PP v Fazely: Complicity, Common Intention & Unlawful Assembly in Murder & Rioting
The Public Prosecutor appealed against the High Court's decision to acquit Fazely Bin Rahmat and Khairul Famy bin Mohd Samsudin of a murder charge, convicting them instead of rioting. The Court of Appeal, comprising Chao Hick Tin JA, Tan Lee Meng J, and Yong Pung How CJ, heard the appeal on 21 October 2002. The central legal issue concerned complicity, common intention, and the limits of constructive liability within the context of an unlawful assembly. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against the acquittal on the murder charge but convicted the respondents of causing grievous hurt under s 325, read with s 149, of the Penal Code.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed; respondents convicted of causing grievous hurt under s 325, read with s 149, of the Penal Code.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court of Appeal acquitted Fazely and Khairul of murder, finding their common object was to cause hurt, not with dangerous weapons. They were convicted of rioting.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Appellant | Government Agency | Appeal dismissed | Lost | Ng Cheng Thiam of Attorney-General’s Chambers Imran Abdul Hamid of Attorney-General’s Chambers Lee Ti-Seng Desmond of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Fazely Bin Rahmat | Respondent | Individual | Convicted of causing grievous hurt | Lost | |
| Khairul Famy bin Mohd Samsudin | Respondent | Individual | Convicted of causing grievous hurt | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Tan Lee Meng | Judge | No |
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Ng Cheng Thiam | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Imran Abdul Hamid | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Lee Ti-Seng Desmond | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Amarick Gill | James Masih & Co |
| James Bahadur Masih | James Masih & Co |
| Anand Nalachandran | Harry Elias Partnership |
| Subhas Anandan | Harry Elias Partnership |
4. Facts
- Fazely and Khairul, members of the secret society "369", were celebrating Syamsul’s birthday at a pub.
- The group went to Boat Quay to find rival gang members.
- Norhisham confronted Sulaiman and his friends, asking them which "gang" they belonged to.
- Norhisham assaulted Sulaiman, and Fazely, Syamsul, and Khairul chased Sulaiman's fleeing friends.
- Sulaiman died from 13 stab wounds.
- The trial judge found the common object was to beat up rival gang members, not to cause hurt with weapons.
- The respondents were initially charged with murder but acquitted and convicted of rioting instead.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Fazely Bin Rahmat and Another and Another Case, Cr App 10/2002, CC 12/2002, [2003] SGCA 13
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Respondents and others celebrate Syamsul’s birthday at Club 7. | |
| Group leaves Club 7 for supper and then proceeds to Boat Quay. | |
| Sulaiman and friends leave Rootz discotheque and go to a coffee shop. | |
| Group confronts Sulaiman and his friends, resulting in an assault. | |
| Sulaiman pronounced dead at 5:00 am. | |
| Appeal heard by the Court of Appeal. | |
| Judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal. |
7. Legal Issues
- Complicity
- Outcome: The court found that the respondents did not share the common object of causing hurt with dangerous weapons, thus acquitting them of the murder charge.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Common object
- Common intention
- Limits to constructive liability
- Related Cases:
- [1925] AIR PC 1
- Weight of Evidence
- Outcome: The court determined that the trial judge was correct in accepting the testimony of the accused in court over previous incriminating statements to the police and in admitting statements of co-accused but choosing not to attach any weight to it.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Acceptance of testimony of accused in court over previous incriminating statements to police
- Admissibility of statements of co-accused
- Related Cases:
- [1998] 1 SLR 663
8. Remedies Sought
- Conviction for Murder
- Imprisonment
- Caning
9. Cause of Actions
- Murder
- Rioting
- Causing Grievous Hurt
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lau Song Seng v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR 663 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an accused's evidence in court that is at variance with earlier statements to the police should prima facie be treated as less reliable. |
| Barendra Kumar Ghosh v Emperor | Privy Council | Yes | [1925] AIR PC 1 | India | Cited regarding liability under s 149 of the Penal Code, stating that liability follows from membership of the assembly at the time of the commission of the offence. |
| Arts Niche Cyber Distribution Pte Ltd v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 4 SLR 111 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court will not interfere with a trial judge’s findings of fact unless they are plainly wrong. |
| Lim Ah Poh v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR 713 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court will not interfere with a trial judge’s findings of fact unless they are plainly wrong. |
| PP v Azman bin Abdullah | Unknown | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR 704 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court must be convinced that the trial judge's decision is wrong, not merely entertain doubts. |
| Yap Giau Beng Terrence v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR 656 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court will be even more reluctant to overturn findings of fact based on the trial judge's assessment of witnesses’ veracity and credibility. |
| Ameer Akbar v Abdul Hamid | Unknown | Yes | [1997] 1 SLR 113 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that findings of fact are invariably based on the credibility of witnesses, which the trial judge had the opportunity to observe. |
| Tan Tek Yan v Samuel | Unknown | Yes | [1964] 1 MLJ 283 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that it is not a sufficient ground to reject findings of the trial judge just because an appellate court, if it were to have heard the case, would have been inclined towards the opposite conclusions. |
| Sheo Swarup & Ors v King-Emperor | Privy Council | Yes | [1934] AIR 227(2) PC | Unknown | Cited for the principle that an appellate court should give proper weight and consideration to the views of the trial judge as to the credibility of the witnesses, the presumption of innocence, the right to the benefit of the doubt, and the slowness of the appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224) s 147 | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 149 | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 325 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 121 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 121 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act s 147(6) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Common object
- Unlawful assembly
- Secret society
- Rioting
- Grievous hurt
- Constructive liability
- Statements to police
- Accomplice evidence
15.2 Keywords
- Murder
- Rioting
- Complicity
- Common intention
- Unlawful assembly
- Grievous hurt
- Singapore
- Criminal law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Grievous Hurt | 85 |
| Rioting | 80 |
| Criminal Procedure | 60 |
| Evidence | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Evidence
- Complicity
- Unlawful Assembly