Iskandar bin Rahmat v Public Prosecutor: Murder Conviction Appeal - Diminished Responsibility, Private Defence
Iskandar bin Rahmat appealed against his conviction in the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore for two counts of murder under section 300(a) of the Penal Code. The victims were Tan Boon Sin and Tan Chee Heong. Iskandar challenged the convictions, arguing a lack of intent to cause death and citing exceptions to murder under section 300, including exceeding private defense, sudden fight, and diminished responsibility. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding Iskandar guilty of murder under section 300(a) of the Penal Code for both counts.
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
Appeal against murder conviction. The court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant guilty of murder under section 300(a) of the Penal Code.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Lau Wing Yum of Attorney-General’s Chambers Lee Lit Cheng of Attorney-General’s Chambers Mansoor Amir of Attorney-General’s Chambers Prem Raj Prabakaran of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Iskandar bin Rahmat | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Tan Chee Heong | Other | Individual | |||
| Tan Boon Sin | Other | Individual |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | No |
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Lau Wing Yum | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Lee Lit Cheng | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Mansoor Amir | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Prem Raj Prabakaran | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Teo Ying Ying Denise | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Wong Hin Pkin Wendell | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Terence Tan | Robertson Chambers LLC |
| Bryan Wong | Drew & Napier LLC |
4. Facts
- The Appellant, Iskandar bin Rahmat, was an investigation officer with the Singapore Police Force.
- The Appellant devised a plan to rob D1, Mr Tan Boon Sin, due to financial difficulties.
- The Appellant deceived D1 into removing money from his safe deposit box at Certis CISCO.
- The Appellant stabbed both D1 and his son, D2, Mr Tan Chee Heong, in D1’s house, causing their deaths.
- The Appellant claimed he did not intend to cause the deaths of D1 and D2, alleging self-defense.
- D1 suffered 23 stab and incised knife wounds, including a cut-throat injury.
- D2 suffered 17 stab and incised wounds, including a fatal stab wound to the neck.
5. Formal Citations
- Iskandar bin Rahmat v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Appeal No 39 of 2015, Criminal Motions Nos 14 and 17 of 2016, [2017] SGCA 9
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant met D1 at a petrol station and executed his plan to rob D1. | |
| Lower court decision: Public Prosecutor v Iskandar bin Rahmat [2015] SGHC 310 | |
| Criminal Appeal No 39 of 2015 filed | |
| Criminal Motion No 14 of 2016 filed | |
| Criminal Motion No 17 of 2016 filed | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment delivered |
7. Legal Issues
- Murder
- Outcome: The court found the appellant guilty of murder under s 300(a) of the Penal Code.
- Category: Substantive
- Diminished Responsibility
- Outcome: The court found that the appellant was not suffering from any mental illness at the time of the offences and could not invoke Exception 7 to s 300 of the Penal Code.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1960] 2 QB 396
- Right of Private Defence
- Outcome: The court found that the right of private defence had not arisen and the appellant was not entitled to rely on Exception 2 to s 300 of the Penal Code.
- Category: Substantive
- Sudden Fight
- Outcome: The court found that the appellant had failed to prove that there was a sudden fight between him and D1 and was not entitled to rely on Exception 4 to s 300 of the Penal Code.
