PP v Kho Jabing: Discretionary Death Penalty, Murder, Blatant Disregard for Human Life

In Public Prosecutor v Kho Jabing, the Singapore Court of Appeal heard an appeal against the High Court's re-sentencing of Kho Jabing to life imprisonment and caning, after his initial death sentence for murder under s 300(c) of the Penal Code was reconsidered due to legislative amendments. The Court of Appeal, with Justices Chao Hick Tin, Andrew Phang Boon Leong, Woo Bih Li, Lee Seiu Kin, and Chan Seng Onn presiding, allowed the prosecution's appeal and reimposed the death sentence, establishing guidelines for the discretionary death penalty, focusing on whether the offender's actions demonstrated a blatant disregard for human life. The court considered the viciousness of the attack and the offender's culpability.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Final Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore Court of Appeal decision on discretionary death penalty for murder, examining blatant disregard for human life. Appeal allowed.

1.7 Decision Date

13 January 2015

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Public Prosecutor	Appellant	Government Agency	Appeal Allowed	Won	Hay Hung Chun of Attorney-General’s Chambers Teo Lu Jia of Attorney-General’s Chambers Seraphina Fong of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Kho Jabing	Respondent	Individual	Death Penalty Imposed	Lost	Josephus Tan of Fortis Law Corporation Keith Lim of Fortis Law Corporation Anand Nalachandran of Braddell Brothers LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Chao Hick Tin	Justice of Appeal	Yes
Andrew Phang Boon Leong	Justice of Appeal	No
Woo Bih Li	Judge	No
Lee Seiu Kin	Judge	No
Chan Seng Onn	Judge	No

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Hay Hung Chun	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Teo Lu Jia	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Seraphina Fong	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Josephus Tan	Fortis Law Corporation
Keith Lim	Fortis Law Corporation
Anand Nalachandran	Braddell Brothers LLP

4. Facts

Kho Jabing and Galing Anak Kujat intended to rob the deceased and Wu Jun.
Jabing struck the deceased on the head with a piece of wood.
The deceased sustained severe head injuries, including skull fractures.
The Court of Appeal found that Jabing struck the deceased on the head more than twice.
Galing also struck the deceased with a belt buckle.
The Court of Appeal considered the viciousness of the attack and Jabing's culpability.
The Re-sentencing Judge re-sentenced Jabing to life imprisonment and caning.

5. Formal Citations

Public Prosecutor v Kho Jabing, Criminal Appeal No 6 of 2013, [2015] SGCA 1

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2008-02-26	Arrest made
2010-01-01	Trial Judge's decision: Jabing Kho and Galing Anak Kujat convicted of murder
2011-01-01	Court of Appeal affirms Kho Jabing's conviction and sentence
2012-01-01	Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2012 enacted
2013-04-30	Court of Appeal confirms Kho Jabing was convicted under s 300(c) of the PC
2014-01-01	Re-sentencing Judge re-sentences Kho Jabing to life imprisonment and caning
2015-01-14	Court of Appeal allows Prosecution’s appeal and imposes the death sentence on Kho Jabing
2016-04-05	Appeal to this decision in Criminal Motion No 24 of 2015 was dismissed by the Court of Appeal

7. Legal Issues

Discretionary Death Penalty
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal established guidelines for the discretionary death penalty, focusing on whether the offender's actions demonstrated a blatant disregard for human life.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2010] SGHC 212
  - [2011] 3 SLR 634
  - [2014] 1 SLR 973
Blatant Disregard for Human Life
- Outcome: The court determined that the death penalty is appropriate when the offender has acted in a way that exhibits viciousness or a blatant disregard for human life.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [1974 – 1976] SLR(R) 54

