Jin Yugang v Public Prosecutor: Murder Conviction Upheld Despite Intoxication Defence
In Jin Yugang v Public Prosecutor, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal by Jin Yugang against his conviction for murder. Jin was found guilty in the High Court of killing Wang Hong. The primary legal issue was whether Jin's intoxication at the time of the killing negated his ability to form the necessary intent for murder. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that Jin's actions and recollections indicated he was aware of his actions and capable of forming the intent to commit murder.
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
The Court of Appeal upheld Jin Yugang's murder conviction, rejecting his intoxication defense. The court found Jin was aware of his actions during the fatal stabbing.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Judgment Upheld | Won | |
| Jin Yugang | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of Appeal | Yes |
| Judith Prakash | Judge | No |
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Edwin San | DPPs |
| Eddy Tham | DPPs |
| Alan Moh | Tan Teow Yeow & Partners |
| Tan Teow Yeow | Tan Teow Yeow & Partners |
4. Facts
- The appellant stabbed the deceased multiple times, resulting in his death.
- The appellant and the deceased were drinking together prior to the incident.
- An argument broke out between the appellant and the deceased.
- The appellant claimed he was acting in self-defense after the deceased attacked him with a broken beer bottle.
- The appellant's blood alcohol level was measured at 137mg/100ml approximately five hours after the incident.
- Witnesses described the appellant's attack as being in an "uncontrollable state".
- The appellant was able to give a detailed account of the events to a psychiatrist.
5. Formal Citations
- Jin Yugang v Public Prosecutor, Cr App 1/2003, [2003] SGCA 22
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Dinner and drinks at flat No. 81B Rangoon Road. | |
| Wang Hong killed in front of house No. 83 Rangoon Road. | |
| Appellant examined by Dr. Soo Kian Hing. | |
| Police obtained investigation statements from the appellant. | |
| Police obtained investigation statements from the appellant. | |
| Appellant examined by Dr. Stephen Phang. | |
| Appellant examined by Dr. Stephen Phang. | |
| Appellant examined by Dr. Stephen Phang. | |
| Appeal heard. | |
| Appeal dismissed. |
7. Legal Issues
- Intoxication
- Outcome: The court held that the appellant was not so intoxicated as to be unaware of his actions or unable to form the intent to commit murder.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Whether the appellant was so intoxicated that he was unaware of what he was doing
- Whether intoxication negated the formation of intent to commit murder
- Related Cases:
- [1993] 3 SLR 265
- [1995] 2 SLR 442
- Onus of Proof
- Outcome: The court affirmed that the burden of proving intoxication lies with the accused.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Burden of proving a defence of intoxication
- Related Cases:
- [1993] 3 SLR 265
- [1995] 2 SLR 442
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Acquittal
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Suradet v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 3 SLR 265 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the burden of proving intoxication lies with the accused. |
| Indra Wijaya Ibrahim v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR 442 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the burden of proving intoxication lies with the accused. |
| Mohd Sulaiman v PP | Court of Appeal | No | [1994] 2 SLR 465 | Singapore | Cited to support the dismissal of the intoxication defence due to the accused's ability to recount events after the stabbing. |
| PP v Ramasamy a/l Sebastian | High Court | Yes | [1990] SLR 875 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that blood alcohol level is not conclusive in determining the degree of intoxication and that conduct is a more reliable indicator. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code s 85(2) | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 86(2) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Intoxication
- Murder
- Mens Rea
- Self-defense
- Burden of proof
- Alcohol level
- Voluntary Intoxication
15.2 Keywords
- Murder
- Intoxication
- Criminal Law
- Singapore
- Appeal
- Penal Code
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Murder | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Intoxication | 80 |
| Evidence Law | 70 |
| Criminal Procedure | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Intoxication Defence