Chan Lie Sian v Public Prosecutor: Murder Conviction Appeal - Sudden Fight Defence
Chan Lie Sian appealed against his conviction for murder under section 300(a) of the Penal Code in the High Court of Singapore. The Court of Appeal, comprising Sundaresh Menon CJ, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA, and Judith Prakash JA, heard the appeal. Chan was initially sentenced to death for causing the death of Tiah Hung Wai William during a fight over missing money. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, substituting the conviction to one under section 300(c) of the Penal Code (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and sentencing Chan to life imprisonment, finding that while Chan caused the death, he did not have the specific intention to cause death, nor did his actions exhibit a blatant disregard for human life. The defense of sudden fight was rejected.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal allowed in part.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal against murder conviction. The court substituted the conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, sentencing Chan Lie Sian to life imprisonment.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal allowed in part | Partial | April Phang of Attorney-General’s Chambers Sarah Shi of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Chan Lie Sian | Appellant | Individual | Conviction under s 300(a) of the PC set aside; conviction under s 300(c) of the PC substituted; death penalty set aside; sentence of life imprisonment imposed | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Judith Prakash | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| April Phang | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Sarah Shi | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Benedict Eoon | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Wendell Wong | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Alexis Loo | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Loo Khee Sheng | K S Loo & Co |
4. Facts
- The appellant suspected the victim of stealing $6000.
- The appellant attacked the victim with his bare hands and a metal dumbbell rod.
- The victim sustained multiple blows to the head and body.
- The victim was found to be in a coma, bleeding from his head, and with skull fractures upon arrival at the hospital.
- The appellant prevented others from calling an ambulance.
- The appellant surrendered to the police two days after the incident.
- The appellant initially claimed to have found the victim by the roadside.
5. Formal Citations
- Chan Lie Sian v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Appeal No 25 of 2017, [2019] SGCA 44
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant attacked the victim at a lodging house. | |
| Appellant surrendered to the police. | |
| Appellant was charged under section 326 of the Penal Code. | |
| Victim passed away in the hospital. | |
| Charge was amended to one under section 302 of the Penal Code for murder. | |
| Court of Appeal hearing. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Intention to Cause Death
- Outcome: The court found that the appellant did not have the specific intention to cause death.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Inference of intention from actions
- Relevance of post-attack conduct
- Related Cases:
- [2017] 1 SLR 505
- [1994] 2 SLR(R) 120
- Sudden Fight
- Outcome: The court found that the appellant could not avail himself of the partial defence of sudden fight.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Undue advantage
- Cruel or unusual manner
- Related Cases:
- [2003] 2 SLR(R) 506
- Culpable Homicide
- Outcome: The court found that all three ingredients under s 300(c) of the PC are made out beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2012] 4 SLR 590
- Appropriate Sentence
- Outcome: The court found that the appellant's actions did not evince a blatant disregard for human life and imposed a sentence of life imprisonment instead of the death penalty.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Blatant disregard for human life
- Viciousness of actions
- Related Cases:
- [2015] 2 SLR 112
- [2017] 1 SLR 748
- [2018] 2 SLR 249
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Murder
- Culpable Homicide
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
- Homicide Defense
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tan Chor Jin v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 306 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the scenario which favors the accused person should be preferred in cases where multiple inferences may be drawn from the same set of facts. |
| Eu Lim Hoklai v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 167 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the scenario which favors the accused person should be preferred in cases where multiple inferences may be drawn from the same set of facts. |
| Teoh Kah Lin v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR(R) 859 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that failure on the part of the cross-examining party to challenge a witness’s testimony may commonly be taken to be acceptance of it. |
| Ong Pang Siew v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 1 SLR 606 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that failure on the part of the cross-examining party to challenge a witness’s testimony may commonly be taken to be acceptance of it. |
| AOF v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 3 SLR 34 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that failure on the part of the cross-examining party to challenge a witness’s testimony may commonly be taken to be acceptance of it. |
| Iskandar bin Rahmat v Public Prosecutor and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 505 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that for an accused person to be convicted under s 300(a) of the PC, he must have done the act by which death is caused, with the specific intention to cause death and that such an intention to cause death need not be premeditated, and can instead be formed on the spur of the moment. |
| Public Prosecutor v Oh Laye Koh | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR(R) 120 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that whether the accused person intended to cause death is something to be inferred from the totality of the surrounding circumstances. |
| Wang Wenfeng v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 590 | Singapore | Cited for the ingredients of murder under s 300(c) of the PC. |
| Tan Chun Seng v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2003] 2 SLR(R) 506 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the courts have placed substantial emphasis on the disparity in size or strength as between the victim and accused person in determining whether undue advantage was taken. |
| Public Prosecutor v Kho Jabing | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 112 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the death penalty is warranted where the actions of the offender outrage the feelings of the community, and this would be the case where these actions exhibit viciousness or a blatant disregard for human life. |
| Micheal Anak Garing v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 748 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the death penalty is warranted where the actions of the offender outrage the feelings of the community, and this would be the case where these actions exhibit viciousness or a blatant disregard for human life. |
| Public Prosecutor v Chia Kee Chen and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 249 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the death penalty is warranted where the actions of the offender outrage the feelings of the community, and this would be the case where these actions exhibit viciousness or a blatant disregard for human life. |
| Public Prosecutor v Chan Lie Sian | High Court | No | [2017] SGHC 205 | Singapore | Reference to the High Court decision being appealed. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 300(a) of the Penal Code | Singapore |
| s 302(1) of the Penal Code | Singapore |
| s 326 of the Penal Code | Singapore |
| s 300(c) of the Penal Code | Singapore |
| s 302(2) of the Penal Code | Singapore |
| Exception 4 to s 300 of the Penal Code | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Murder
- Culpable homicide
- Intention to cause death
- Sudden fight
- Blatant disregard for human life
- Dumbbell rod
- Skull fractures
- Voluntarily causing grievous hurt
- Bronchopneumonia
- Undue advantage
- Moderate force
- Intervening objects
15.2 Keywords
- Murder
- Culpable homicide
- Penal Code
- Singapore
- Appeal
- Intention
- Sudden fight
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Criminal Law | 95 |
| Murder | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 60 |
| Contract Law | 10 |
| Administrative Law | 5 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Homicide
- Appeals