PP v Lee Chez Kee: Murder, Common Intention, Robbery, Admissibility of Co-Accused Statements
In Public Prosecutor v Lee Chez Kee, the High Court of Singapore convicted Lee Chez Kee of murder under section 302 read with section 34 of the Penal Code, sentencing him to the mandatory death penalty. The charge stemmed from the death of Lee Kok Cheong during a robbery in 1993, in which Lee Chez Kee acted with Too Yin Sheong and Ng Chek Siong. The court admitted statements from Too Yin Sheong, who was deceased, and found that the evidence established a common intention among the three to commit robbery, leading to the victim's death.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Accused found guilty of murder and sentenced to the mandatory death penalty.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Lee Chez Kee was convicted of murder for the death of Lee Kok Cheong during a robbery. The court admitted statements from co-accused and found common intention.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Prosecution | Government Agency | Judgment for Prosecution | Won | Lee Cheow Han of Deputy Public Prosecutors Tan Wee Soon of Deputy Public Prosecutors |
| Lee Chez Kee | Defendant | Individual | Convicted of Murder | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Lee Cheow Han | Deputy Public Prosecutors |
| Tan Wee Soon | Deputy Public Prosecutors |
| Wendell Wong | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Rupert Seah Eng Chee | Rupert Seah & Co. |
4. Facts
- Lee Chez Kee was charged with murder in furtherance of a common intention to commit robbery.
- The victim, Lee Kok Cheong, was found dead in his house with his hands and feet bound.
- The cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation.
- The accused admitted to being present at the victim's house with the intention of committing robbery.
- The accused shared in the spoils of the robbery and used the victim's Cash-On-Line card.
- Statements from a co-accused, Too Yin Sheong, implicated the accused in the murder.
- The accused was afraid of being recognized by the deceased.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Lee Chez Kee, CC 25/2006, [2007] SGHC 4
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Robbery and murder of Lee Kok Cheong occurred. | |
| NETS transactions executed using the deceased’s Cash-On-Line card. | |
| Further purchases made using the deceased’s Cash-On-Line card. | |
| Discovery of Lee Kok Cheong's body. | |
| Too Yin Sheong made cautioned written statement. | |
| Too Yin Sheong made written statement. | |
| Too Yin Sheong made written statement. | |
| Too Yin Sheong made oral statement at the deceased’s house. | |
| Too Yin Sheong made oral statement at the junction of Joo Chiat Road and Dunman Road. | |
| Too Yin Sheong made oral statement at East Coast Road in front of Min Seng Pawnshop. | |
| Too Yin Sheong and Ng Chek Siong were convicted and sentenced. | |
| Too Yin Sheong's death sentence carried out. | |
| Ng Chek Siong repatriated to Malaysia. | |
| Lee Chez Kee made cautioned statement. | |
| Lee Chez Kee made statement. | |
| Lee Chez Kee made statement. | |
| Lee Chez Kee made statement. | |
| Lee Chez Kee was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. |
7. Legal Issues
- Admissibility of out-of-court confessions of co-accused not party to proceedings
- Outcome: The court held that the out-of-court confessions of a co-accused not party to the proceedings were admissible under s 378(1)(b)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- Category: Procedural
- Proof of evidence
- Outcome: The court held that the Prosecution discharged its burden beyond reasonable doubt and that the evidence gave rise to a prima facie inference that the accused was involved in the deceased's death.
