Public Prosecutor v Ellarry bin Puling: Joint Charge of Murder and Common Intention
In Public Prosecutor v Ellarry bin Puling and another, the High Court of Singapore heard the case against Ellarry bin Puling and Fabian Adiu Edwin, who were jointly charged with murder for the death of Loh Ee Hui. The incident occurred on August 23, 2008, at a bus stop along Sims Avenue. The court, presided over by Chan Seng Onn J, found Fabian guilty of murder under Section 300(c) of the Penal Code, determining that he intended to cause bodily injury sufficient to cause death. Ellarry was acquitted of the murder charge but convicted of robbery with hurt under ss 394 read with 34, as the court found that he shared a common intention to rob the deceased but not to cause a s 300(c) injury. Fabian received the mandatory death penalty, while Ellarry's sentencing was adjourned.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Fabian Adiu Edwin found guilty of murder under Section 300(c) of the Penal Code; Ellarry bin Puling convicted of robbery with hurt under ss 394 read with 34.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Malaysian nationals Ellarry bin Puling and Fabian Adiu Edwin faced murder charges for the death of Loh Ee Hui. The court found Fabian guilty of murder, while Ellarry was convicted of robbery with hurt.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Prosecution | Government Agency | Partial Victory | Partial | Han Ming Kuang of Attorney-General’s Chambers Victor Lim of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ellarry bin Puling | Defendant | Individual | Partial Loss | Partial | |
| Fabian Adiu Edwin | Defendant | Individual | Lost | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Seng Onn | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Han Ming Kuang | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Victor Lim | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| B Rengarajoo | B Rengarajoo & Associates |
| Anand Nalachandran | Braddell Brothers LLP |
| Jansen Lim | ATMD Bird & Bird LLP |
4. Facts
- The deceased, Loh Ee Hui, was found unconscious at a bus stop along Sims Avenue with severe head injuries.
- Fabian admitted to hitting the deceased on the head with a wooden object.
- Ellarry admitted to being present at the scene with Fabian, intending to rob the deceased.
- The deceased's EZ-Link card was recovered from Fabian, and the deceased's phone was recovered from Ellarry.
- Dr. Teo's autopsy report certified the cause of death as intracranial hemorrhage and cerebral contusions with a fractured skull.
- Ellarry and Fabian had planned to rob someone that night.
- Ellarry and Fabian split the loot after robbing the deceased.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Ellarry bin Puling and another, Criminal Case No 40 of 2009, [2011] SGHC 214
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Loh Ee Hui found lying in a pool of blood at bus-stop B13 along Sims Avenue | |
| Loh Ee Hui succumbed to injuries at 8.32pm | |
| Fabian Adiu Edwin arrested at Boon Lay MRT station | |
| Ellarry bin Puling arrested at his workplace | |
| Trial concluded | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Murder
- Outcome: Fabian was found guilty of murder under Section 300(c) of the Penal Code.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Intention to cause bodily injury
- Sufficiency of injury to cause death
- Diminished responsibility
- Common Intention
- Outcome: Ellarry was not found to have shared a common intention to commit murder but was convicted of robbery with hurt.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Shared intention to commit a criminal act
- Liability for acts done in furtherance of common intention
- Robbery with Hurt
- Outcome: Ellarry was convicted of robbery with hurt under ss 394 read with 34.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Use of force during robbery
- Causing hurt during robbery
- Admissibility of Statements
- Outcome: The court admitted the statements of both accused persons as evidence, noting that their admissibility and accuracy were not challenged at trial.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Conviction for Murder
- Sentencing according to the Penal Code
9. Cause of Actions
- Murder
- Robbery
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Homicide
- Robbery
- 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 | High Court | Yes | [2010] 4 SLR 1119 | Singapore | Cited regarding the application of Section 34 common intention in murder cases and the need for further cross-examination. |
| Virsa Singh v State of Punjab | Supreme Court | Yes | AIR [1958] SC 465 | India | Seminal authority on the interpretation of s 300(c) of the Penal Code, outlining the four elements that must be established to prove murder under this section. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lim Poh Lye | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 4 SLR(R) 582 | Singapore | Affirmed the analysis in Virsa Singh and emphasized that whether a particular injury was accidental or unintended is a question of fact. |
| Public Prosecutor v Kho Jabing and Anor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] SGCA 24 | Singapore | Affirmed the analysis in Virsa Singh and clarified the law on the interpretation and application of s 34. |
| Public Prosecutor v AFR | High Court | Yes | [2010] SGHC 82 | Singapore | Cited regarding the subjective inquiry into the question of intention and the distinction between injuries that are ordinary and natural consequences and those that are not. |
| Muhammad bin Kadar and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] SGCA 32 | Singapore | Clarified the law on the interpretation and application of s 34. |
| Barendra Kumar Ghosh v Emperor | Privy Council | Yes | AIR 1925 PC 1 | N/A | Established the 'Barendra test' for common intention, requiring a common intention to commit the criminal act that results in the offence charged. |
| Public Prosecutor v Visuvanathan | High Court | Yes | [1977-78] SLR(R) 27 | Singapore | Case where the accused stabbed the deceased in the heart region of the chest. |
| Tan Joo Cheng v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR(R) 219 | Singapore | Case where the accused stabbed the deceased in the neck. |
| Tan Cheow Bock v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1991] 2 SLR(R) 608 | Singapore | Case where the stab wound was particularly deep. |
| Tan Chee Wee v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2004] 1 SLR(R) 479 | Singapore | Case where multiple blows with a hammer were visited upon the head of the deceased. |
| R v Byrne | Court of Criminal Appeal | Yes | [1960] 2 QB 396 | England and Wales | Defined 'abnormality of mind' as a state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal. |
| Zailani bin Ahmad v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 1 SLR(R) 356 | Singapore | Cited the definition of 'abnormality of mind' from R v Byrne. |
| Took Leng How v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 2 SLR(R) 70 | Singapore | Reiterated the three-limb test for establishing the defence of diminished responsibility and cited the definition of 'abnormality of mind' from R v Byrne. |
| Ong Pang Siew v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] SGCA 37 | Singapore | Stated the criteria for establishing the defence of diminished responsibility. |
| Chua Hwa Soon Jimmy v PP | High Court | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR(R) 601 | Singapore | Stated that the appellant bears the burden of proving the defence of diminished responsibility on a balance of probabilities. |
| Mahbub Shah v Emperor | Privy Council | Yes | AIR 1945 PC 118 | N/A | Stated that Section 34 does not create a substantive offence but merely lays down a principle of liability. |
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 |
| Penal Code, Chapter 224, Section 300(c) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code, Chapter 68, Section 399 | Singapore |
| Penal Code, Section 394 | Singapore |
| Penal Code, Section 300, Exception 7 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Common intention
- Section 300(c) murder
- Robbery with hurt
- Diminished responsibility
- Intracranial hemorrhage
- Cerebral contusions
- Fractured skull
- Volte-face
- Look-out
- Barendra test
- LCK requirement
15.2 Keywords
- Murder
- Robbery
- Common Intention
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
- Penal Code
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Complicity | 80 |
| Criminal Procedure | 70 |
| Theft | 60 |
| Sentencing | 50 |
| Fraud and Deceit | 30 |
| Contract Law | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Murder
- Robbery
- Common Intention
- Diminished Responsibility