8. Remedies Sought

Death Penalty
Life Imprisonment
Caning

9. Cause of Actions

Murder
Robbery

10. Practice Areas

Criminal Appeals
Capital Punishment

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Public Prosecutor v Galing Anak Kujat and another	High Court	Yes	[2010] SGHC 212	Singapore	Original trial decision where Jabing Kho was convicted of murder.
Kho Jabing and another v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2011] 3 SLR 634	Singapore	Court of Appeal decision affirming Kho Jabing's conviction but altering Galing Anak Kujat's conviction.
Public Prosecutor v Kho Jabing	High Court	Yes	[2014] 1 SLR 973	Singapore	High Court decision on re-sentencing Kho Jabing to life imprisonment and caning.
Bachan Singh v The State Punjab	Supreme Court of India	Yes	(1980) 2 SCC 684	India	Cited for the 'rarest of rare' principle in discretionary death penalty cases.
Machhi Singh v State of Punjab	Supreme Court of India	Yes	(1983) 3 SCC 470	India	Cited for factors relevant in determining the 'rarest of rare' cases.
Sangeet v State of Haryana	Supreme Court of India	Yes	(2013) 2 SCC 452	India	Cited for the difficulty in applying the 'balance sheet' approach in determining the 'rarest of rare' cases.
R v Trimmingham	Privy Council	Yes	[2009] UKPC 25	St Vincent and the Grenadines	Cited for endorsing a similar 'rarest of rare' principle.
Roper v Simmonds	US Supreme Court	Yes	543 US 551 (2005)	United States	Cited for the principle that capital punishment must be limited to the most serious crimes.
Atkins v Virginia	US Supreme Court	Yes	536 US 304 (2002)	United States	Cited in Roper v Simmonds for limiting capital punishment.
Panya Martmontree and others v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1995] 2 SLR(R) 806	Singapore	Cited for the phrase 'outrage the feeling[s] of the community' in evaluating the acts of offenders.
Sia Ah Kew and others v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1974 – 1976] SLR(R) 54	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the maximum penalty is intended for the worst cases and the phrase 'outrage the feelings of the community'.
Sim Gek Yong v PP	High Court	Yes	[1995] 1 SLR(R) 185	Singapore	Cited for the sentencing principle that the maximum penalty is only intended for the worst form of cases.
Manohar Lal alias Mannu & Another v State (NCT) of Delhi	Supreme Court of India	Yes	(2000) 2 SCC 92	India	Cited as an example of a case where the death penalty was set aside.
Kishori v State of Delhi	Supreme Court of India	Yes	[1999] 1 SCC 148	India	Cited in Manohar Lal alias Mannu & Another v State (NCT) of Delhi as an analogous case where the death penalty was not imposed.
Ravindra Trimbak Chouthmal v State of Maharashtra	Supreme Court of India	Yes	(1996) 4 SCC 148	India	Cited as an example of a case where the death penalty was overturned.
Public Prosecutor v Ellarry bin Puling and another	High Court	Yes	[2011] SGHC 214	Singapore	Cited as an example of how the court must continue to take into consideration all the other circumstances of the case.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)	Singapore
s 300(c) of the Penal Code	Singapore
s 302 of the Penal Code	Singapore
Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2012 (Act No 32 of 2012)	Singapore
s 4(5) of the Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2012	Singapore
s 394 of the Penal Code	Singapore
s 34 of the Penal Code	Singapore
s 396 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed)	Singapore
s 3 of the Kidnapping Act (Cap 101, 1970 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Discretionary Death Penalty
Blatant Disregard for Human Life
Viciousness
Culpability
Rarest of Rare
Outrage the Feelings of the Community

15.2 Keywords

Death Penalty
Murder
Discretionary Sentencing
Criminal Law
Singapore Court of Appeal
Kho Jabing
Blatant Disregard for Human Life

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Murder	95
Criminal Law	90
Sentencing	85
Criminal Procedure	75
Appeal	60
Statutory Interpretation	50
Evidence	40

16. Subjects

Criminal Law
Sentencing
Death Penalty
Murder