PP v Chong Chee Boon Kenneth: Abetment of Rash Act Causing Death in SCDF Kolam Ritual

The Public Prosecutor appealed against the acquittals of Lieutenant Chong Chee Boon Kenneth and Senior Warrant Officer Nazhan bin Mohamed Nazi on charges of abetment by intentionally aiding servicemen to commit an offence of causing grievous hurt to Corporal Kok Yuen Chin by doing a rash act which endangered human life. SWO Nazhan also appealed against his conviction and sentence under a substituted charge. The High Court allowed the Prosecution’s appeals against the acquittals of Lta Chong and SWO Nazhan on the original charges and dismissed SWO Nazhan’s appeal against conviction and sentence.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Prosecution’s appeals against the acquittals on the original charges were allowed and SWO Nazhan’s appeal was dismissed. Both accused persons were convicted on the s 338(a) charges as originally framed.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding the death of a serviceman during a 'kolam' ritual. The court found the accused guilty of abetment by illegal omission.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorAppellant, RespondentGovernment AgencyAppeal AllowedWon
Kumaresan Gohulabalan of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Sheryl Yeo of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Chong Chee Boon KennethRespondentIndividualConvictedLost
Nazhan bin Mohamed NaziRespondent, AppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
See Kee OonJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Kumaresan GohulabalanAttorney-General’s Chambers
Sheryl YeoAttorney-General’s Chambers
Wee Pan LeeWee, Tay & Lim LLP
Low Chang YongWee, Tay & Lim LLP
Ashwin GanapathyM/s IRB Law LLP
Singa RetnamM/s IRB Law LLP
Josephine Iezu CostanDavid Nayar and Associates

4. Facts

  1. Lta Chong and SWO Nazhan were SCDF officers in charge of ROTA 3 at Tuas View Fire Station.
  2. Cpl Kok was serving his National Service with the SCDF at the Fire Station.
  3. On 13 May 2018, servicemen gathered to celebrate Cpl Kok’s impending completion of NS.
  4. Cpl Kok was carried to the pump well to perform a “kolam” activity.
  5. Lta Chong remained in the watch room and saw the servicemen at the pump well.
  6. SWO Nazhan was with the servicemen at the pump well initially, but he walked away.
  7. SSgt Fatwa pushed Cpl Kok into the pump well, and Cpl Kok drowned.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Public Prosecutor v Chong Chee Boon Kenneth and other appeals, , [2021] SGHC 182

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Cpl Kok drowned after being pushed into a pump well.
Cpl Kok pronounced dead at 11.02 pm.
Magistrate’s Appeal 9754 of 2020 Between Public Prosecutor and Chong Chee Boon Kenneth.
Magistrate’s Appeal 9755 of 2020 Between Public Prosecutor and Nazhan bin Mohamed Nazi.
Magistrate’s Appeal 9818 of 2020 Between Nazhan bin Mohamed Nazi and Public Prosecutor.
Hearing date
Hearing date
Hearing date
Judgment date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Abetment by Illegal Omission
    • Outcome: The court found that abetment by illegal omission was established on the facts.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Breach of legal obligation
      • Guilty knowledge or conspiracy
  2. Causation
    • Outcome: The court found that the actions of SSgt Fatwa did not break the chain of causation.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Substantial cause
      • Novus actus interveniens
  3. Consent
    • Outcome: The court found that there was no valid consent on Cpl Kok's part.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Voluntary participation
      • Agreement
      • Vitiating factors
  4. Rashness vs. Negligence
    • Outcome: The court found that the actions of the accused persons were rash, not merely negligent.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Subjective appreciation of risk
      • Objective appreciation of risk

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Imprisonment

9. Cause of Actions

  • Abetment by intentionally aiding the servicemen from ROTA 3 of Tuas View Fire Station to commit an offence of causing grievous hurt to Cpl Kok by doing a rash act which endangered human life.

