Ahmed Salim v Public Prosecutor: Diminished Responsibility & Premeditated Murder

In Ahmed Salim v Public Prosecutor, the Singapore Court of Appeal heard an appeal against a High Court decision convicting Ahmed Salim of murder under section 300(a) of the Penal Code. Salim, who suffered from an adjustment disorder, planned and executed the murder of his ex-fiancée. The primary legal issue was whether the partial defense of diminished responsibility could apply in a case of premeditated murder. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and the mandatory death penalty, finding that Salim's actions demonstrated rational thought and self-control, negating the claim of substantially impaired mental responsibility.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore Court of Appeal: Examines diminished responsibility in a premeditated murder case. Appeal dismissed, conviction and death penalty affirmed.

1.7 Decision Date

18 January 2022

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Public Prosecutor	Respondent	Government Agency	Appeal Dismissed	Won	Hay Hung Chun of Attorney–General’s Chambers Senthilkumaran s/o Sabapathy of Attorney–General’s Chambers Deborah Lee of Attorney–General’s Chambers
Ahmed Salim	Appellant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Chooi Jing Yen of Eugene Thuraisingam LLP Eugene Singarajah Thuraisingam of Eugene Thuraisingam LLP Hamza Zafar Malik of Eugene Thuraisingam LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Sundaresh Menon	Chief Justice	Yes
Andrew Phang Boon Leong	Justice of the Court of Appeal	No
Chao Hick Tin	Senior Judge	No

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Hay Hung Chun	Attorney–General’s Chambers
Senthilkumaran s/o Sabapathy	Attorney–General’s Chambers
Deborah Lee	Attorney–General’s Chambers
Chooi Jing Yen	Eugene Thuraisingam LLP
Eugene Singarajah Thuraisingam	Eugene Thuraisingam LLP
Hamza Zafar Malik	Eugene Thuraisingam LLP

4. Facts

The appellant planned the murder of his ex-fiancée.
The appellant searched for and found a rope to strangle the deceased.
The appellant chose the hotel as the murder location for privacy.
The appellant withdrew money from his bank account to remit to his family.
The appellant warned the deceased to break off her relationship with another man.
The appellant tightened a towel around the deceased's neck until she lost consciousness.
The appellant used a rope to ensure the deceased died.

5. Formal Citations

Ahmed Salim v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Appeal No 41 of 2020, [2022] SGCA 6

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2012-05-01	Appellant and deceased began intimate relationship.
2017-11-01	Appellant and deceased decided to get married.
2018-05-01	Deceased started seeing someone else.
2018-07-01	Appellant and deceased reconciled and continued dating.
2018-10-01	Deceased began seeing another person.
2018-12-09	Deceased admitted to the appellant that she had a new boyfriend.
2018-12-23	Appellant and deceased met at the Golden Dragon Hotel.
2018-12-30	Appellant and deceased met at the Golden Dragon Hotel; murder occurred.
2019-01-01	Dr. Christopher Cheok Cheng Soon assessed the appellant.
2020-05-19	Appellant interviewed by Dr. Ung.
2020-01-01	Criminal Case No 29 of 2020 filed.
2021-10-12	Court of Appeal hearing.
2022-01-19	Judgment delivered.

7. Legal Issues

Whether intent to kill was made out
- Outcome: The court found that the appellant's intention at the material time was to cause the deceased's death.
- Category: Substantive
Whether the defence of provocation was made out
- Outcome: The court found that the defence of provocation was not made out.
- Category: Substantive
Whether the defence of diminished responsibility was made out
- Outcome: The court found that the defence of diminished responsibility was not made out.
- Category: Substantive
Whether diminished responsibility is precluded where offence is premeditated
- Outcome: The court held that diminished responsibility is not necessarily precluded where the offence is premeditated.
- Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

Appeal against conviction and sentence

9. Cause of Actions

Murder

10. Practice Areas

Criminal Law
Appeals

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Public Prosecutor v Ahmed Salim	High Court	Yes	[2021] SGHC 68	Singapore	Sets out the background facts of the case, which the Court of Appeal relies on heavily.
Public Prosecutor v Wang Zhijian and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] SGCA 58	Singapore	Cited for the principle that there are typically three ways in which a psychiatric condition may substantially impair a person’s mental responsibility.
Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Public Prosecutor and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2019] 2 SLR 216	Singapore	Cited for the principle that there are typically three ways in which a psychiatric condition may substantially impair a person’s mental responsibility.
G Krishnasamy Naidu v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2006] 4 SLR(R) 874	Singapore	Cited as an example where the accused planned a murder while having a disease of the mind.
Ong Pang Siew v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2011] 1 SLR 606	Singapore	Cited for the principle that substantial impairment, not total impairment, is required for diminished responsibility.
Chua Hwa Soon Jimmy v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[1998] 1 SLR(R) 601	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the accused person must prove that he could not resist his impulse, and not merely that he did not do so.
Zailani bin Ahmad v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2005] 1 SLR(R) 356	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a considerable period of time between premeditation and execution may afford the accused person the opportunity to regain rational control over his actions.
R v Brennan	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2015] 1 WLR 2060	England and Wales	Cited as an example where the accused person maintained the ability to plan and effect the murder in a premeditated way even though his mental responsibility was substantially impaired.
Public Prosecutor v G Krishnasamy Naidu	High Court	Yes	[2006] 3 SLR(R) 44	Singapore	Sets out the material facts of Krishnasamy CA.
R v Golds	UK Supreme Court	Yes	[2017] 1 All ER 1055	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that premeditation may demonstrate a degree of self-control that would preclude the argument that the accused person’s self-control was substantially impaired.
Iskandar bin Rahmat v Public Prosecutor and other matters	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2017] 1 SLR 505	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an accused person bears the burden of proving three cumulative requirements to rely on the defence of diminished responsibility.
R v Brown	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2011] All ER (D) 05	England and Wales	Cited as an example where the accused person premeditated the murder of his wife.
R v Matheson	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1958] 2 All ER 87	England and Wales	Cited as an example where the accused person premeditated the murder of a boy whom he paid for sexual services.
R v Byrne	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1960] 3 All ER 1	England and Wales	Cited as the landmark decision that first set out the three categories of mental responsibility that have now become established law.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 300(a)	Singapore
Penal Code s 300	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Diminished responsibility
Premeditation
Adjustment disorder
Intention to kill
Provocation
Mental responsibility
Self-control
Rationality
Causation
Police statements

15.2 Keywords

Murder
Diminished Responsibility
Singapore Law
Criminal Appeal
Premeditation

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Criminal Law	95
Murder	95
Diminished Responsibility	80
Provocation	20
Criminal Procedure	5
Evidence	5

16. Subjects

Criminal Law
Mental Health Law