- Category: Substantive
- Common Intention
- Outcome: The court found that the evidence established a common intention among the accused and his accomplices to commit robbery, leading to the victim's death.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Conviction
- Death Penalty
9. Cause of Actions
- Murder
- Robbery
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Too Yin Sheong | High Court | Yes | [1998] SGHC 286 | Singapore | Cited for the conviction and sentencing of Too Yin Sheong for his involvement in the murder. |
| Too Yin Sheong v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR 682 | Singapore | Cited for the conviction and sentencing of Too Yin Sheong for his involvement in the murder and for expounding on the legislative intent behind section 34 of the Penal Code. |
| R v Bryan James Turner and others | English Court of Appeal | Yes | (1975) 61 Cr. App. R. 67 | England | Cited to illustrate the general inadmissibility of out-of-court confessions made by non-accused persons. |
| R v Blastland | House of Lords | Yes | [1986] AC 41 | England | Cited to illustrate the general inadmissibility of out-of-court confessions made by non-accused persons. |
| PP v Krishna Rao a/l Gurumurthi and others | High Court of Ipoh | Yes | [2000] 1 MLJ 274 | Malaysia | Cited for the inference that the accused’s custody of the deceased’s personal possessions was sufficient to warrant an inference under the Malaysian equivalent of our s 116 that the accused had been party to the murder of the deceased. |
| Re Madgula Jermiah | Supreme Court of India | Yes | (1957) AIR Andhra Pradesh 611 | India | Cited for the principle that if murder and robbery form parts of the same transaction, a presumption may be drawn against the accused for murder if he is found to be in possession of the jewels worn by the deceased in the absence of a reasonable explanation by him. |
| Sogaimuthu Padayachi v King Emperor | Madras High Court | Yes | ILR 50 Mad 274 (AIR 1926 Mad 638) | India | Cited for the principle that if a person who retires to bed in a normal state of health is found next morning lying dead and his safe rifled and his valuables stolen and if it comes to light that the man did not die a natural death, but was murdered and that if the property which was in the safe shortly before the murder is found in the possession of persons who are unable to account for them the jury is entitled to draw the inference and the law requires them to draw the inference that the persons in possession of such property are not only the thieves but also the murderers. |
| Wasim Khan v State of Uttar Pradesh | Supreme Court of India | Yes | [1956] SCR 191 | India | Cited for the principle that recent and unexplained possession of the stolen property while it would be presumptive evidence against a prisoner on the charge of robbery would similarly be evidence against him on the charge of murder. |
| Queen-Empress v Sami and another | High Court | Yes | [1890] ILR 13 Mad 426 | India | Cited for the principle that under these circumstances, and in the absence of any explanation, the presumption arises that anyone who took part in a robbery also took part in the murder. |
| PP v Gerardine Andrew | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR 736 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements for establishing liability under s 34 of the Penal Code. |
| PP v Lim Poh Lye and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 4 SLR 582 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that once the elements of s 34 are satisfied, the fact that a trial court is unable to positively decide who, as between two (or more) accomplices, in fact inflicted the fatal injuries is “not at all critical”. |
| Shaiful Edham bin Adam and another v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR 57 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that once the elements of s 34 are satisfied, the fact that a trial court is unable to positively decide who, as between two (or more) accomplices, in fact inflicted the fatal injuries is “not at all critical”. |
| Wong Mimi v PP | N/A | Yes | [1972-1974] SLR 73 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the prosecution does not have to prove that there exists, between the participants who are charged with an offence read with s 34, a common intention to commit the crime actually committed. |
| PP v Neoh Bean Chye | N/A | Yes | [1972-1974] SLR 213 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the prosecution does not have to prove that there exists, between the participants who are charged with an offence read with s 34, a common intention to commit the crime actually committed. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code, Chapter 224, section 302 | Singapore |
| Penal Code, Chapter 224, section 34 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed), s 378(1)(b)(i) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed), Section 116 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code, s 377 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code, s 122(5) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code, s 378(2) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Common Intention
- Hearsay Evidence
- Admissibility of Statements
- Cash-On-Line Card
- Strangulation
- Robbery
- Co-Accused
- Voluntariness of Statements
15.2 Keywords
- Murder
- Robbery
- Common Intention
- Hearsay
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
- Evidence
- Admissibility
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Murder | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Evidence | 85 |
| Criminal Procedure | 70 |
| Theft | 60 |
| Criminal Revision | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Evidence Law
- Procedure