PP v Tan Chor Jin: Arms Offences Act - Intent to Cause Physical Injury
In Public Prosecutor v Tan Chor Jin, the High Court of Singapore found Tan Chor Jin guilty under the Arms Offences Act for using a Beretta pistol with the intent to cause physical injury to Lim Hock Soon, resulting in his death. The incident occurred at Lim's residence. Tan Chor Jin claimed self-defense and accidental misfire, but the court rejected these claims, finding that he failed to disprove the presumption of intent to cause physical injury. The court sentenced Tan Chor Jin to the death penalty.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Accused found guilty as charged and convicted under section 4(1) read with section 4(2) of the Arms Offences Act.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Tan Chor Jin was convicted under the Arms Offences Act for using a pistol with intent to cause physical injury, resulting in the death penalty.
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 | Edwin San of DPPs Chew Chin Yee of DPPs |
| Tan Chor Jin | Defendant | Individual | Accused found guilty | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Edwin San | DPPs |
| Chew Chin Yee | DPPs |
4. Facts
- The accused, Tan Chor Jin, discharged six rounds from a Beretta pistol, hitting Lim Hock Soon five times.
- The shooting occurred in the study room of Lim Hock Soon's flat.
- The accused claimed he went to the flat to talk to the deceased about a debt.
- The accused alleged that the deceased attacked him with a chair, causing the pistol to misfire.
- The court found that the accused had the intent to cause physical injury.
- The accused discarded the pistol in a canal after the shooting.
- The accused was arrested in Kuala Lumpur with the deceased's Rolex watch.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Tan Chor Jin, CC 30/2006, [2007] SGHC 77
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Shooting incident at Blk 223 Serangoon Avenue 4 | |
| Ah Chwee led police to the canal where the gun was recovered | |
| Accused arrested in Kuala Lumpur | |
| Accused brought back to Singapore by the police | |
| Accused made a statement under s 122(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code | |
| Accused made statements to ASP Abdul Halim Osman pursuant to s 121 of the Criminal Procedure Code | |
| Accused made statements to ASP Abdul Halim Osman pursuant to s 121 of the Criminal Procedure Code | |
| Trial resumed | |
| Dr. Winslow prepared a report | |
| Trial resumed | |
| Dr Winslow returned to court | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Intention to Cause Physical Injury
- Outcome: The court found that the accused failed to disprove the presumption that he intended to cause physical injury.
- Category: Substantive
- Defence of Intoxication
- Outcome: The court rejected the defence of intoxication, finding that the accused's ability to form intent was not impaired.
- Category: Substantive
- Right of Private Defence
- Outcome: The court rejected the defence of private defence, finding that the accused was the aggressor and the deceased was exercising his right of private defence.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Criminal Prosecution
- Death Penalty
9. Cause of Actions
- Violation of Arms Offences Act
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tay Chin Wah v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR 27 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that once a shot has been discharged from an arm, the onus is on the accused to prove they did not intend to cause physical injury. |
| Ismail bin Abdul Rahman | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] 2 SLR 74 | Singapore | Cited regarding the application of the statutory presumption in section 4(2) of the Arms Offences Act. |
| Jin Yugang v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2003] SGCA 22 | Singapore | Cited for the principle of weighing the accused’s claim of intoxication against the other objective evidence. |
| Soosay v PP | Court of Appeal | No | [1993] 3 SLR 272 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements to establish the defense of private defence. |
| Mohd Sulaiman v PP | Court of Appeal | No | [1994] 2 SLR 465 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an assailant cannot have a right of private defence against someone legitimately exercising their right of private defence. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Arms Offences Act (Cap 14, 1998 revised edition), section 4(1) | Singapore |
| Arms Offences Act (Cap 14, 1998 revised edition), section 4(2) | Singapore |
| Penal Code, section 85 | Singapore |
| Penal Code, section 86 | Singapore |
| Penal Code, section 96 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Arms Offences Act
- Beretta pistol
- Intention to cause physical injury
- Defence of intoxication
- Right of private defence
- Misfire
- Statutory presumption
- Forensic evidence
- Gunshot residue
- Cartridge casings
15.2 Keywords
- Arms Offences Act
- Firearm
- Intent
- Intoxication
- Self-defense
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
- Murder
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Arms Offences | 98 |
| Criminal Law | 95 |
| Murder | 90 |
| Offences | 85 |
| Evidence Law | 70 |
| Evidence | 65 |
| Sentencing | 60 |
| Confessions | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Arms Offences
- Use of Firearm
- Criminal Intent
- Defences