PP v Chee Cheong Hin Constance: Culpable Homicide & Kidnapping - Child's Death

In Public Prosecutor v Chee Cheong Hin Constance, the High Court of Singapore heard the case against Chee Cheong Hin Constance, who was charged with kidnapping and culpable homicide after a four-year-old child, Neo Sindee, fell from a block of flats. The prosecution argued that the accused had kidnapped Sindee and caused her death. The accused denied the charges. The court found the accused guilty of both kidnapping and culpable homicide, determining that she had intentionally caused Sindee's fall, leading to her death.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Accused convicted of kidnapping and culpable homicide.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Chee Cheong Hin Constance was charged with kidnapping and culpable homicide after a child fell from a block. The court found her guilty on both charges.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorProsecutionGovernment AgencyJudgment for ProsecutionWon
Wong Kok Weng of Deputy Public Prosecutors
Han Ming Kwang of Deputy Public Prosecutors
Chong Li Min of Deputy Public Prosecutors
Chee Cheong Hin ConstanceDefendantIndividualConvictedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
V K RajahJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Wong Kok WengDeputy Public Prosecutors
Han Ming KwangDeputy Public Prosecutors
Chong Li MinDeputy Public Prosecutors
Sunil SudheesanHarry Elias Partnership
Anand NalachandranHarry Elias Partnership
Subhas AnandanHarry Elias Partnership

4. Facts

  1. The accused, Chee Cheong Hin Constance, was charged with kidnapping and causing the death of Neo Sindee.
  2. On 7 October 2004, Sindee fell from Block 1, Telok Blangah Crescent.
  3. Sindee died five days later without regaining consciousness.
  4. The accused was alone with Sindee just before she fell.
  5. The accused had an intimate relationship with Neo, Sindee's father, and lent him a substantial amount of money.
  6. The relationship between the accused and Neo had deteriorated before the incident.
  7. The accused entered the Flat and removed Sindee from her bed without her parents’ consent.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Public Prosecutor v Chee Cheong Hin Constance, CC 13/2005, [2006] SGHC 9

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Neo and the accused befriended each other.
Joseph Wong Tai Fatt moved into the Flat.
The accused visited the Flat to meet Neo.
The accused visited the Flat to request repayment of her money.
The accused returned to the Flat to speak to Neo.
Sindee fell from Block 1, Telok Blangah Crescent.
Sindee was admitted to Singapore General Hospital.
Sindee passed away.
Dr. Stephen Phang conducted a psychiatric assessment of the accused.
Dr. Stephen Phang concluded his psychiatric assessment of the accused.
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Culpable Homicide
    • Outcome: The court convicted the accused of culpable homicide.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Kidnapping
    • Outcome: The court convicted the accused of kidnapping.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Adverse Inferences
    • Outcome: The court drew adverse inferences from the accused's lies on material issues at trial.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Conviction
  2. Sentencing

9. Cause of Actions

  • Culpable Homicide
  • Kidnapping

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Law
  • Homicide
  • Kidnapping

