Public Prosecutor v BPK: Attempted Murder & Provocation
In 2018, in the High Court of Singapore, BPK was charged with attempted murder of the victim. The prosecution argued that BPK had the intention to kill the victim, while the defense argued that BPK lacked the capacity to form intent and did not have the intention to kill. The court found that the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt and convicted BPK on the charge.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Accused convicted on the charge of attempted murder.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court case involving BPK, charged with attempted murder. The defense argued lack of intent, but the court convicted BPK.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Prosecution | Government Agency | Conviction of the Accused | Won | Chong Kee En of Attorney-General’s Chambers Bhajanvir Singh of Attorney-General’s Chambers Lim Ai Juan Daphne of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| BPK | Defendant | Individual | Conviction on the charge of attempted murder | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Woo Bih Li | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Chong Kee En | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Bhajanvir Singh | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Lim Ai Juan Daphne | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Rengarajoo s/o Rengasamy Balasamy | B Rengarajoo & Associates |
| Tan Heng Khim | Apex Law LLP |
4. Facts
- The accused attacked the victim with a knife, inflicting multiple stab and slash wounds.
- The accused and the victim were acquainted, having met while the victim was attached to a ward at the hospital where the accused worked.
- The relationship between the accused and the victim became closer in March 2013.
- The accused discovered that the victim had sent similar messages to another colleague.
- The victim decided to stop 'playing along' with the accused and told him it was a joke.
- The accused reacted with denial and anger, harassing the victim with repeated calls and messages.
- The accused visited the victim's flat three times, seeking her hand in marriage.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v BPK, Criminal Case No 10 of 2017, [2018] SGHC 34
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Accused attacked the victim with a knife. | |
| Trial began. | |
| Trial concluded. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Attempted Murder
- Outcome: The court found the defendant guilty of attempted murder.
- Category: Substantive
- Provocation
- Outcome: The court found that the partial defence of provocation was not established.
- Category: Substantive
- Capacity to form intent
- Outcome: The court found that the accused had the capacity to form intent at the material time of the alleged offence.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Conviction of the Accused
- Imprisonment
- Fine
- Caning
9. Cause of Actions
- Attempted Murder
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Violent Crime
11. Industries
- Healthcare
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pathip Selvan s/o Sugumaran v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 453 | Singapore | Cited to urge the Court to take into account the multiple injuries of the Victim to support its submission that the Accused did not have the mental capacity to intend to kill the Victim. |
| Zainal Bin Kuning v Chan Sin Mian Michael | N/A | Yes | [1996] 2 SLR(R) 858 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that the plaintiff would be allowed to call rebuttal evidence against the defence if the plaintiff was misled or taken by surprise. |
| Public Prosecutor v Bridges Christopher | N/A | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR(R) 467 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that the approach in Zainal applied to criminal trials. |
| Britestone Pte Ltd v Smith & Associates Far East, Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 855 | Singapore | Cited to explain the distinction between a legal and an evidential burden of proof. |
| Mas Swan bin Adnan v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [2012] 3 SLR 527 | Singapore | Cited to support that s 511 of the PC generally requires an intention to commit the substantive offence with which s 511 is read. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ketmuang Banphanuk and another | High Court | Yes | [1995] SGHC 46 | Singapore | Cited to support that for offences where the legislative provides for specific definitions of attempt, the general definition will not apply. |
| Sakthivel Punithavathi v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 983 | Singapore | Cited to support that evidence of partiality is a vital consideration in evaluating expert testimony. |
| Eu Lim Hock Lai v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 167 | Singapore | Cited to support that evidence of partiality is a vital consideration in evaluating expert testimony. |
| Mohammed Ali bin Johari v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 1058 | Singapore | Cited to support that motive is not an element of the offence but can bolster the inference that an intention to commit the offence was existent. |
| Muhammad bin Kadar v Public Prosecutor | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] SGCA 48 | Singapore | Cited to support that the Accused’s intention to kill himself after killing the Victim would nevertheless be “quintessentially an instance of murder under s 300(a)” since there was no way for the Accused to end their lives together without first carrying out his stated intention to kill the Victim. |
| Iskandar bin Rahmat v Public Prosecutor and other matters | N/A | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 505 | Singapore | Cited to support that intention can be formed on the spur of the moment just before the actual attack takes place, and does not have to be pre-planned or premeditated. |
| Public Prosecutor v P Mageswaran | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2017] SGHC 307 | Singapore | Cited to support that intention can be formed on the spur of the moment just before the actual attack takes place, and does not have to be pre-planned or premeditated. |
| Public Prosecutor v Sundarti Supriyanto | N/A | Yes | [2004] 4 SLR 622 | Singapore | Cited to support that the infliction of multiple, random, and frenzied injuries could be evidence of the senseless conduct of an accused who has lost all self-control, or it could be equally consistent with the result of an attack by an accused who had, with consciousness and control over his mental faculties, engaged in a struggle or scuffle with the victim in his bid to kill that victim. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 307(1) | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 300 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 22 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 23 | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) s 8(3) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 230(1)(t) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 283(1) | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 511 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 84 | Singapore |
| Penal Code ss 85 and 86 | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 299 | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 308 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Attempted murder
- Provocation
- Intention
- Capacity
- Mens rea
- Actus reus
- Acute stress disorder
- Moderate depression
- Alcohol intoxication
15.2 Keywords
- Attempted murder
- Provocation
- Singapore
- Criminal law
- Mental state
- Intention
- Capacity
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Attempted Murder
- Provocation
- Mental Capacity