Public Prosecutor v Ismil bin Kadar: Murder, Robbery, and Common Intention

In Public Prosecutor v Ismil bin Kadar and Muhammad bin Kadar, the Singapore High Court heard the case against two brothers charged with murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. The charge was amended to specify that the common intention was to commit robbery. Ismil and Muhammad were accused of causing the death of Tham Weng Kuen at her flat on May 6, 2005. The prosecution relied heavily on statements made by both accused, which the defense challenged. The court addressed the admissibility of these statements, focusing on issues of voluntariness, withdrawal symptoms, and potential threats or inducements. The judgment was reserved.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment reserved

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court judgment on Ismil bin Kadar and Muhammad bin Kadar for murder committed during a robbery, examining admissibility of statements and defenses.

1.7 Decision Date

6 April 2009

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Public Prosecutor	Prosecution	Government Agency	Judgment reserved	Neutral	Anandan Bala of Deputy Public Prosecutors Mark Tay of Deputy Public Prosecutors Muhd Imaduddien of Deputy Public Prosecutors Mohd Faizal of Deputy Public Prosecutors
Muhammad bin Kadar	Defendant	Individual	Judgment reserved	Neutral	Rajan Supramaniam of Hilborne & Co Ismail Bin Hamid of Ismail Hamid & Co
Ismil bin Kadar	Defendant	Individual	Judgment reserved	Neutral	R Thrumurgan of Thiru & Co Krishnan Nadarajan of Tan, Lim & Wong

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Woo Bih Li	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Anandan Bala	Deputy Public Prosecutors
Mark Tay	Deputy Public Prosecutors
Muhd Imaduddien	Deputy Public Prosecutors
Mohd Faizal	Deputy Public Prosecutors
Rajan Supramaniam	Hilborne & Co
Ismail Bin Hamid	Ismail Hamid & Co
R Thrumurgan	Thiru & Co
Krishnan Nadarajan	Tan, Lim & Wong

4. Facts

Ismil and Muhammad Kadar, brothers, were charged with the murder of Tham Weng Kuen.
The murder occurred at Tham Weng Kuen's flat on May 6, 2005, during a robbery.
Tham Weng Kuen's husband, a bedridden stroke patient, was present in the flat.
The prosecution relied on statements made by Ismil and Muhammad to the police.
Ismil and Muhammad challenged the admissibility of their statements.
Ismil claimed to be suffering from withdrawal symptoms from Dormicum.
Ismil alleged threats, inducements, and oppressive circumstances during police questioning.

5. Formal Citations

Public Prosecutor v Ismil bin Kadar and Another, CC 9/2006, [2009] SGHC 84

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2005-05-06	Tham Weng Kuen murdered at Block 185 Boon Lay Avenue
2005-05-06	Ismil bin Kadar arrested for theft of mobile phone
2005-05-07	Ismil interviewed by SSI Lai and Inspector Wee
2005-05-07	Ismil interviewed by SSI Zainal at Block 185 carpark
2005-05-07	Ismil interviewed by SSI Zainal at Jurong West NPC
2005-05-07	Ismil gives statement to ASP Bakar
2005-05-07	Ismil taken to Alexandra Hospital for pre-statement medical examination
2005-05-07	Ismil gives cautioned statement to Inspector Ang
2005-05-07	Ismil taken to Alexandra Hospital for post-statement medical examination
2005-05-08	Ismil charged with murder
2005-05-11	Ismil gives statement to the IO
2005-05-12	Ismil interviewed by SSI Mazlan and ASP Bakar
2005-05-17	Ismil gives statement to the IO
2005-05-18	Ismil gives statement to the IO
2005-05-19	Ismil taken to Block 185 to reconstruct events
2005-05-19	Ismil gives statement to the IO outside #04-154
2005-05-20	Ismil gives statement to the IO at #04-154
2005-05-24	Ismil gives statement to the IO
2005-05-27	Ismil sent for psychiatric assessment
2005-05-30	Muhammad interviewed by SSI Mazlan, SSSGT Chandra and SSSGT Daniel
2005-05-30	Muhammad gives statement to SSI Mazlan
2005-05-30	Muhammad gives statement to SSI Ravindra
2005-05-30	Muhammad gives statement to the IO
2005-05-31	Muhammad taken to #04-154
2005-05-31	Muhammad taken to Alexandra Hospital for pre-statement medical examination
2005-05-31	Muhammad gives cautioned statement to Inspector Ang
2005-06-03	Ismil gives statement to ASP Bakar
2005-06-04	Muhammad gives statement to the IO
2005-06-07	Muhammad gives statement to the IO
2005-06-09	Ismil gives statement to the IO
2005-06-10	Muhammad gives statement to the IO
2005-06-13	Muhammad taken to Block 185
2005-06-14	Muhammad gives statement to the IO
2009-04-07	Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

Admissibility of Statements
- Outcome: The court addressed the legal principles governing the admissibility of statements, focusing on voluntariness, the impact of drug withdrawal, and potential threats or inducements. The court reserved judgment.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Voluntariness of statements
  - Effect of drug withdrawal on statements
  - Impact of threats, inducements, or promises on statements
  - Oppressive circumstances during interrogation
- Related Cases:
  - [1982] A C 204
  - [1994] 2 SLR 385
  - [1994] 2 SLR 853
  - [1998] AC 54
  - [2001] 1 WLR 485
  - [1999] 2 SLR 181
  - [2006] 1 SLR 319
  - (1972) 56 Cr App R 51
  - [1999] 1 SLR 25
  - [1996] 1 SLR 783
  - [1994] 2 SLR 243
  - [1998] 2 SLR 713
  - [1996] 1 CLAS News 75
  - [1993] 1 SLR 512
  - [2000] 3 SLR 565
  - [2008] 3 SLR 447
  - [1978] 2 MLJ 94
  - [1995] 2 SLR 129
  - [1999] 4 SLR 181
Common Intention
- Outcome: The court addressed the legal principles governing the common intention.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2008] 3 SLR 447
Diminished Responsibility
- Outcome: The court addressed the legal principles governing the diminished responsibility.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2005] 1 SLR 356
  - [2006] 4 SLR 874

