Ismail v PP: Arms Offences Act - Use of Firearm with Intent to Injure
In Ismail bin Abdul Rahman v Public Prosecutor, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal by Ismail bin Abdul Rahman against his conviction and death sentence for an offence under Section 4(1) of the Arms Offences Act. The charge was that he used a .38 inch calibre Special Smith & Wesson revolver with intent to cause physical injury to Rahim Bin Othman, who subsequently died. The appellant claimed he discharged the revolver unintentionally. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had failed to rebut the presumption that he intended to cause physical injury.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic 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
Ismail bin Abdul Rahman appeals against his conviction and death sentence for using a firearm with intent to injure. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Judgment Upheld | Won | Amarjit Singh of Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Ismail bin Abdul Rahman | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of Appeal | No |
| Lai Kew Chai | Judge | No |
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Amarjit Singh | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Peter Keith Fernando | Leo Fernando |
| Amarick Gill | Leo Fernando |
4. Facts
- The appellant was charged with using a firearm with intent to cause physical injury to the deceased.
- The appellant admitted to discharging three rounds from the revolver but claimed it was unintentional.
- The deceased died from multiple gunshot wounds.
- The appellant and the deceased were former colleagues.
- The appellant took the deceased’s revolver, bullet pouch, CCTV tapes, and $7 from his wallet.
- The appellant made four statements to the police, confessing to the crime.
- The appellant challenged the voluntariness of the four statements at trial.
5. Formal Citations
- Ismail bin Abdul Rahman v Public Prosecutor, Cr App 14/2003, [2004] SGCA 7
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Deceased on overnight duty at Bukit Panjang Telecoms Exchange | |
| Appellant went to the Exchange at approximately 11:20 pm | |
| Shooting occurred between 5:30 am and 6:00 am | |
| Appellant went to the Hong Kah North Neighbourhood Police Post at about 9:15 am | |
| Appellant arrested | |
| First statement taken at Bukit Batok bus interchange at about 11:00 am | |
| Second statement taken at the CID at about 6:20 pm | |
| Third statement taken at the CID at about 2:30 pm | |
| Fourth statement taken at the CID at about 3:55 pm | |
| Judgment delivered |
7. Legal Issues
- Whether the four statements were voluntary and rightly admitted into evidence
- Outcome: The court found that the statements were voluntary and rightly admitted into evidence.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Inducement
- Threat
- Promise
- Whether the trial judge rightly preferred the Prosecution’s version of events
- Outcome: The court found that the trial judge rightly preferred the Prosecution’s version of events.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Assessment of veracity of witnesses
- Choosing between two differing versions
- Whether findings of fact should be disturbed
- Whether the appellant intended to cause physical injury to the deceased by the shooting
- Outcome: The court found that the appellant failed to rebut the presumption that he intended to cause physical injury to the deceased.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Rebuttal of statutory presumption
- Accident
8. Remedies Sought
- Acquittal
- Appeal against conviction and sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Violation of Section 4(1) of the Arms Offences Act
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
- Homicide Law
11. Industries
- Security
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anandagoda v The Queen | Unknown | Yes | [1962] 1 MLJ 289 | Malaysia | Cited for the objective test of whether a statement is a confession. |
| Chin Seow Noi v PP | High Court | Yes | [1994] 1 SLR 135 | Singapore | Cited for the objective test of whether a statement is a confession. |
| Chai Chien Wei Kelvin v PP | High Court | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR 25 | Singapore | Cited for the objective test of whether a statement is a confession and the test of voluntariness. |
| Koh Aik Siew v PP | High Court | Yes | [1993] 2 SLR 599 | Singapore | Cited for the Prosecution's duty to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the statements made by the appellant were voluntary. |
| Panya Martmontree v PP | High Court | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR 341 | Singapore | Cited for the Prosecution's duty to remove reasonable doubt of the existence of the inducement, threat or promise. |
| PP v Kadir bin Awang | High Court | Yes | [1989] SLR 214 | Singapore | Cited for the Prosecution's responsibility to ensure that the persons who the appellant claimed induced or threatened him are available as witnesses at the voir dire. |
| PP v Lim Kian Tat | High Court | Yes | [1990] SLR 364 | Singapore | Cited for the police officer's duty to give a detailed account of how the interrogation was conducted. |
| Lim Ah Poh v PP | High Court | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR 713 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court will not disturb findings of fact unless convinced that such findings were clearly against the weight of evidence. |
| Ameer Akbar v Abdul Hamid | High Court | Yes | [1997] 1 SLR 113 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court will not disturb findings of fact unless convinced that such findings were clearly against the weight of evidence. |
| Syed Jafaralsadeg bin Abdul Kadir v PP | High Court | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR 788 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the appellant did not discharge the burden upon him to show that the trial judge’s assessment of credibility and veracity was plainly wrong. |
| Lu Lai Heng v PP | High Court | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR 251 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that any purported inducement, if at all, would have been self-perceived by the appellant, which cannot in law affect the admissibility of a statement. |
| Osman bin Din v PP | High Court | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR 129 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that whether or not a particular statement imports an inducement, threat or promise should be approached in a common-sense way and in the context of the individual case. |
| Poh Kay Keong v PP | High Court | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR 209 | Singapore | Cited to distinguish from the present case, where the inducement was not as strong as a promise to procure a reduced charge. |
| Sharom bin Ahmad v PP | High Court | Yes | [2000] 3 SLR 565 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a promise to procure a reduced charge (from a person in authority) would amount to an obvious inducement to give an inculpatory statement in exchange for a non-capital charge. |
| PP v Ramasamy a/l Sebastian | High Court | Yes | [1990] SLR 875 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that words to the effect of “you had better tell the truth” or their equivalent do not automatically constitute an inducement, threat or promise vitiating voluntariness. |
| Tang Tuck Wah v PP | High Court | Yes | [1990] SLR 412 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that words to the effect of “you had better tell the truth” or their equivalent do not automatically constitute an inducement, threat or promise vitiating voluntariness. |
| Sim Cheng Yong v PP | High Court | Yes | [1994] 1 SLR 722 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that merely stating that the accused would be assisted if he co-operated, without more, was not sufficient to satisfy the conditions of the proviso to s 122(5) of the CPC. |
| Chua Yong Khiang Melvin v PP | High Court | Yes | [1999] 4 SLR 87 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where the trial judge had to decide which among different versions of events was true, and his findings were not clearly against the weight of evidence, this court will not interfere with his determination. |
| Tay Chin Wah v PP | High Court | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR 27 | Singapore | Cited for the correct approach to the presumption in s 4(2) of the Act and the burden to produce sufficient evidence to prove that he discharged the three rounds from the revolver without the intention to cause physical injury. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Arms Offences Act (Cap 14, 1998 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 4 Arms Offences Act (Cap 14, 1998 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 17(2) of the Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 122(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 80 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Arms Offences Act
- Firearm
- Intent to cause physical injury
- Statutory presumption
- Voluntariness of statements
- Confession
- Accidental discharge
- CISCO
- Revolver
15.2 Keywords
- Arms Offences Act
- Firearm
- Intent
- Confession
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Arms Offences Act | 100 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 90 |
| Offences | 90 |
| Evidence Law | 80 |
| Witnesses | 60 |
| Penal Code | 60 |
| Pleadings | 50 |
| Public Prosecutor | 30 |
| Consent of Public Prosecutor | 30 |
| Bills of Costs | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Evidence
- Criminal Procedure