Public Prosecutor v Khoo Kwee Hock Leslie: Murder, Diminished Responsibility, Provocation, and Sudden Fight
In Public Prosecutor v Khoo Kwee Hock Leslie, the High Court of Singapore convicted Khoo Kwee Hock Leslie of murder under section 300(b) of the Penal Code. The court found that Leslie intentionally strangled Cui Yajie. Leslie's defenses of diminished responsibility, grave and sudden provocation, and sudden fight were rejected. The court sentenced Leslie to life imprisonment.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Convicted of murder; sentenced to life imprisonment.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Khoo Kwee Hock Leslie was convicted of murder. His defenses of diminished responsibility, provocation, and sudden fight were rejected by the court.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Plaintiff | Government Agency | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | Stephanie Koh of Attorney-General’s Chambers Jocelyn Teo of Attorney-General’s Chambers Sarah Shi of Attorney-General’s Chambers Hri Kumar Nair of Attorney-General’s Chambers Tan Wen Hsien of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Khoo Kwee Hock Leslie | Defendant | Individual | Convicted | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Audrey Lim | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Stephanie Koh | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Jocelyn Teo | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Sarah Shi | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Hri Kumar Nair | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tan Wen Hsien | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Chooi Jing Yen | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
| Andy Yeo | Eldan Law LLP |
| Mervyn Cheong | Advocatus Law LLP |
4. Facts
- The accused, Khoo Kwee Hock Leslie, was charged with the murder of Cui Yajie.
- Leslie admitted to strangling the Deceased and disposing of her body by burning it.
- Leslie and the Deceased were lovers; she believed he was divorced and wealthy.
- Leslie took $20,000 from the Deceased under the pretense of investing it in gold.
- The Deceased threatened to expose Leslie's lies to his employers.
- Leslie strangled the Deceased in a car to prevent her from exposing him.
- Leslie burned the Deceased's body and disposed of her ashes and personal effects.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Khoo Kwee Hock Leslie, Criminal Case No 7 of 2019, [2019] SGHC 215
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Leslie became an undischarged bankrupt. | |
| The Deceased sent Mdm Toh a Facebook message. | |
| The Deceased threatened to go to Leslie’s workplace. | |
| Leslie strangled the Deceased in a car. | |
| Leslie returned to Orchid Park Condominium at about 12.25am and left the Condominium at 5.38am. | |
| Leslie purchased charcoal and kerosene. | |
| Leslie went to the Deceased’s flat. | |
| Chong Hwee Nee lodged a First Information Report. | |
| Leslie went to Orchid Country Club. | |
| Leslie was interviewed by the police. | |
| Leslie was placed under arrest. | |
| IO Tan recorded Hu Qin’s conditioned statement. | |
| Dr Ung interviewed Leslie. | |
| Hu Qin left Singapore. | |
| Zhang Hong left Singapore. | |
| Dr Ung obtained information from Mdm Toh via a phone call. | |
| Dr Ung interviewed Leslie. | |
| Mdm Toh sent Dr Ung responses to his follow-up questionnaire. | |
| Mdm Toh sent Dr Ung a follow-up email. | |
| Trial began. | |
| Judgment delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Murder
- Outcome: The court found the defendant guilty of murder under section 300(b) of the Penal Code.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1977] AIR 45
- [2001] AIR 2266 (SC)
- Diminished Responsibility
- Outcome: The court rejected the defendant's defense of diminished responsibility.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2017] 1 SLR 505
- [2011] 1 SLR 606
- Provocation
- Outcome: The court rejected the defendant's defense of provocation.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2012] 4 SLR 453
- Sudden Fight
- Outcome: The court rejected the defendant's defense of sudden fight.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2017] 1 SLR 505
- [2004] 1 SLR(R) 479
- Admissibility of Evidence
- Outcome: The court allowed the Prosecution to call additional witnesses and admit certain statements, but cautioned that it was not determining the weight to be attached to the evidence yet.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Conviction for Murder
- Death Penalty or Life Imprisonment
9. Cause of Actions
- Murder
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Homicide
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State of Andhra Pradesh v Rayavarapu Punnayya | Indian Supreme Court | Yes | [1977] AIR 45 | India | Cited for the principle regarding the mens rea required under section 300(b) of the Penal Code, specifically the knowledge of the offender regarding the victim's peculiar condition. |
| Karu Marik v State of Bihar | Indian Supreme Court | Yes | [2001] AIR 2266 (SC) | India | Cited for the principle that the nature of the injury inflicted can be valuable evidence of intention under section 300(b) of the Penal Code. |
| Mohammed Ali bin Johari v PP | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 1058 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that motive is helpful in casting light on the intention of an accused, especially in cases without independent eyewitnesses. |
| R v Lucas (Ruth) | N/A | Yes | [1981] 1 QB 720 | England and Wales | Cited for the Lucas test, which outlines the conditions under which an accused's lies can amount to corroboration of evidence of guilt. |
| PP v Ilechukwu Uchechukwu Chukwudi | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] SGCA 33 | Singapore | Cited for the application of the Lucas test in determining whether an accused's lies can corroborate evidence of guilt. |
| Kamrul Hasan Abdul Quddus v PP | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] SGCA 52 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Lucas test applies equally in the context of murder cases. |
| Pathip Selvan s/o Sugumaran v PP | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 453 | Singapore | Cited for the subjective and objective tests for the defense of grave and sudden provocation. |
| Iskandar bin Rahmat v PP | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 505 | Singapore | Cited for the elements required to establish the defense of sudden fight and diminished responsibility. |
| Tan Chee Wee v PP | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2004] 1 SLR(R) 479 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of a 'fight' as involving mutual provocation and blows on each side, and for factors considered in determining undue advantage in a sudden fight. |
| Ong Pang Siew v PP | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 1 SLR 606 | Singapore | Cited for the principles applicable to the defense of diminished responsibility. |
| Chan Lie Sian v PP | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] SGCA 44 | Singapore | Cited for the factors considered in determining whether the death penalty is warranted, including the viciousness of the actions and the offender's mental state. |
| PP v Chia Kee Chen | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 249 | Singapore | Cited for the consideration of planning and premeditation in determining whether the death penalty is warranted, and the need for anxious consideration before imposing the death sentence. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 300(b) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 302(2) | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 304(b) | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 304(a) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 231(1) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) s 8 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) s 11 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) s 32(1)(j)(iii) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) s 32(1)(j)(iv) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 259(1)(c) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act s 32(3) | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 300 Exception 1 | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 300 Exception 4 | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 300 Exception 7 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 318(1) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act s 116(g) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Strangulation
- Diminished Responsibility
- Provocation
- Sudden Fight
- Mens Rea
- Actus Reus
- Intermittent Explosive Disorder
- Motive
- Financial Pressure
- Threat of Exposure
- Narcissistic Rage
15.2 Keywords
- Murder
- Diminished Responsibility
- Provocation
- Sudden Fight
- Criminal Law
- Singapore
- Strangulation
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Murder | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Culpable Homicide | 80 |
| Diminished Responsibility | 75 |
| Provocation | 65 |
| Sentencing Framework | 60 |
| Sudden fight | 55 |
| Criminal Procedure | 50 |
| Evidence | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Homicide
- Defenses
- Evidence