Public Prosecutor v Kho Jabing: Re-sentencing for Murder under Penal Code s 300(c)

The High Court of Singapore re-sentenced Kho Jabing on 18 November 2013, following his conviction for murder under section 300(c) of the Penal Code. The court, presided over by Tay Yong Kwang J, imposed a sentence of life imprisonment with effect from the date of his arrest (26 February 2008) and 24 strokes of the cane. This decision came after the case was remitted from the Court of Appeal for re-sentencing under the Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2012. The original conviction stemmed from a robbery that resulted in the death of Cao Ruyin.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

The convicted person was re-sentenced to life imprisonment with effect from the date of his arrest (26 February 2008) and to receive 24 strokes of the cane.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Re-sentencing of Kho Jabing for murder under s 300(c) of the Penal Code. The High Court imposed life imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorProsecutionGovernment AgencyAppeal against re-sentencingLost
Teo Lu Jia of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Lee Lit Cheng of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Seraphina Fong of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Kho JabingDefendantIndividualRe-sentenced to life imprisonment and caningPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Tay Yong KwangJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Teo Lu JiaAttorney-General’s Chambers
Lee Lit ChengAttorney-General’s Chambers
Seraphina FongAttorney-General’s Chambers
Josephus TanPatrick Tan LLC
Keith LimPatrick Tan LLC
Anand NalachandranBraddell Brothers LLP

4. Facts

  1. Jabing Kho and Galing Anak Kujat were convicted of murder under s 300(c) read with s 34 of the Penal Code.
  2. The victim, Cao Ruyin, died from severe head injuries sustained during the attack.
  3. The attack occurred during a robbery attempt in Geylang.
  4. Kho and Galing intended to rob the deceased and Wu Jun.
  5. Kho used a piece of wood to assault the deceased.
  6. The Court of Appeal affirmed Kho's conviction but allowed Galing's appeal, substituting it with robbery with hurt.
  7. The case was remitted to the High Court for re-sentencing after the Penal Code was amended.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Public Prosecutor v Kho Jabing, Criminal Case No 31 of 2009, [2013] SGHC 251
  2. Public Prosecutor v Galing Anak Kujat and another, , [2010] SGHC 212
  3. Kho Jabing and another v Public Prosecutor, , [2011] 3 SLR 634

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Murder of Cao Ruyin
Arrest made
Cao Ruyin passed away in hospital
Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore issued a media release
Kan J convicted Jabing Kho of murder
Court of Appeal affirmed the decision against the convicted person
Court of Appeal confirmed that the convicted person was convicted under s 300(c) of the Penal Code
Re-sentencing of Kho Jabing
Appeal to this decision was allowed by the Court of Appeal

7. Legal Issues

  1. Appropriate sentence for murder under s 300(c) of the Penal Code
    • Outcome: The court determined that the death penalty was not appropriate and re-sentenced the convicted person to life imprisonment and caning.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [1995] 1 SLR(R) 185
      • [1974 – 1976] SLR(R) 54
      • [1995] 2 SLR(R) 806
      • [2010] SGHC 212
      • [2011] 3 SLR 634
      • [2007] 2 SLR(R) 814

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Death Penalty
  2. Life Imprisonment
  3. Caning

9. Cause of Actions

  • Murder
  • Robbery

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Sim Gek Yong v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[1995] 1 SLR(R) 185SingaporeCited regarding the principle that the maximum sentence is reserved for the worst type of cases.
Sia Ah Kew and others v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[1974 – 1976] SLR(R) 54SingaporeCited regarding the consideration of facts and circumstances to determine if the accused person ought to suffer the death penalty.
Panya Martmontree and others v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[1995] 2 SLR(R) 806SingaporeCited regarding gang-robbery with murder under s 396 of the Penal Code.
Public Prosecutor v Galing Anak Kujat and anotherHigh CourtYes[2010] SGHC 212SingaporeJudgment of the trial where both Jabing Kho and Galing Anak Kujat were convicted of murder.
Kho Jabing and another v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2011] 3 SLR 634SingaporeCourt of Appeal's judgment where Galing's appeal was allowed and his conviction was substituted with an offence of robbery with hurt.
Public Prosecutor v Law Aik MengHigh CourtYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 814SingaporeCited regarding circumstances of an offence which may attract general deterrence.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore
Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2012 (Act No. 32 of 2012)Singapore
Section 302 of the Penal CodeSingapore
Section 300(c) of the Penal CodeSingapore
Section 34 of the Penal CodeSingapore
Section 394 of the Penal CodeSingapore
Section 396 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Re-sentencing
  • Murder
  • Penal Code s 300(c)
  • Life Imprisonment
  • Caning
  • Common Intention
  • Robbery
  • Opportunistic
  • Improvisational

15.2 Keywords

  • murder
  • re-sentencing
  • penal code
  • life imprisonment
  • caning
  • criminal law
  • singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Criminal Law95
Murder90
Sentencing85
Criminal Procedure70
Offences Relating to Property60
Theft40

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Sentencing
  • Homicide
  • Robbery