PP v Wan Kamil: Murder, Common Intention, Armed Robbery of Taxi Driver
In Public Prosecutor v Wan Kamil bin Md Shafian, the High Court of Singapore found Wan Kamil, Ibrahim bin Mohd, and Rosli bin Ahmat guilty of murder. The three were charged with causing the death of a taxi driver during an armed robbery on August 8, 2000. The court determined that the accused shared a common intention to rob the taxi driver and prevent him from reporting the crime, leading to the driver's death. All three received the mandatory sentence for murder.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Guilty as charged, convicted them and imposed the mandatory sentence for murder.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Wan Kamil and accomplices were convicted of murder for the death of a taxi driver during an armed robbery. The court found a common intention to kill.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Prosecution | Government Agency | Judgment for Prosecution | Won | April Phang of Deputy Public Prosecutors Lawrence Ang of Deputy Public Prosecutors Toh Yung Cheong of Deputy Public Prosecutors |
| WAN KAMIL BIN MD SHAFIAN | Defendant | Individual | Guilty as charged | Lost | |
| IBRAHIM BIN MOHD | Defendant | Individual | Guilty as charged | Lost | |
| ROSLI BIN AHMAT | Defendant | Individual | Guilty as charged | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| MPH Rubin | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| April Phang | Deputy Public Prosecutors |
| Lawrence Ang | Deputy Public Prosecutors |
| Toh Yung Cheong | Deputy Public Prosecutors |
| Ahmad Khalis | Wong Khalis & Partners |
| Shah Bhavini | Bhabini & Co |
| Johan Ismail | Johan Ismail & Partners |
| Luke Lee | Luke Lee & Co |
| Sadari Musari | Sadari Musari & Partners |
| David Rasif | David Rasif & Partners |
4. Facts
- The three accused planned to rob a goldsmith shop.
- They decided to steal a taxi to use as a getaway vehicle.
- The first accused supplied the weapons, including a bayonet and pistol.
- The third accused stabbed the taxi driver multiple times, resulting in his death.
- The accused shared the cash taken from the taxi driver's wallet.
- The accused attempted to dispose of evidence, including changing clothes and cleaning the taxi.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Wan Kamil bin Md Shafian, CC 31/2001, [2001] SGHC 357
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Wan Kamil Bin Md Shafian born | |
| Ibrahim Bin Mohd born | |
| Rosli Bin Ahmat born | |
| Murder committed | |
| Body discovered | |
| Taxi of the victim spotted | |
| Accused persons arrested | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Murder
- Outcome: The court found all three accused guilty of murder.
- Category: Substantive
- Common Intention
- Outcome: The court found that the accused shared a common intention to commit the criminal act, making each liable.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Conviction for Murder
- Mandatory Sentence for Murder
9. Cause of Actions
- Murder
- Robbery
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
11. Industries
- Transportation
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mahbub Shah v Emperor | Bombay High Court | Yes | (1945) 47 Bom LR 941 | India | Cited for the principle that common intention implies a pre-arranged plan and that the criminal act was done in concert pursuant to the pre-arranged plan. |
| Barendra Kumar Ghosh v Emperor | Privy Council | Yes | AIR 1925 PC 1 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that Section 34 deals with the doing of separate acts, similar or diverse, by several persons; if all are done in furtherance of a common intention, each person is liable for the result of them all. |
| Bashir v State of Allahabad | Allahabad High Court | Yes | (1953) AIR All 668 | India | Cited for the definition of 'common intention' as 'community of purpose' or 'common design' or 'common intent'. |
| Fazoo Khan v Jatoo Khan | Calcutta High Court | Yes | AIR (1931) Cal 643 | India | Cited for the principle that before any accused can be convicted of an offence read with s 34, the court must arrive at a finding as to which of the accused took what part, if any, in furtherance of the common intention. |
| Mimi Wong & Anor v Public Prosecutor | Court of Criminal Appeal | Yes | [1972] 2 MLJ 75 | Singapore | Cited for affirming the principles articulated in Mahbub Shah as well as Barendra Kumar Ghosh. |
| Public Prosecutor v Neoh Bean Chye & Anor | Court of Criminal Appeal | Yes | [1975] 1 MLJ 3 | Singapore | Cited for affirming the principles articulated in Mahbub Shah as well as Barendra Kumar Ghosh. |
| R v Vincent Banka & Anor | Straits Settlements Court of Criminal Appeal | No | [1936] V MLJ 66 | Malaysia | Cited to argue that Neoh could not be found guilty of murder unless the prosecution proved that there was common intention on the part of both accused to commit murder, but rejected by the court. |
| Lim Heng Soon & Anor v Public Prosecutor | Federal Court, Criminal Appeal from Singapore | Yes | [1970] 1 MLJ 166 | Singapore | Cited for approving a direction given by the trial judge to the jury in relation to common intention. |
| Too Yin Sheong v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR 682 | Singapore | Cited for re-affirming what was stated by Wee Chong Jin CJ in Lim Heng Soon. |
| King-Emperor v Barendra Kumar Ghos[e] | Calcutta High Court | Yes | AIR 1924 Cal 257 | India | Cited for the expectation of aid, in case it is necessary to the completion of the crime and the belief that his associate is near and ready to render it, which encourage and embolden the chief perpetrator, and incite him to accomplish the act. |
| Public Prosecutor v Gerardine Andrew | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR 736 | Singapore | Cited for re-affirming what was stated by the Privy Council in Barendra Kumar Ghosh that before a person could be made liable under s 34, there had to be physical presence at the actual commission of the offence. |
| Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli v State of Bombay | Supreme Court | Yes | AIR 1955 SC 287 | India | Cited for the principle that an accused need not be present in the actual room. He can, for instance, stand guard by a gate outside ready to warn his companions about any approach of danger or wait in a car on a nearby road ready to facilitate their escape. |
| Killikyatara Bomma & Others v Emperor | Madras High Court | Yes | (1913) 14 Cr L J 207 | India | Cited for the principle that a person who by threat of death was induced to do an act in order to facilitate the commission of a murder, could not claim the benefit of s 94 of the Penal Code. |
| PP v Lee Chin Guan | N/A | No | [1992] 1 SLR 320 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that for common intention to apply, it is necessary to prove that the accused had knowledge of all the essential elements to constitute common intention. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224) s 302 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224) s 34 | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 94 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Common intention
- Armed robbery
- Murder
- Bayonet
- Getaway vehicle
- Pre-arranged plan
- Joint liability
- Culpable homicide
15.2 Keywords
- Murder
- Common Intention
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
- Robbery
- Taxi Driver
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Murder | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Offences | 80 |
| Criminal Procedure | 70 |
| Theft | 60 |
| Joint Criminal Enterprise | 40 |
| Contract Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Homicide
- Joint Criminal Enterprise