PP v Took Leng How: Murder, Diminished Responsibility & Schizophrenia

Took Leng How was charged in the High Court of Singapore with the murder of eight-year-old Huang Na. The primary legal issue was whether Took Leng How was suffering from schizophrenia at the time of the offense, thus qualifying for the defense of diminished responsibility under Section 300 Exception 7 of the Penal Code. The court found Took Leng How guilty of murder, rejecting the defense of diminished responsibility and imposing the mandatory death penalty.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Accused found guilty as charged and sentenced to the mandatory death penalty.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment reserved.

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Took Leng How was charged with murder. The court found him guilty, rejecting his defense of diminished responsibility due to schizophrenia.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorProsecutionGovernment AgencyJudgment for ProsecutionWon
David Khoo of Deputy Public Prosecutors
Shawn Ho of Deputy Public Prosecutors
Lawrence Ang of Deputy Public Prosecutors
Took Leng HowDefendantIndividualGuilty as chargedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lai Kew ChaiJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
David KhooDeputy Public Prosecutors
Shawn HoDeputy Public Prosecutors
Lawrence AngDeputy Public Prosecutors
Sunil SudheesanHarry Elias Partnership
Anand NalachandranHarry Elias Partnership
Subhas AnandanHarry Elias Partnership
Chung Ping ShenHarry Elias Partnership

4. Facts

  1. The accused was charged with the murder of an eight-year-old girl.
  2. The accused admitted to assaulting the deceased in a storeroom.
  3. The accused disposed of the deceased's body in Telok Blangah Hill Park.
  4. The pathologist certified the cause of death as acute airway occlusion.
  5. The accused claimed to have seen three Chinese men kill the deceased, a claim the court deemed a lie.
  6. The accused elected to remain silent during the trial.
  7. The defense argued diminished responsibility due to schizophrenia.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Public Prosecutor v Took Leng How, CC 12/2005, [2005] SGHC 154

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Huang Na and her mother arrived in Singapore.
Huang Na's mother left for China, leaving Huang Na in the care of Li Xiu Qin.
Huang Na disappeared.
Accused seen with the deceased at the Wholesale Centre.
Accused's employer saw the accused going in and out of the shop in Block 7.
Accused told the police that he had met the deceased on 10 October 2004 after she had made a call to her mother.
Accused told the police for the first time that he had actually seen the deceased being abducted.
Accused together with the police went to his Telok Blangah flat to collect his mobile phone.
Accused surrendered to the Malaysian police.
Accused led the police to locate the deceased’s body.
Dr Nagulendran examined the accused at the prison.
Dr Nagulendran examined the accused at the prison.
Dr Nagulendran examined the accused at the prison.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Diminished Responsibility
    • Outcome: The court rejected the defense of diminished responsibility, finding that the accused was not suffering from an abnormality of mind at the time of the offense.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Abnormality of mind
      • Substantial impairment of mental responsibility
      • Causation of death
    • Related Cases:
      • [1999] 2 SLR 260
      • [1960] 2 QB 396
      • [2005] 1 SLR 356
      • [1998] 2 SLR 22
      • [1978] AC 788
      • [1996] 1 SLR 654
  2. Adverse Inference from Silence
    • Outcome: The court drew an adverse inference from the accused's election not to testify, concluding that his acts of assault led to the deceased's death.
    • Category: Procedural
  3. Causation of Death
    • Outcome: The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused caused the death of the deceased through acts of assault.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Death Penalty

9. Cause of Actions

  • Murder

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Law
  • Homicide Defense
  • Psychiatric Evidence

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Haw Tua Tau v PPHigh CourtYes[1980–1981] SLR 73SingaporeCited for the principle that the Prosecution only needs to adduce some evidence (not inherently incredible) which, if were to be accepted as accurate, would establish each essential element in the alleged offence.
PP v Rozman bin JusohHigh CourtYes[1995] 3 SLR 317SingaporeCited for the principle that an accused can be convicted on his own confession, even if it was retracted, as long as the court is satisfied that the statement was made voluntarily.
Tengku Jonaris Badlishah v PPCourt of AppealYes[1999] 2 SLR 260SingaporeCited for the elements required to establish the defense of diminished responsibility.
Regina v ByrneEnglish Court of Criminal AppealYes[1960] 2 QB 396England and WalesCited for the definition of abnormality of mind and the role of medical and non-medical evidence in determining diminished responsibility.
Zailani bin Ahmad v PPCourt of AppealYes[2005] 1 SLR 356SingaporeCited in relation to the principles in Regina v Byrne regarding abnormality of mind.
Chua Hwa Soon Jimmy v PPCourt of AppealYes[1998] 2 SLR 22SingaporeCited in relation to the principles in Regina v Byrne regarding abnormality of mind.
Walton v The QueenPrivy CouncilYes[1978] AC 788United KingdomCited for the principle that the jury is entitled to consider not only medical evidence but also the evidence upon the whole facts and circumstances of the case when considering diminished responsibility.
Zainul Abidin bin Malik v PPCourt of AppealYes[1996] 1 SLR 654SingaporeCited for the principle that the jury is entitled to consider not only medical evidence but also the evidence upon the whole facts and circumstances of the case when considering diminished responsibility.
Lau Lee Peng v PPHigh CourtYes[2000] 2 SLR 628SingaporeCited for the principle that discovering the motive of the killing is not essential to a finding that the accused had indeed caused the death of the deceased and had committed murder.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Section 300 Penal CodeSingapore
Section 300 Exception 7 Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed)Singapore
Section 196(2) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed)Singapore
Section 196(5) Criminal Procedure CodeSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Diminished responsibility
  • Schizophrenia
  • Abnormality of mind
  • Acute airway occlusion
  • Malingering
  • Adverse inference
  • Causation
  • Voluntariness of statement

15.2 Keywords

  • Murder
  • Diminished Responsibility
  • Schizophrenia
  • Singapore
  • Criminal Law

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Diminished Responsibility95
Criminal Law90
Murder90
Criminal Procedure85
Sentencing80
Penal Code75
Psychiatry70
Evidence60

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Mental Health
  • Criminal Procedure