Kho Jabing v Public Prosecutor: Common Intention, Murder, and Robbery
In Kho Jabing and another v Public Prosecutor, the Court of Appeal of Singapore reviewed the High Court's decision to convict Galing Anak Kujat and Jabing Kho of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. The court dismissed Jabing's appeal, affirming his conviction for murder under Section 300(c) of the Penal Code. The court allowed Galing's appeal, substituting his murder conviction with a conviction for robbery with hurt committed in furtherance of a common intention under Section 394 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. The case involved a robbery where Jabing inflicted fatal injuries on the victim.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Jabing's appeal dismissed; Galing's appeal allowed, conviction substituted with robbery with hurt.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court of Appeal reviewed the convictions of Kho Jabing and Galing for murder, focusing on the element of common intention under Singapore's Penal Code.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Partial Loss | Partial | Gordon Oh of Attorney-General’s Chambers Lee Lit Cheng of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Kho Jabing | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Galing Anak Kujat | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Allowed in Part | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Sek Keong | Chief Justice | No |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| V K Rajah | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Gordon Oh | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Lee Lit Cheng | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Zaminder Singh Gill | Hilborne & Co |
| James Bahadur Masih | James Masih & Co |
| N Kanagavijayan | Kana & Co |
| Gloria James | Hoh Law Corporation |
4. Facts
- Jabing and Galing agreed to rob two Bangladeshi co-workers.
- The initial robbery plan was aborted.
- The appellants travelled to Geylang and spotted two victims, Wu Jun and Cao Ruyin.
- Jabing assaulted Cao Ruyin with a piece of wood, causing severe head injuries.
- Galing assaulted Wu Jun with a belt buckle.
- Cao Ruyin died from the injuries sustained during the assault.
- Galing sold the deceased's mobile phone for $300 and shared the proceeds.
5. Formal Citations
- Kho Jabing and another v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Appeal No 18 of 2010, [2011] SGCA 24
- Public Prosecutor v Galing Anak Kujat and another, , [2010] SGHC 212
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellants agreed to rob two Bangladeshi co-workers. | |
| Appellants travelled to Geylang. | |
| Appellants assaulted Wu Jun and Cao Ruyin. | |
| Cao Ruyin died from injuries. | |
| Jabing gave his first statement. | |
| High Court decision in [2010] SGHC 212. | |
| Judgment reserved by the Court of Appeal. | |
| Court of Appeal delivered its judgment. |
7. Legal Issues
- Common Intention
- Outcome: The court found that while there was a common intention to rob, there was no common intention to commit murder between Galing and Jabing.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Pre-arranged plan
- Subjective knowledge of likely criminal act
- Murder
- Outcome: The court upheld Jabing's conviction for murder under s 300(c) of the Penal Code, finding that he intentionally inflicted injuries sufficient to cause death.
- Category: Substantive
- Intoxication as a Defence
- Outcome: The court rejected Jabing's defence of intoxication, finding that he knew what he was doing at the time of the assault.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Mandatory Death Penalty
9. Cause of Actions
- Murder
- Robbery
- Robbery with Hurt
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
- Homicide
- Violent Crime
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Daniel Vijay s/o Katherasan and others v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 4 SLR 1119 | Singapore | Comprehensive review of local and foreign case law on Section 34 of the Penal Code, laying down what is required to prove 'common intention'. |
| Lee Chez Kee v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 447 | Singapore | Articulated the law relating to common intention. |
| Wong Mimi and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Criminal Appeal | Yes | [1971–1973] SLR(R) 412 | Singapore | The 'putative Mimi Wong (CCA) test' was rejected by this Court in Daniel Vijay as a misunderstanding of what was truly decided and/or stated in this case. |
| Virsa Singh v State of Punjab | Supreme Court | Yes | AIR 1958 SC 465 | India | Established requirements for Section 300(c) of the Penal Code. |
| Tan Chor Jin v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 306 | Singapore | Addressed the defence of intoxication under Section 85(2) of the Penal Code. |
| Barendra Kumar Ghosh v Emperor | Privy Council | Yes | AIR 1925 PC 1 | N/A | Established the 'Barendra test' for common intention. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Penal Code | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Common Intention
- Section 34 Penal Code
- Section 300(c) Penal Code
- Robbery with Hurt
- Virsa Singh Test
- Barendra Test
- Intoxication Defence
15.2 Keywords
- Murder
- Robbery
- Common Intention
- Singapore Law
- Criminal Appeal
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Criminal Law | 95 |
| Theft | 70 |
| Criminal Procedure | 60 |
| Criminal Revision | 50 |
| Contract Law | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
- Criminal Procedure