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Law
  • Appeals

11. Industries

  • Government and Public Sector

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Jali bin Mohd Yunos v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2014] 4 SLR 1059SingaporeCited for the test to determine if the risk was so obvious that they ought reasonably to have known of it.
Public Prosecutor v Chong Chee Boon Kenneth and anotherState CourtsYes[2020] SGDC 228SingaporeCited as the grounds of decision for the Senior District Judge's decision in the joint trial.
Ng Keng Yong v Public Prosecutor and another appealHigh CourtYes[2004] 4 SLR(R) 89SingaporeCited for the substantial cause test.
ADF v Public Prosecutor and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2010] 1 SLR 874SingaporeCited for the limited role of the appellate court in reviewing findings of fact made by the trial court.
Public Prosecutor v Iryan bin Abdul Karim and othersHigh CourtYes[2010] 2 SLR 15SingaporeCited for the observation that consent is not defined in positive terms in the Penal Code.
Balakrishnan S and another v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2005] 4 SLR(R) 249SingaporeCited for the argument raised by Capt Pandiaraj that the trainee who had been grievously hurt had consented to the treatment, and that the harm caused was not an offence by application of s 87 of the Penal Code 1985.
Pram Nair v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2017] 2 SLR 1015SingaporeCited for the concept of consent as encompassing voluntary participation, agreement to submission, the exercise of a free and untrammelled right to forbid or withhold what is being consented to, and voluntary and conscious acceptance of what is proposed to be done.
Lim Poh Eng v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[1999] 1 SLR(R) 428SingaporeCited for the ruling that the standard of care for criminal negligence is similar to that for civil negligence.
Guay Seng Tiong Nickson v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2016] 3 SLR 1079SingaporeCited for the statement that all the prosecution has to show is that the accused is a substantial cause of the injury even if there were other contributing causes.
R v Jogee; Ruddock v The QueenUnited Kingdom Supreme CourtYes[2017] AC 387United KingdomCited for the statement that liability will not attach where the harm (or damage) is caused by some “overwhelming supervening act” by a third party perpetrator which no one in the accused’s shoes could have reasonably foreseen would happen.
Public Prosecutor v Gerardine AndrewHigh CourtYes[1998] 3 SLR(R) 421SingaporeCited for the proposition that there is no requirement that an abettor must be present at the immediate scene of the crime in order for there to be liability for abetment.
Lee Chez Kee v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2008] 3 SLR(R) 447SingaporeCited for the principle that the crux of the matter is whether the criminal act was intentionally aided by the participation of the offender, and presence at the scene of the criminal act is only one aspect of the evidence that may go towards supporting such a finding.
Public Prosecutor v Kwong Kok HingCourt of AppealYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 684SingaporeCited for the holding that “some discount to the final sentencing question” was required as the offender had already finished serving his prison term by the time the appeal was decided.
Public Prosecutor v Rosman bin Anwar and another appealHigh CourtYes[2015] 5 SLR 937SingaporeCited for the agreement with Kwong Kok Hing that as the offender would have to “now undergo a further prison sentence all over again for the same offence”, a downward calibration in the sentence was called for.
Public Prosecutor v Adith s/o SarvothamHigh CourtYes[2014] 3 SLR 649SingaporeCited for the statement, obiter, that where the Prosecution is appealing a sentence that entails some loss of liberty, a stay of execution may be appropriate so as not to curtail or affect the appellate court’s discretion.
PP v RamleeHigh CourtYes[1998] 3 SLR(R) 95SingaporeCited for the principle of sentencing parity provides that where the roles and circumstances of the accused persons are the same, they should be given the same sentence unless there is a relevant difference in their responsibility for the offence or their personal circumstances.
PP v Norhisham bin Mohamad DahlanHigh CourtYes[2004] 1 SLR(R) 48SingaporeCited for the principle of sentencing parity provides that where the roles and circumstances of the accused persons are the same, they should be given the same sentence unless there is a relevant difference in their responsibility for the offence or their personal circumstances.
Yap Giau Beng Terence v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[1998] 2 SLR(R) 855SingaporeCited for the principle that an appellate court is nevertheless in as good a position as a trial court to determine the appropriate factual inferences that ought to be drawn having regard to the internal and external consistency of the evidence.
Tan Chin Seng and others v Raffles Town Club Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2003] 3 SLR(R) 307SingaporeCited for the principle that an appellate court is nevertheless in as good a position as a trial court to determine the appropriate factual inferences that ought to be drawn having regard to the internal and external consistency of the evidence.
Jagatheesan s/o Krishnasamy v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2006] 4 SLR(R) 45SingaporeCited for the principle that an appellate court is nevertheless in as good a position as a trial court to determine the appropriate factual inferences that ought to be drawn having regard to the internal and external consistency of the evidence.
Ho Soo Fong and another v Standard Chartered BankHigh CourtYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 181SingaporeCited for the principle that an appellate court is nevertheless in as good a position as a trial court to determine the appropriate factual inferences that ought to be drawn having regard to the internal and external consistency of the evidence.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 338(a) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 109 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 336(b) of the Penal CodeSingapore
s 128 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 87 of the Penal CodeSingapore
s 90 of the Penal CodeSingapore
s 32 read with s 43 of the Penal CodeSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Kolam
  • Ragging
  • Abetment
  • Illegal omission
  • Rash act
  • SCDF
  • Pump well
  • National Serviceman
  • Rota 3
  • Tuas View Fire Station

15.2 Keywords

  • Criminal Law
  • Negligence
  • Abetment
  • Omissions
  • Consent
  • SCDF
  • Kolam
  • Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Criminal Law90
Sentencing85
Criminal Procedure85
Abetment70
Causation60
Negligence50
Torts30
Administrative Law10

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Negligence
  • Abetment
  • Omissions
  • Consent