Took Leng How v PP: Diminished Responsibility & Adverse Inferences in Murder Conviction Appeal

Took Leng How appealed to the Court of Appeal of Singapore on January 25, 2006, against his conviction and mandatory death sentence for the murder of eight-year-old Huang Na. Took Leng How was convicted in the High Court under Section 300 of the Penal Code for causing Huang Na's death. The primary legal issues were whether the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Took Leng How caused the death of Huang Na, whether adverse inferences were appropriately drawn from Took Leng How's silence during the trial, and whether Took Leng How successfully established a defense of diminished responsibility. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision and the imposition of the mandatory death sentence.

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

Took Leng How appeals his murder conviction, arguing diminished responsibility and raising doubts about the cause of death. The Court of Appeal dismisses the appeal.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorRespondentGovernment AgencyConviction AffirmedWon
David Khoo of Deputy Public Prosecutors
Jaswant Singh of Deputy Public Prosecutors
Took Leng HowAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chao Hick TinJustice of the Court of AppealYes
Kan Ting ChiuJudgeNo
Yong Pung HowChief JusticeNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
David KhooDeputy Public Prosecutors
Jaswant SinghDeputy Public Prosecutors
Sunil SudheesanHarry Elias Partnership
Anand NalachandranHarry Elias Partnership
Subhas AnandanHarry Elias Partnership
Chung Ping ShenH A and Chung Partnership

4. Facts

  1. Took Leng How worked as a vegetable packer at Pasir Panjang Wholesale Centre.
  2. Huang Na, an eight-year-old girl, was last seen on October 10, 2004, at the Wholesale Centre.
  3. Took Leng How admitted to being with Huang Na on the day of her disappearance.
  4. Huang Na's body was found in a cardboard box at Telok Blangah Hill Park, led by Took Leng How.
  5. The cause of death was determined to be acute airway occlusion.
  6. Took Leng How did not testify at the trial.
  7. Took Leng How claimed the deceased had a fit.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Took Leng How v Public Prosecutor, Cr App 10/2005, [2006] SGCA 3

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Huang Shuying departed for China, leaving the deceased in the care of Li Xiu Qin.
Huang Na disappeared from Pasir Panjang Wholesale Centre.
Took Leng How met the deceased at Block 13 of the Wholesale Centre.
Police interviewed Took Leng How.
Police interviewed Took Leng How.
Took Leng How absconded from police custody.
Took Leng How surrendered to Malaysian authorities.
Police retrieved Huang Na's remains based on information from Took Leng How.
Judgment reserved.
Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Diminished Responsibility
    • Outcome: The court held that the accused was not suffering from an abnormality of mind at the time of the offence, and therefore the defence of diminished responsibility was not available to him.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Abnormality of mind
      • Impairment of cognitive functions
      • Impairment of self-control
    • Related Cases:
      • [1999] 2 SLR 260
      • [1960] 2 QB 396
  2. Adverse Inferences
    • Outcome: The court found that the trial judge was justified in drawing an adverse inference from the accused's silence, as the accused was the only person who could shed light on the events that transpired.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [1982] AC 136
  3. Causation
    • Outcome: The court held that the Defence failed to raise a reasonable doubt as to the cause of death of the deceased, and there was sufficient evidence to support the Prosecution’s case that the accused had smothered the deceased and thereby caused her death.
    • Category: Substantive
  4. Standard of Proof
    • Outcome: The court reiterated the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Reasonable doubt
    • Related Cases:
      • [1935] AC 462
      • [1947] 2 All ER 372

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Appeal against conviction
  2. Appeal against sentence

9. Cause of Actions

  • Murder

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Law
  • Appeals

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Woolmington v Director of Public ProsecutionsHouse of LordsYes[1935] AC 462England and WalesCited for the fundamental principle that the prosecution must prove the prisoner’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Syed Abdul Aziz v PPCourt of AppealYes[1993] 3 SLR 534SingaporeCited for approval of the dictum in Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions regarding the burden of proof.
Ramakrishnan s/o Ramayan v PPCourt of AppealYes[1998] 3 SLR 645SingaporeCited for approval of the dictum in Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions regarding the burden of proof.
Miller v Minister of PensionsHigh CourtYes[1947] 2 All ER 372England and WalesCited for the definition of 'reasonable doubt' as a high degree of probability, not proof beyond the shadow of a doubt.
Teo Keng Pong v PPHigh CourtYes[1996] 3 SLR 329SingaporeCited for the explanation that the prosecution is not required to prove its case beyond all doubts, but beyond reasonable doubt.
Chua Siew Lin v PPHigh CourtYes[2004] 4 SLR 497SingaporeCited to support the principle that a reasonable doubt is a doubt which is material and counts.
Lim Thian Lai v PPCourt of AppealYes[2005] SGCA 50SingaporeCited for the principle that the court should be slow to interfere with the trial judge's findings of fact if there was sufficient evidence to support the findings.
Haw Tua Tau v PPPrivy CouncilYes[1982] AC 136United KingdomCited for the principle that inferences drawn from an accused's refusal to give evidence depend on the circumstances of the case.
Chai Chien Wei Kelvin v PPCourt of AppealYes[1999] 1 SLR 25SingaporeCited for the principle that the strongest inference from an accused's silence can be one of guilt itself.
Syed Yasser Arafat bin Shaik Mohamed v PPCourt of AppealYes[2000] 4 SLR 27SingaporeCited for the principle that the strongest inference from an accused's silence can be one of guilt itself.
Weissensteiner v RHigh Court of AustraliaYes(1993) 178 CLR 217AustraliaCited for the principle that the silence of the accused cannot fill in any gaps in the prosecution’s case.
Tengku Jonaris Badlishah v PPCourt of AppealYes[1999] 2 SLR 260SingaporeCited for the three-limb test to successfully plead the defence of diminished responsibility.
Walton v The QueenPrivy CouncilYes[1978] AC 788United KingdomCited for the principle that the court is entitled to consider not only the medical evidence but the evidence upon the whole facts and circumstances of the case when considering diminished responsibility.
Chua Hwa Soon Jimmy v PPCourt of AppealYes[1998] 2 SLR 22SingaporeCited for the principle that the court is entitled to consider not only the medical evidence but the evidence upon the whole facts and circumstances of the case when considering diminished responsibility.
Regina v ByrneCourt of Criminal AppealYes[1960] 2 QB 396England and WalesCited for the definition of 'abnormality of mind' in the context of diminished responsibility.
Regina v BathurstCourt of AppealYes[1968] 2 QB 99England and WalesCited for the principle that there can be no rigid norms regarding the accused's refusal to give evidence in respect of the defence of diminished responsibility.
PP v JuminemHigh CourtYes[2005] 4 SLR 536SingaporeCited for the principle that evidence of planning cannot be lightly dismissed when considering the defence of diminished responsibility.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Penal CodeSingapore
Section 300 Penal CodeSingapore
Section 300 Exception 7 Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed)Singapore
Section 302 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed)Singapore
Section 196(2) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed)Singapore
Section 196(5) of the CPCSingapore
Section 323 of the Penal CodeSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Diminished responsibility
  • Adverse inference
  • Reasonable doubt
  • Acute airway occlusion
  • Smothering
  • Abnormality of mind
  • Voluntarily causing hurt

15.2 Keywords

  • Murder
  • Diminished responsibility
  • Adverse inference
  • Singapore
  • Criminal law
  • Appeal

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Criminal Law90
Diminished Responsibility90
Criminal Procedure85
Adverse inferences75
Evidence70

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Evidence
  • Criminal Procedure
  • Diminished Responsibility