Public Prosecutor v Daniel Vijay: Sentencing for Robbery with Hurt after Murder Conviction Overturned
In Public Prosecutor v Daniel Vijay s/o Katherasan and another, the High Court of Singapore sentenced Daniel Vijay and Christopher Samson for the offence of robbery with hurt under section 394 read with section 34 of the Penal Code, after their initial murder convictions were overturned by the Court of Appeal. The court sentenced both accused to 15 years’ imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane, backdated to their arrest on 5 June 2006.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Both accused sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane for robbery with hurt.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Daniel Vijay and Christopher Samson's murder convictions were overturned to robbery with hurt. The court sentenced them to 15 years' imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Prosecution | Government Agency | Sentencing | Won | Sharmila Sripathy-Shanaz of Attorney-General’s Chambers Amarjit Singh of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Daniel Vijay s/o Katherasan | Defendant | Individual | Sentenced | Lost | |
| Christopher Samson s/o Anpalagan | Defendant | Individual | Sentenced | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Sharmila Sripathy-Shanaz | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Amarjit Singh | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| James Bahadur Masih | James Masih & Co |
| Sunil Sudheesan | Khattar Wong |
| Subhas Anandan | Khattar Wong |
4. Facts
- Daniel and Christopher were initially convicted of murder, but the convictions were overturned on appeal.
- The Court of Appeal substituted the murder charge with a charge of robbery with hurt under section 394 read with section 34 of the Penal Code.
- The victim died as a result of the robbery.
- Daniel and Christopher contemplated the use of violence in the robbery.
- The robbery was planned meticulously, and the victim was chosen for his vulnerability.
- The stolen mobile phones were valued at US$823,500.
- Daniel and Christopher did not inflict the fatal injuries themselves; Bala did.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Daniel Vijay s/o Katherasan and another, Criminal Case No 16 of 2007, [2010] SGHC 334
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Daniel convicted under the Road Traffic Act. | |
| Daniel convicted again for taking or driving a motor vehicle without lawful authority. | |
| Robbery occurred. | |
| Daniel and Christopher arrested. | |
| Daniel, Christopher and Nakamuthu Balakrishnan convicted of murder. | |
| Court of Appeal set aside Daniel’s and Christopher’s convictions for murder and convicted them for robbery with hurt. | |
| Daniel and Christopher sentenced for robbery with hurt. |
7. Legal Issues
- Sentencing for Robbery with Hurt
- Outcome: The court sentenced both accused to 15 years’ imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2010] 2 SLR 976
- [2004] SGHC 172
8. Remedies Sought
- Imprisonment
- Caning
9. Cause of Actions
- Robbery with Hurt
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PP v Daniel Vijay s/o Katherasan & Ors | High Court | Yes | [2008] SGHC 120 | Singapore | Cited for the findings of fact made at the trial, which were left practically intact by the Court of Appeal. |
| Daniel Vijay s/o Katherasan and others v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] SGCA 33 | Singapore | Cited as the judgment where the Court of Appeal revisited and restated the law relating to section 34 of the Penal Code, set aside the murder convictions, and substituted a charge of robbery with hurt. |
| PP v Hirris Anak Martin & Anor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 2 SLR 976 | Singapore | Cited for the established sentencing range for robbery cases involving death. |
| Ang Ser Kuang v PP | N/A | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 316 | Singapore | Cited by the defense for comparison of sentencing. |
| PP v Somrak Senkham and Another | High Court | Yes | [2004] SGHC 172 | Singapore | Cited by the defense for comparison of sentencing, but rejected by the court as precedent. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) Section 229(1) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) Section 394 | Singapore |
| Penal Code Section 34 | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act (Cap 276) | Singapore |
| Penal Code Section 397 | Singapore |
| Penal Code Section 109 | Singapore |
| Penal Code Section 392 | Singapore |
| Penal Code Section 414 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Robbery with Hurt
- Common Intention
- Sentencing
- Remission
- Cane
- Section 34 Penal Code
- Section 394 Penal Code
15.2 Keywords
- Robbery
- Hurt
- Sentencing
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Robbery | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Theft | 85 |
| Sentencing | 80 |
| Criminal Procedure | 70 |
| Murder | 60 |
| Contract Law | 30 |
| Road Traffic Accident Law | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
- Robbery