Public Prosecutor v Shoo Ah San: Attempted Murder Sentencing for Stabbing Daughter

In Public Prosecutor v Shoo Ah San, the High Court of Singapore sentenced Shoo Ah San to 15 years' imprisonment for the attempted murder of his daughter. Shoo Ah San, a Malaysian citizen, traveled to Singapore and stabbed his daughter multiple times in a public area. The court, presided over by Justice Aedit Abdullah, considered the severity of the injuries, the public nature of the attack, and the viciousness of the act in determining the sentence. A charge of possession of a weapon was also taken into consideration.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Accused sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Ex Tempore Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Shoo Ah San was sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment for the attempted murder of his daughter. The High Court considered the viciousness of the attack and public safety.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorProsecutionGovernment AgencyJudgment for the ProsecutionWon
Zhou Yang of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Hay Hung Chun of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Shoo Ah SanDefendantIndividualConviction and ImprisonmentLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Aedit AbdullahJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Zhou YangAttorney-General’s Chambers
Hay Hung ChunAttorney-General’s Chambers
Victor David Lau Dek KaiDrew & Napier LLC
Lin QingxunDrew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

  1. The accused was in a dispute with his daughter and son regarding property in Malaysia.
  2. The accused traveled to Singapore from Malaysia to find his daughter.
  3. The accused intended to kill his daughter and then himself.
  4. The accused stabbed his daughter multiple times with a serrated knife.
  5. The daughter suffered substantial injuries, including collapsed lungs and stab wounds.
  6. The accused attacked his daughter twice, stopping only when blood flowed from her mouth.
  7. The attacks occurred in a public place, causing disquiet and fear.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Public Prosecutor v Shoo Ah San, Criminal Case No 35 of 2021, [2021] SGHC 251

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Accused travelled to Singapore from Malacca.
Accused waited in the vicinity of Marsiling Lane.
Accused attacked his daughter.
Accused was arrested in Kaki Bukit.
Judgment reserved.
Judgment delivered.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Attempted Murder
    • Outcome: The court found the accused guilty of attempted murder.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Sentencing Principles
    • Outcome: The court considered rehabilitation, deterrence, and retribution in determining the appropriate sentence.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Imprisonment

9. Cause of Actions

  • Attempted Murder

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Law
  • Sentencing

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
PP v Law Aik MengHigh CourtYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 814SingaporeCited for the general proposition that specific deterrence is required where a crime is premeditated.
PP v Luan YuanxinHigh CourtYes[2002] 1 SLR(R) 613SingaporeCited for the proposition that crimes of violence are particularly heinous if committed in a domestic setting.
Yap Ah Lai v PPHigh CourtYes[2014] 3 SLR 180SingaporeCited for the proposition that a clean record should merit some leniency.
PP v UIHigh CourtYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 500SingaporeCited for the proposition that where a long sentence amounts to a life sentence, a reduction should be given, unless a life sentence is warranted.
PP v Yue Roger JrHigh CourtYes[2019] 3 SLR 749SingaporeCited for the observation that while the imposition of effective life sentences on older offenders should generally be avoided, this was not an absolute rule, and could be displaced for heinous offences.
Yue Roger Jr v PPCourt of AppealYes[2019] 1 SLR 829SingaporeCited as the Court of Appeal agreed with the total sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment imposed and did not disturb it.
Ewe Pang Kooi v PPCourt of AppealYes[2020] 1 SLR 757SingaporeCited for the proposition that there are limits to the principle that a sentencing court should be mindful of the real effect of a sentence on an offender of advanced age.
PP v Ravindran AnnamalaiHigh CourtYes[2013] SGHC 77SingaporeCompared to the present case, noting that Ravindran involved a less vicious attack.
PP v BPKHigh CourtYes[2018] 5 SLR 755SingaporeCompared to the present case, noting that the sentence imposed after trial there was perhaps too low.
Saeng-Un Udom v PPCourt of AppealYes[2001] 2 SLR(R) 1SingaporeCited for the proposition that in the circumstances in the present case, a sentence significantly lower than the maximum of 20 years should be imposed.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Penal CodeSingapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore
Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act (Cap 65, 2013 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Attempted murder
  • Sentencing
  • Deterrence
  • Retribution
  • Viciousness
  • Premeditation
  • Public disquiet

15.2 Keywords

  • Attempted murder
  • Sentencing
  • Singapore
  • Criminal law
  • High Court

17. Areas of Law

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Sentencing