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Leo Fernando v RegUnknownYes[1959] MLJ 157UnknownCited regarding discrepancies in testimonies and tailoring evidence.
The State v Sulekh Chand son of DalelPunjab High CourtYesAIR 1964 Punjab 83IndiaCited for the principle that the offence of kidnapping consists solely of intentionally taking a minor from the keeping of her lawful guardian; no motive or particular purpose need be established.
Chhajju Ram Maru Ram v The State of PunjabPunjab High CourtYesAIR 1968 Punjab 439IndiaCited for the principle that in determining whether a person takes a minor out of the lawful keeping of its guardian, the distance is immaterial.
Lau Lee Peng v PPCourt of AppealYes[2000] 2 SLR 628SingaporeCited for the principle that the Prosecution is not obliged to supply or prove a precise motive before a person is convicted of culpable homicide.
Ang Sunny v PPUnknownYes[1965–1968] SLR 67SingaporeCited for the principle that circumstantial evidence must inevitably and inexorably lead the court to a single conclusion of the accused’s guilt.
PP v Oh Laye KohCourt of AppealYes[1994] 2 SLR 385SingaporeCited for the principle that the Prosecution does not carry a higher burden in the final evaluation of a case predicated upon circumstantial evidence as opposed to one based on direct evidence.
DPP v KilbourneHouse of LordsYes[1973] AC 729EnglandCited for the principle that circumstantial evidence works by cumulatively eliminating other possibilities.
Regina v ExallUnknownYes4 F & F 922; 176 ER 850EnglandCited for the principle that circumstantial evidence may be a combination of circumstances that create a strong conclusion of guilt.
R v CollingsEngland and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)Yes[2004] EWCA Crim 1204England and WalesCited as affirming the principles on circumstantial evidence stated in Director of Public Prosecutions v Kilbourne and Regina v Exall.
Oh Laye Koh v PPCourt of AppealYes[1994] SGCA 102SingaporeCited for the principle that all the evidence would have to be considered cumulatively to see if the charge has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Peacock v The KingHigh Court of AustraliaYes(1911) 13 CLR 619AustraliaCited for the principle that the circumstances must be such as to be inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused.
Plomp v The QueenHigh Court of AustraliaYes(1963) 110 CLR 234AustraliaCited for the principle that where circumstantial evidence is relied upon to prove guilt, it is necessary not only that it should be a rational inference but the only rational inference that the circumstance would enable them to draw.
Knight v The QueenHigh Court of AustraliaYes(1992) 175 CLR 495AustraliaCited as affirming the principles articulated in Peacock v The King and Plomp v The Queen.
R v MclntyreNew South Wales Court of Criminal AppealYes[2000] NSWCCA 6AustraliaCited for the principle that the accused in a case based on circumstantial evidence does not have to point to evidence of a conclusion consistent with innocence.
Kwan Ping-bong v The QueenUnknownYes[1979] HKLR 1Hong KongCited for the principle that the inference must be compelling – one (and the only one) that no reasonable man could fail to draw from the direct facts proved.
Tang Kwok Wah, Dixon v Hong Kong Special Administrative RegionUnknownYes[2002] 40 KHCU 1Hong KongCited as approving and applying the principles in Kwan Ping-bong v The Queen.
Yau Chiu Ming v HKSARUnknownYes[2003] 530 HKCU 1Hong KongCited as approving and applying the principles in Kwan Ping-bong v The Queen.
Law Ng Yuen v HKSARUnknownYes[2003] 367 HKCU 1Hong KongCited as approving and applying the principles in Kwan Ping-bong v The Queen.
HKSAR v Ma Yee KeungUnknownYes[2000] 4 HKC 713Hong KongCited as approving and applying the principles in Kwan Ping-bong v The Queen.
PP v Yeo Choon PohUnknownYes[1994] 2 SLR 867SingaporeCited for the principle that an accused’s deliberate lies on material issues can corroborate other evidence against him.
Regina v Lucas (Ruth)UnknownYes[1981] QB 720EnglandCited for the test applied in PP v Yeo Choon Poh regarding adverse inferences from deliberate lies.
R v Strudwick and MerryUnknownYes(1994) 99 Cr App R 326EnglandCited for the principle that lies, if proved to have been told through a consciousness of guilt, may support a prosecution case, but on their own they do not make a positive case of manslaughter or indeed any other crime.
PP v Abdul Naser bin Amer HamsahCourt of AppealYes[1997] 1 SLR 73SingaporeCited for the principle that section 108 of the Evidence Act applies in extremely limited and narrow circumstances.
Sundara Moorthy Lankatharan v PPUnknownYes[1997] 3 SLR 464SingaporeCited for the principle that a flawed witness may still be telling the truth on some matters.
Jimina Jacee d/o CD Athananasius v PPUnknownYes[2000] 1 SLR 205SingaporeCited for the principle that a flawed witness may still be telling the truth on some matters.
Mohammed Zairi bin Mohamad Mohtar v PPUnknownYes[2002] 1 SLR 344SingaporeCited for the principle that a flawed witness may still be telling the truth on some matters.
Ng So Kuen Connie v PPUnknownYes[2003] 3 SLR 178SingaporeCited for the principle that a flawed witness may still be telling the truth on some matters.
Khoon Chye Hin v PPUnknownYes[1961] MLJ 105MalaysiaCited for the principle that if a witness demonstrably tells lies on one or two points then it is clear that he is not a reliable witness and as a matter of prudence the rest of his evidence must be scrutinised with great care and indeed with suspicion.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Section 304(a) Penal CodeSingapore
Section 363 Penal CodeSingapore
Section 123(1) Criminal Procedure CodeSingapore
Section 196(2) Criminal Procedure CodeSingapore
Evidence ActSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Culpable Homicide
  • Kidnapping
  • Circumstantial Evidence
  • Adverse Inference
  • Credibility
  • Mental Illness
  • Loan Repayment
  • Relationship Deterioration

15.2 Keywords

  • culpable homicide
  • kidnapping
  • circumstantial evidence
  • Singapore
  • criminal law
  • child death

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Culpable Homicide95
Criminal Law90
Abduction85
Criminal Procedure80
Circumstantial Evidence75
Evidence70
Adverse inferences65
Penal Code60
Confessions40
Juvenile Law30
Public Prosecutor30
Guardianship of Infants Act30
Consent of Public Prosecutor20

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Criminal Procedure
  • Evidence