8. Remedies Sought

Conviction
Sentencing

9. Cause of Actions

Murder
Robbery

10. Practice Areas

Criminal Law

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Seeraj Ajodha v The State	Privy Council	Yes	[1982] A C 204	United Kingdom	Cited for principles applicable to resolving questions of admissibility of statements from an accused person.
PP v Oh Laye Koh	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1994] 2 SLR 385	Singapore	Cited for implicitly accepting the principle from Ajodha regarding admissibility of statements.
Seow Choon Meng v PP	Unknown	Yes	[1994] 2 SLR 853	Singapore	Cited for the proposition that a voir dire should be held when a statement is challenged on the ground that it was not made and the circumstances raise the question that if it was made, it was not made voluntarily.
Thongjai v R	Unknown	Yes	[1998] AC 54	Unknown	Cited as a case applying the proposition that a voir dire should be held when a statement is challenged on the ground that it was not made and the circumstances raise the question that if it was made, it was not made voluntarily.
Timothy v The State	Unknown	Yes	[2001] 1 WLR 485	Unknown	Cited as a case applying the proposition that a voir dire should be held when a statement is challenged on the ground that it was not made and the circumstances raise the question that if it was made, it was not made voluntarily.
Gulam Bin Notan Mohd Shariff Jamalddin v PP	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1999] 2 SLR 181	Singapore	Cited for the test for determining admissibility under s 24 of the Evidence Act, including the objective and subjective limbs.
Lim Thian Lai v PP	Unknown	Yes	[2006] 1 SLR 319	Singapore	Cited for reiterating the objective and subjective components of the test for voluntariness.
R v Prager	Unknown	Yes	(1972) 56 Cr App R 51	United Kingdom	Cited for the common law concept of involuntariness by oppression, which has been subsumed under s 24 of the Evidence Act.
Chai Chien Wei Kelvin v PP	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1999] 1 SLR 25	Singapore	Cited for the definition and elements of oppression in relation to the admissibility of statements.
PP v Dahalan bin Ladaewa	Unknown	Yes	[1996] 1 SLR 783	Singapore	Cited for the court's discretion to admit or reject the statement of an accused person, even if the proviso to s 122(5) does not apply.
Garnam Singh v PP	Unknown	Yes	[1994] 2 SLR 243	Singapore	Cited for the principle that for the effects of withdrawal from drugs to render a statement involuntary, the person must be in a state of near delirium.
Chua Poh Kiat Anthony v PP	Unknown	Yes	[1998] 2 SLR 713	Singapore	Cited for reiterating the proposition from Garnam Singh regarding the effects of drug withdrawal on the voluntariness of statements.
PP v Dahalan bin Ladaewa	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1996] 1 CLAS News 75	Singapore	Cited for upholding the trial judge's decision on admissibility of statements.
PP v Mazlan bin Maidun and Anor	Unknown	Yes	[1993] 1 SLR 512	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an oral statement of an accused person would not be rendered inadmissible merely because of non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of s 121.
Sharom bin Ahmad v PP	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2000] 3 SLR 565	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a mere reference to statements made by a co-accused does not amount to an inducement.
Lee Chez Kee v PP	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2008] 3 SLR 447	Singapore	Cited for the requirements to make s 34 of the Penal Code applicable.
Lim Kim Tjok v PP	High Court	Yes	[1978] 2 MLJ 94	Singapore	Cited for the principle that words 'you had better tell the truth' or equivalent expressions have always been held to import a threat or inducement.
Osman bin Din v PP	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1995] 2 SLR 129	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the facts of each case have to be looked at individually to determine if an expression could amount to a threat or inducement.
Ong Seng Hwee v PP	High Court	Yes	[1999] 4 SLR 181	Singapore	Cited for the principle that even if the caution administered reflected only the first portion of s 121(2) of the CPC, the appellant had not been induced to make the statement.
Zailani bin Ahmad v PP	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2005] 1 SLR 356	Singapore	Cited for the three limbs that an accused person has to satisfy to establish diminished responsibility.
G Krishnasamy Naidu v PP	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2006] 4 SLR 874	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the three limbs or three-stage test for diminished responsibility is a composite clause that must be read and applied as a whole.

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), Section 122(5)	Singapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed), Section 24	Singapore
Evidence Act, Section 28	Singapore
Evidence Act, Section 29(a)	Singapore
Penal Code, Section 300	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Murder
Robbery
Common Intention
Admissibility of Statements
Voluntariness
Voir Dire
Withdrawal Symptoms
Threat
Inducement
Oppression
Diminished Responsibility

15.2 Keywords

Murder
Robbery
Common Intention
Admissibility of Statements
Voluntariness
Drug Withdrawal
Threats
Inducements
Oppression
Singapore High Court
Criminal Law
Evidence Law

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Murder	95
Criminal Law	90
Criminal Procedure	85
Evidence	80
Sentencing	75
Robbery	60
Theft	30
Drug Abuse	25
Criminal Revision	15

16. Subjects

Criminal Law
Criminal Procedure
Evidence
Sentencing