Public Prosecutor v Micheal Anak Garing: Sentencing for Murder with Common Intention
In Public Prosecutor v Micheal Anak Garing and Tony Anak Imba, the High Court of Singapore delivered a sentencing judgment on April 20, 2015, for murder under Section 300(c) of the Penal Code. Micheal Anak Garing was sentenced to death, while Tony Anak Imba was sentenced to life imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane. The court considered the level of culpability of each accused, noting that Micheal Garing wielded the weapon, while Tony Imba's guilt was established through common intention under Section 34 of the Penal Code.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Micheal Anak Garing sentenced to death; Tony Anak Imba sentenced to life imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Sentencing judgment for Micheal Anak Garing and Tony Anak Imba for murder. Garing received the death penalty, while Imba was sentenced to life imprisonment and caning.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Prosecution | Government Agency | Partial | Partial | Marcus Foo of Attorney-General’s Chambers Anandan Bala of Attorney-General’s Chambers Seraphina Fong of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| MICHEAL ANAK GARING | Defendant | Individual | Lost | Lost | |
| TONY ANAK IMBA | Defendant | Individual | Partial | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Choo Han Teck | J | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Marcus Foo | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Anandan Bala | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Seraphina Fong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Josephus Tan | Fortis Law Corporation |
| Ramesh Tiwary | Ramesh Tiwary |
| Keith Lim | Quahe Woo & Palmer LLC |
| Justin Tan | Trident Law Corporation |
| Amarick Gill Singh | Amarick Gill LLC |
4. Facts
- Micheal Anak Garing and Tony Anak Imba were part of a gang that planned to rob victims using violence.
- The gang assaulted four victims, resulting in severe injuries to all and the death of one.
- Micheal Anak Garing wielded the weapon that caused the injuries and death.
- Tony Anak Imba knocked the deceased victim off his bicycle and held him during the assault.
- The prosecution argued that both accused should be sentenced to death.
- The defense argued that the death penalty should not be imposed.
- The court considered the level of culpability of each accused in determining the appropriate sentence.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Micheal Anak Garing and another, Criminal Case No 19 of 2013, [2015] SGHC 107
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Criminal Case No 19 of 2013 filed | |
| Written judgment handed down | |
| Tony Anak Imba's conviction date | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Sentencing judgment delivered | |
| Appeals dismissed by the Court of Appeal |
7. Legal Issues
- Appropriateness of the Death Penalty
- Outcome: The court imposed the death penalty on Micheal Anak Garing but not on Tony Anak Imba, considering their individual culpability and the circumstances of the case.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2015] 2 SLR 112
- (1980) 2 SCC 684
- Common Intention
- Outcome: The court found Tony Anak Imba guilty of murder under s 300(c) by the application of s 34 of the Penal Code, namely, that he and the other members of the gang shared the common intention to rob their victims by violent means.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Death Penalty
- Imprisonment
9. Cause of Actions
- Murder
- Robbery
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Kho Jabing | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 112 | Singapore | Cited for the principle of determining whether the death penalty should be imposed based on whether the offender's actions outrage the feelings of the community, exhibiting viciousness or a blatant disregard for human life. |
| Bachan Singh v The State of Punjab | N/A | Yes | (1980) 2 SCC 684 | India | Cited in reference to the 'rarest of the rare' description used by the Indian Court when justifying decisions to impose the death penalty. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 302 | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 300(a) | Singapore |
| Penal Code ss 300(b) to (d) | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 34 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Common intention
- Death penalty
- Life imprisonment
- Sentencing principles
- Viciousness
- Blatant disregard for human life
- Culpability
15.2 Keywords
- Murder
- Sentencing
- Death Penalty
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
- Common Intention
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Murder | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 95 |
| Sentencing | 90 |
| Common intention | 85 |
| Criminal Procedure | 80 |
| Sentencing Principles | 70 |
| Evidence | 60 |
| Contract Law | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
- Murder