Micheal Anak Garing v Public Prosecutor: Murder Conviction and Sentencing Appeal
In Micheal Anak Garing v Public Prosecutor, the Singapore Court of Appeal heard appeals related to the murder conviction of Micheal Anak Garing (MAG) and Tony Anak Imba (TAI). MAG appealed against his conviction and death sentence, while the Prosecution appealed against TAI's sentence of life imprisonment and caning, seeking the death penalty for him as well. The court dismissed MAG's appeal, upholding his conviction and death sentence, and also dismissed the Prosecution's appeal, maintaining TAI's sentence of life imprisonment and caning. The case involved a charge of murder committed in furtherance of a common intention to rob, resulting in the death of Shanmuganathan Dillidurai.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Singapore Court of Appeal upheld Micheal Anak Garing's murder conviction and death sentence, while dismissing the prosecution's appeal for Tony Anak Imba to receive the same sentence.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent, Appellant | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Marcus Foo of Attorney-General’s Chambers Anandan Bala of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| MICHEAL ANAK GARING | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| TONY ANAK IMBA | Respondent | Individual | Sentence Upheld | Neutral |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Judge of Appeal | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Judge of Appeal | No |
| Judith Prakash | Judge of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Marcus Foo | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Anandan Bala | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ramesh Tiwary | Ramesh Tiwary |
| Tng Soon Chye | Tng Soon Chye & Co |
| Keith Lim Wei Ming | Quahe Woo & Palmer LLC |
| Gill Amarick Singh | Amarick Gill LLC |
| Loo Khee Sheng | K S Loo & Co |
| Justin Tan Jia Wei | Trident Law Corporation |
4. Facts
- Micheal Anak Garing (MAG) and Tony Anak Imba (TAI), along with Hairee Anak Landak (HAL) and Donny Anak Meluda (DAM), formed a gang.
- The gang planned to commit robbery on the night of 29 May 2010, with MAG armed with a parang.
- Before attacking the deceased, the gang robbed three other victims, causing injuries.
- TAI initiated the attack on the deceased by knocking him off his bicycle.
- The deceased suffered at least twenty injuries, including a fractured skull, severed jugular vein, and amputated left hand.
- MAG's DNA was found on the deceased's waist pouch and the parang.
- The court found that MAG inflicted the fatal injuries on the deceased with the parang.
5. Formal Citations
- Micheal Anak Garing v Public Prosecutor and another appeal, , [2017] SGCA 07
- Public Prosecutor v Micheal Anak Garing and another, , [2014] SGHC 13
- Public Prosecutor v Micheal Anak Garing and another, , [2015] SGHC 107
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Gang set out to commit robbery. | |
| Shanmuganathan Dillidurai was murdered. | |
| Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2012 came into effect. | |
| Hairee Anak Landak pleaded guilty to armed robbery. | |
| Hairee Anak Landak was sentenced to 33 years’ imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane. | |
| Public Prosecutor v Micheal Anak Garing and another [2014] SGHC 13 was issued. | |
| Criminal Appeal No 9 of 2015 was filed. | |
| Criminal Appeal No 11 of 2015 was filed. | |
| Criminal Appeal No 24 of 2015 was filed. | |
| Public Prosecutor v Micheal Anak Garing and another [2015] SGHC 107 was issued. | |
| Criminal Appeal No 24 of 2015 was withdrawn. | |
| Court hearing for Criminal Appeals Nos 9 and 11 of 2015. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Admissibility of Evidence
- Outcome: The court held that the evidence relating to the first three attacks was admissible as it formed part of the same transaction and was relevant to the state of mind of the accused.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [1996] 2 SLR(R) 178
- [2014] SGHC 215
- [1894] AC 57
- (1946) 73 CLR 566
- Sufficiency of Evidence for Murder Conviction
- Outcome: The court found that the prosecution had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Micheal Anak Garing inflicted the fatal blows on the deceased with the parang.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2015] 3 SLR 16
- Appropriateness of Death Penalty
- Outcome: The court upheld the death penalty for Micheal Anak Garing, finding that he acted in blatant disregard for human life. The court dismissed the prosecution's appeal for Tony Anak Imba to receive the death penalty, finding that his culpability did not warrant it.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2015] 2 SLR 112
- [2016] 3 SLR 135
- [2000] 1 SLR(R) 756
- [2009] 4 SLR(R) 63
- [2010] 4 SLR 1119
- [2011] 3 SLR 634
8. Remedies Sought
- Death Penalty
- Life Imprisonment
- Caning
- Appeal against Conviction
9. Cause of Actions
- Murder
- Robbery
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tan Meng Jee v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1996] 2 SLR(R) 178 | Singapore | Cited regarding the importance of the purpose for which evidence is sought to be admitted in determining its admissibility. |
| Public Prosecutor v Purushothaman a/l Subramaniam | High Court | Yes | [2014] SGHC 215 | Singapore | Cited regarding the importance of the purpose for which evidence is sought to be admitted in determining its admissibility. |
| Makin v Attorney General of New South Wales | Privy Council | Yes | [1894] AC 57 | New South Wales | Cited regarding the inadmissibility of evidence showing an accused person’s violent tendencies due to being unduly prejudicial. |
| O’Leary v King | High Court of Australia | Yes | (1946) 73 CLR 566 | Australia | Cited as an illustration of the rule that facts connected with a fact in issue as part of the same transaction are relevant. |
| Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Farid bin Mohd Yusop | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 3 SLR 16 | Singapore | Cited regarding the threshold for appellate intervention in relation to findings of fact made by a trial judge. |
| Public Prosecutor v Kho Jabing | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 112 | Singapore | Cited for the principles in relation to the imposition of the discretionary death penalty under s 302(2) of the Penal Code. |
| Kho Jabing v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 135 | Singapore | Cited for the critical factors relied on in deciding to impose the death penalty on the offender. |
| Er Joo Nguang and another v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR(R) 756 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that a principal offender and a secondary offender may be regarded as bearing the same culpability for sentencing purposes. |
| Public Prosecutor v Leong Soon Kheong | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 63 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that a principal offender and a secondary offender may be regarded as bearing the same culpability for sentencing purposes and that all the circumstances of the case must be considered. |
| Daniel Vijay s/o Katherasan and others v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2010] 4 SLR 1119 | Singapore | Cited regarding the intention to inflict injury of the type specified in s 300(c) of the Penal Code. |
| Kho Jabing and another v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 634 | Singapore | Cited regarding the intention to inflict injury of the type specified in s 300(c) of the Penal Code. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 300(c) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 302(2) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 34 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2012 (Act 32 of 2012) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) s 6 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) s 14 | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 394 | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 397 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Parang
- Common Intention
- Murder
- Robbery
- Discretionary Death Penalty
- Culpability
- Blatant Disregard for Human Life
- Evidence Act
- Penal Code
- Forensic Evidence
15.2 Keywords
- Murder
- Robbery
- Common Intention
- Death Penalty
- Singapore Court of Appeal
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Criminal Law | 95 |
| Murder | 95 |
| Sentencing | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 90 |
| Appeal | 85 |
| Offences | 80 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
- Evidence