- Category: Substantive
- Admissibility of Fresh Evidence
- Outcome: The court allowed Criminal Motion No 17 of 2016 to adduce Dr Lee's Psychiatric Report but dismissed Criminal Motion No 14 of 2016 to adduce Dr Ong's Pathology Report.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2014] 3 SLR 299
- [1954] 1 WLR 1489
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Lesser sentence under s 304(a) of the Penal Code
- Life imprisonment instead of death sentence under s 302(2) of the Penal Code
9. Cause of Actions
- Murder
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- Law Enforcement
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Iskandar bin Rahmat | High Court | Yes | [2015] SGHC 310 | Singapore | Sets out the background facts leading to the Appellant’s arrest. |
| Ismail Bin Hussin v Public Prosecutor | Malaysian Court of Appeal | Yes | [1953] MLJ 48 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that the intention to cause death under s 300(a) of the Penal Code need not be pre-planned or premeditated, and can be formed on the spur of the moment. |
| Shaiful Edham bin Adam and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR(R) 422 | Singapore | Adopted the principle from Ismail Bin Hussin v Public Prosecutor that the intention to cause death under s 300(a) of the Penal Code need not be pre-planned or premeditated. |
| Soosay v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 2 SLR(R) 670 | Singapore | Cited for the elements that must be proven to satisfy Exception 2 to s 300 of the Penal Code. |
| Tan Chor Jin v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 306 | Singapore | Cited for the preconditions that must be satisfied before the right of private defence arises in respect of the accused’s own body. |
| Tan Chun Seng v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2003] 2 SLR(R) 506 | Singapore | Cited for the three main ingredients which prompt the operation of the partial defence of sudden fight under Exception 4 to s 300 of the Penal Code. |
| Soh Meiyun v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 299 | Singapore | Cited for the principles governing the admission of fresh evidence in a criminal appeal. |
| Mohammad Zam bin Abdul Rashid v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 410 | Singapore | Cited regarding the conditions for admitting additional evidence on appeal. |
| Ladd v Marshall | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1954] 1 WLR 1489 | England and Wales | Cited for the conditions of 'non-availability', 'relevance' and 'reliability' for admitting fresh evidence. |
| Ong Pang Siew v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 1 SLR 606 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements under Exception 7 to s 300 of the Penal Code and the definition of 'abnormality of mind'. |
| Public Prosecutor v Wang Zhijian and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] SGCA 58 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements under Exception 7 to s 300 of the Penal Code. |
| Chua Hwa Soon Jimmy v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR(R) 601 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the first and third limbs of Exception 7 are matters for the trial judge to determine. |
| Public Prosecutor v Juminem and another | High Court | Yes | [2005] 4 SLR(R) 536 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the first and third limbs of Exception 7 are matters for the trial judge to determine. |
| Zailani bin Ahmad v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 1 SLR(R) 356 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the first and third limbs of Exception 7 are matters for the trial judge to determine. |
| R v Byrne | English Court of Criminal Appeal | Yes | [1960] 2 QB 396 | England and Wales | Cited for the definition of 'abnormality of mind' in the context of diminished responsibility. |
| Elvan Rose v The Queen | Privy Council | Yes | [1961] AC 496 | Bahama Islands | Clarified that the defence of diminished responsibility is not limited to conditions on the 'borderline of insanity'. |
| M’Naghten’s Case | England and Wales | Yes | [1843] 10 Cl & Fin 200; 8 ER 718 | England and Wales | Referenced in the context of discussing insanity and the diminished responsibility defence. |
| R v Whitworth | Queensland Court of Criminal Appeal | Yes | [1989] 1 Qd R 437 | Australia | Described the purpose behind the second limb of Exception 7. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 300(a) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 300(c) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 302(1) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 302(2) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 304(a) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 300 Exception 2 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 300 Exception 4 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 300 Exception 7 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Murder
- Diminished responsibility
- Private defence
- Sudden fight
- Intention to cause death
- Abnormality of mind
- Adjustment disorder
- Acute stress reaction
- Fresh evidence
- Reliability of evidence
15.2 Keywords
- Murder
- Diminished responsibility
- Private defence
- Singapore
- Criminal law
- Appeal
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Criminal Law | 95 |
| Murder | 95 |
| Criminal Procedure | 90 |
| Sentencing | 90 |
| Appeal | 80 |
| Evidence Law | 70 |
| Diminished Responsibility | 60 |
| Sudden fight | 40 |
| Private Defence | 30 |
| Road Traffic Accident Law | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Sentencing
- Appeals