A | Yes | [1991] 3 MLJ 401 | N/A | Cited regarding the proportionality test in relation to provocation. |
| PP v Tan Boon Tat | N/A | Yes | [1990] 2 MLJ 466 | N/A | Cited regarding the comprehensibility of the warning given under s 122(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code. |
| Shaiful Edham bin Adam v PP | N/A | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR 57 | N/A | Cited regarding the requirement of intention to kill for murder. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| s 300 Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed)Exception 1 | Singapore |
| ss 122(6) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 123(1) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Grave and sudden provocation
- Self-control
- Reasonable man
- Adverse inference
- Low intellect
- Vulgar language
- Abusive language
- Tontine
- Ah Poh
15.2 Keywords
- Murder
- Grave and sudden provocation
- Criminal Law
- Singapore
- Appeal
- Adverse inference
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Criminal Law | 95 |
| Murder | 90 |
| Grave and Sudden Provocation | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 60 |
| Evidence | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Evidence
- Provocation