Public Prosecutor v Teo Ghim Heng: Murder, Diminished Responsibility, and Provocation
In Public Prosecutor v Teo Ghim Heng, the High Court of Singapore convicted Teo Ghim Heng of two counts of murder for causing the deaths of his wife, Choong Pei Shan, and daughter, Teo Zi Ning. The court, presided over by Justice Kannan Ramesh, rejected Teo's defenses of diminished responsibility and provocation. Teo argued diminished responsibility based on Major Depressive Disorder and provocation due to his wife's words. The court also dismissed Teo's challenge to the constitutionality of sections 299 and 300(a) of the Penal Code. The court imposed the mandatory death penalty.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Accused convicted on both charges; mandatory death penalty imposed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Teo Ghim Heng was convicted of murdering his wife and daughter. His defenses of diminished responsibility and provocation were rejected. A constitutional challenge also failed.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Prosecution | Government Agency | Judgment for Prosecution | Won | Ng Jun Chong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Dillon Kok Yi-Min of Attorney-General’s Chambers Han Ming Kuang of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Teo Ghim Heng (Zhang Jinxing) | Defense | Individual | Convicted | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Kannan Ramesh | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Ng Jun Chong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Dillon Kok Yi-Min | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Han Ming Kuang | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Suang Wijaya | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
| Eugene Singarajah Thuraisingam | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
| Johannes Hadi | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
4. Facts
- Accused was charged with murder of his wife and daughter.
- Accused admitted to strangling both his wife and daughter.
- Defense argued diminished responsibility due to Major Depressive Disorder.
- Defense argued grave and sudden provocation.
- Accused challenged the constitutionality of ss 299 and 300(a) of the Penal Code.
- Accused had financial difficulties and was in debt.
- Accused lied about a suicide pact with his wife.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Teo Ghim Heng, Criminal Case No 27 of 2019, [2021] SGHC 13
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Accused was introduced to Carpentry Design Works Pte Ltd | |
| Former colleague turned up at the flat to discuss settlement of debt | |
| Accused and Pei Shan had an argument over the state of the family’s finances | |
| Accused received a text message from the principal of the school that Zi Ning attended requesting payment of overdue school fees | |
| Accused strangled Pei Shan and Zi Ning | |
| Accused was arrested | |
| Trial began | |
| Oral grounds delivered | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Murder
- Outcome: Elements of murder established beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Category: Substantive
- Diminished Responsibility
- Outcome: Defense of diminished responsibility not proven on a balance of probabilities.
- Category: Substantive
- Provocation
- Outcome: Defense of provocation not proven on a balance of probabilities.
- Category: Substantive
- Constitutionality of Penal Code Sections
- Outcome: Sections 299 and 300(a) of the Penal Code are not inconsistent with the Constitution.
- Category: Constitutional
- Rebuttal Evidence
- Outcome: Prosecution granted leave to call rebuttal evidence.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Acquittal
- Lesser Charge of Culpable Homicide
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v BNO | High Court | Yes | [2018] SGHC 243 | Singapore | Cited regarding the calling of rebuttal evidence where the burden of proof is on the accused. |
| Osman bin Ali v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [1971–1973] SLR(R) 503 | Singapore | Cited in support of the application to call rebuttal evidence. |
| Public Prosecutor v Bridges Christopher | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR(R) 467 | Singapore | Cited regarding the conditions under which rebuttal evidence can be adduced. |
| Jusri bin Mohamed Hussain v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [1996] 2 SLR(R) 706 | Singapore | Cited regarding the calling of expert evidence in rebuttal. |
| Anita Damu v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [2020] 3 SLR 825 | Singapore | Cited regarding the need to scrutinize the underlying facts that form the basis of an expert’s opinion. |
| Kanagaratnam Nicholas Jens v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [2019] 5 SLR 887 | Singapore | Cited regarding the need to evaluate the soundness of an expert’s evidence with reference to underlying evidence relied upon and the analytical process that was used. |
| Nagaenthran al/l K Dharmalingam v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | N/A | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 216 | Singapore | Cited for the elements of the legal test for diminished responsibility. |
| Iskandar bin Rahmat v Public Prosecutor and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 505 | Singapore | Cited for the elements of the legal test for diminished responsibility and mens rea. |
| Ong Pang Siew v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 1 SLR 606 | Singapore | Cited for the elements of the legal test for diminished responsibility and the application of DSM-IV. |
| Public Prosecutor v Wang Zhijian | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] SGCA 58 | Singapore | Cited for the elements of the legal test for diminished responsibility. |
| Public Prosecutor v Chia Chee Yeen | N/A | Yes | [1990] 1 SLR(R) 525 | Singapore | Cited regarding the need to carefully scrutinise facts and circumstances in diminished responsibility cases. |
| Pathip Selvan s/o Sugumaran v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 453 | Singapore | Cited for the elements of the defence of provocation. |
| Moses Hinds v The Queen | N/A | Yes | [1977] AC 195 | Jamaica | Cited regarding the separation of powers. |
| Mohammed Muktar Ali v The Queen | N/A | Yes | [1992] 2 AC 93 | Mauritius | Cited regarding the separation of powers. |
| Prabagaran a/l Srivijayan v Public Prosecutor and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 173 | Singapore | Cited regarding the separation of powers. |
| Dinesh Pillai a/l K Raja Retnam v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] SGCA 49 | Singapore | Cited regarding prosecutorial discretion. |
| Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-General | N/A | Yes | [2012] 2 SLR 49 | Singapore | Cited regarding prosecutorial discretion and Article 12 of the Constitution. |
| Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [2012] 2 SLR 872 | Singapore | Cited regarding prosecutorial discretion. |
| Mohammad Faizal bin Sabtu v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 947 | Singapore | Cited regarding prosecutorial discretion. |
| Public Prosecutor v P Mageswaran and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 1253 | Singapore | Cited regarding the overlap between sections 299 and 300(a) of the Penal Code. |
| Saravanan Chandaram v Public Prosecutor and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] SGCA 43 | Singapore | Cited regarding the scope of the presumption of constitutionality where there is a challenge to the constitutionality of legislation |
| Ong Ming Johnson v Attorney-General and other matters | High Court | Yes | [2020] SGHC 63 | Singapore | Cited regarding overlapping penal provisions in criminal law |
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 316 of the Penal Code | Singapore |
| s 304(a) of the Penal Code | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 267(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 230(1)(t) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) | Singapore |
| Article 12 of the Constitution | Singapore |
| Article 35(8) of the Constitution | Singapore |
| ss 299 of the Penal Code | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Diminished Responsibility
- Provocation
- Major Depressive Disorder
- Mens Rea
- Actus Reus
- Prosecutorial Discretion
- Separation of Powers
- Constitutionality
- Rebuttal Evidence
15.2 Keywords
- Murder
- Diminished Responsibility
- Provocation
- Constitutionality
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
- Mental Health
- Homicide
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Criminal Law | 95 |
| Murder | 90 |
| Culpable Homicide | 80 |
| Penal Code | 75 |
| Evidence Law | 70 |
| Evidence | 65 |
| Constitutional Law | 60 |
| Criminal Procedure | 50 |
| Civil Procedure | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Constitutional Law
- Evidence
- Homicide
- Mental Disorder