Tan Chee Wee v PP: Murder Conviction Affirmed - Sudden Fight Exception & Mens Rea

In Tan Chee Wee v Public Prosecutor, the Court of Appeal of Singapore on 2004-01-10, affirmed the conviction of Tan Chee Wee for murder under section 302 of the Penal Code. Tan was accused of causing the death of Thabun Pranee during a robbery. The court rejected Tan's defense of a 'sudden fight' and upheld the trial judge's finding of mens rea, determining that Tan intentionally inflicted the injuries that led to the victim's death. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence of death was affirmed.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore Court of Appeal affirms Tan Chee Wee's murder conviction, rejecting the sudden fight exception and upholding the finding of mens rea.

1.7 Decision Date

9 January 2004

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Public Prosecutor	Respondent	Government Agency	Conviction Affirmed	Won	James E Lee of Deputy Public Prosecutor
Tan Chee Wee	Appellant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Teo Choo Kee of CK Teo and Co Peter Yap of Peter Yap

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Chao Hick Tin	Justice of Appeal	No
Choo Han Teck	Judge	No
Yong Pung How	Chief Justice	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
James E Lee	Deputy Public Prosecutor
Teo Choo Kee	CK Teo and Co
Peter Yap	Peter Yap

4. Facts

The appellant owed more than $11,000 to friends, colleagues, and moneylenders.
The appellant went to the deceased's flat to rob her.
The appellant brought a knife, hammer, spanner, screwdriver, test pen, strings, shorts, gloves, and T-shirt.
The appellant called the flat to confirm someone was home.
The appellant gained entry by asking to use the toilet.
The appellant brandished a knife and told the deceased it was a robbery.
The appellant struck the deceased multiple times on the head with a hammer.

5. Formal Citations

Tan Chee Wee v Public Prosecutor, Cr App 13/2003, [2004] SGCA 2

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2003-01-09	Tan Chee Wee committed murder of Thabun Pranee
2003-01-09	Ler Lee Mong found his wife lying in a pool of blood and called the police
2003-01-09	Paramedic arrived on the scene and the deceased was pronounced dead
2003-01-09	Police recovered items from Tan Chee Wee's quarters
2003-01-09	Police recorded a cautioned statement from the appellant
2003-01-09	Dr Gilbert Lau conducted the autopsy
2003-01-10	Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

Mens Rea for Murder
- Outcome: The court found that the appellant did possess the intention to inflict the wounds on the deceased, satisfying the mens rea requirement under s 300(c) of the Penal Code.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Intention to cause death
  - Intention to cause bodily injury sufficient to cause death
- Related Cases:
  - [1992] 1 SLR 620
  - AIR (45) 1958 Supreme Court 465
  - [1994] 2 SLR 465
Sudden Fight Exception
- Outcome: The court held that the defence of sudden fight did not apply because there was no sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, and the appellant had acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Absence of premeditation
  - Heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel
  - No undue advantage or cruel or unusual acts
- Related Cases:
  - [2003] 2 SLR 506
  - [1991] SLR 34
  - [1994] 3 SLR 491
  - [1993] 3 SLR 272
  - [1994] 3 SLR 282
  - [1975–1977] SLR 75

8. Remedies Sought

Appeal against conviction
Acquittal

9. Cause of Actions

Murder
Robbery

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 regarding the requirements under the principle of proportionality for private defence.
Tan Joo Cheng v PP	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1992] 1 SLR 620	Singapore	Cited to explain the approach to mens rea under s 300(c) of the Penal Code, specifically that the intention need only be to cause the bodily injury that resulted in death.
Virsa Singh v State of Punjab	Supreme Court	Yes	AIR (45) 1958 Supreme Court 465	India	Cited to explain the elements that the prosecution must prove to bring a case under s 300 'thirdly' (now s 300(c)) of the Penal Code.
Ismail bin Hussin v PP	Unknown	Yes	(1953) 19 MLJ 48	Malaysia	Cited for the principle that the intention to kill need not be premeditated; it is sufficient if the intention was formed instantly or on the spot.
Mohd Sulaiman v PP	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1994] 2 SLR 465	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the intention to cause injury can be formed even if the initial intention was only to commit theft.
Tan Chun Seng v PP	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2003] 2 SLR 506	Singapore	Cited to examine the operation of the defence of sudden fight and distinguished on the facts.
PP v Seow Khoon Kwee	High Court	Yes	[1988] SLR 871	Singapore	Cited regarding the issue of premeditation in the context of the defence of sudden fight.
Chan Kin Choi v PP	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1991] SLR 34	Singapore	Cited to support the argument that a 'fight' can occur even without an exchange of blows, taking into account the surrounding circumstances and tension.
Mohamad Yassin v PP	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1994] 3 SLR 491	Singapore	Cited regarding the issue of premeditation in the context of the defence of sudden fight.
Eldon v PP	High Court	Yes	[2001] 1 SLR 710	Singapore	Cited for the definition of 'fight' as a bilateral transaction in which blows are exchanged, in the context of the offence of affray.
Hans Raj Singh v Emperor	Unknown	Yes	AIR (33) 1946 Lahore 41	India	Cited for the proposition that a word or gesticulation may be as provocative as a blow in the context of Exception 4.
Jusab Usman v State	Unknown	Yes	(1983) XXIV Guj LR 1148	India	Cited for the proposition that there must be at least an offer of violence on both sides for a fight to occur.
Soosay v PP	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1993] 3 SLR 272	Singapore	Cited to illustrate a case where the defence of sudden fight was allowed despite the infliction of several stab wounds, and distinguished on the facts.
Roshdi v PP	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1994] 3 SLR 282	Singapore	Cited to illustrate a case where the defence of sudden fight was allowed despite the delivery of multiple blows with a heavy mortar, and distinguished on the facts.
Chandran v PP	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1992] 2 SLR 265	Singapore	Cited to support the conclusion that the appellant acted cruelly and unusually because the deceased was attacked even after she had collapsed to the ground.
Mohamed Kunjo v PP	Privy Council	Yes	[1975–1977] SLR 75	Singapore	Cited for the definition of 'undue advantage' as meaning unfair advantage.
PP v Arun Prakash Vaithilingam	High Court	Yes	[2002] SGHC 295	Singapore	Cited to illustrate that all the facts of the case must be taken into consideration when determining unfair advantage, especially those attributes unique to the other party in the fight.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Penal Code, Chapter 224, section 302	Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed), section 300	Singapore
Penal Code, Chapter 224, section 300, Exception 4	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed), section 122(6)	Singapore
Penal Code, section 159	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Mens Rea
Sudden Fight
Undue Advantage
Cruel or Unusual Manner
Premeditation
Intention to Kill
Culpable Homicide
Robbery
Hammer
Scalp Lacerations
Skull Fractures

15.2 Keywords

Murder
Criminal Law
Singapore
Appeal
Mens Rea
Sudden Fight
Penal Code
Intention
Robbery

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Criminal Law	95
Murder	95
Evidence	40
Criminal Procedure	30
Sentencing	20

16. Subjects

Criminal Law
Murder
Mens Rea
Defences
Sudden Fight