Public Prosecutor v Ng Kwang Lim

Woo Bih Li J:

[1] The accused person, Ng Kwang Lim (“the Accused”), faced two charges. Under the amended first charge, the Accused was charged with the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder by causing the death of one Lee Kwok Hong by slashing him in the neck with a paper cutter which act was done with the intention of causing death, an offence punishable under s 304(a) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed).

[2] Under the second amended charge, the Accused was charged with the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt to one Deborah June Chew Ai Sim by using a paper cutter to slash her on her face, causing permanent disfigurement, an offence punishable under s 326 of the Penal Code.

[3] The Prosecution proceeded with the amended first charge to which the Accused pleaded guilty. I accepted his plea of guilt and convicted him on it. The Accused agreed to the amended second charge being taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing.

[4] The punishment under s 304(a) of the Penal Code is life imprisonment or imprisonment of up to ten years. The Accused was also liable to fine or caning.

[5] In mitigation, the Defence submitted that the Accused was suffering from a mental illness that impaired his mental responsibility, an illness that was undetected, undiagnosed and untreated for many years. The Defence also submitted that the Accused accepted responsibility for his role and was sincerely apologetic to the family of the deceased. The Defence informed me that although the Accused was estranged from his parents for almost ten years, his relationship with them had improved. The Accused was confident that they will play an instrumental part in his recovery. The Defence urged that no caning be imposed.

[6] The Prosecution pressed for life imprisonment on the basis that the Accused was a threat to society and could not be relied upon to take his medication. The Prosecution relied on reports from two psychiatrists which I shall elaborate on later, the case of R v Hodgson (1968) 52 Cr App R 113, and sentencing precedents. The Prosecution did not make a submission for caning.

[7] As can be seen, the main question before me was whether life imprisonment was an appropriate sentence for the Accused. The statement of facts, which the Accused agreed to, stated:

[8] Dr Stephen Phang, a consultant forensic psychiatrist and Deputy Chief of the Department of Forensic Psychiatry of the Institute of Mental Health and Woodbridge Hospital, provided two reports.

[9] In his first report dated 1 October 2003, Dr Phang said that the Accused’s parents and younger sister described a change in his behaviour following his paternal grandmother’s demise in 1993 characterised by abnormal suspicions on his part. He had been close to the grandmother and after her demise, he accused his mother of not loving the grandmother and of putting black magic on him as well as placing centipedes in his home. The acrimonious relationship came to a head when he insisted that his mother publish a notice in a daily Chinese newspaper that she disown him.

[10] The Accused told Dr Phang that he had been the victim of black magic for over ten years. For the preceding two years before the offence, the black magic was accompanied with a hallucinatory voice. The Accused said his previous attempts to resist the black magic resulted in further forms of maltreatment such as sensations of needles poking his eyes and other parts of his body. He said that he had once dreamt of the deceased laughing at him. This was at a time several months before the offence.

[11] In the morning of the offence, the Accused had experienced a sensation of needles poking him followed rapidly by a hallucinatory voice laughing at him and a force assuming control over him. The Accused claimed that the black magic had taken complete control of his being that day but Dr Phang disagreed. Dr Phang noted that the Accused had admitted that he had on his own accord appropriated new paper cutters to continue slashing although the rage to slash was principally delusion-driven. The Accused did not feel responsible or remorseful for the killing.

[12] Dr Phang was of the view that at the time of the offence, the Accused was not of unsound mind. However, he was suffering from an abnormality of mind, namely paranoid schizophrenia, which substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts in causing the death of the deceased.

[13] Dr Phang was also of the view that the long-standing nature and severity of the Accused’s illness, coupled with the symptomatology elicited, meant that there was a significant risk of dangerous behaviour by the Accused to others notwithstanding his favourable response to treatment which would have to continue in the long term, and possibly on a permanent basis.

[14] In Dr Phang’s follow-up report dated 18 March 2004, Dr Phang said, inter alia:

[15] There was also a report dated 20 December 2003 from Dr Lim Yun Chin, a psychiatrist from Raffles Hospital, who was attending to the Accused at Queenstown Remand Prison. That report stated, inter alia:

[16] In R v Hodgson, the court listed three conditions for life imprisonment. The Court of Criminal Appeal in Neo Man Lee v PP [1991] SLR 146 was in broad agreement with these three conditions. The conditions were again cited with approval by MPH Rubin J in PP v Lim Hock Hin [2002] 4 SLR 895. The conditions mentioned in Hodgson at 114 were:

[17] In my view, the three conditions are a guide only. In any event, I agreed with the Prosecution that the three conditions had been met in the present case.

[18] First, the offence under the amended first charge was grave enough to justify a sentence of life imprisonment although life imprisonment is not always imposed for such an offence.

[19] Second, although the Accused had no criminal antecedent and no history of violent conduct, the circumstances and manner in which the offence under the amended first charge was committed demonstrated that the Accused was clearly of an unstable character likely to commit such offences in the future. He had attacked someone he hardly knew and who had no dispute with him previously or on the date of the offence itself, unlike some other cases where life imprisonment had been imposed.

[20] Although the Defence submitted that the Accused accepted responsibility for his role and was sincerely apologetic to the family of the deceased, a report of Dr Phang mentioned his lack of insight that his act was the result of his mental illness.

[21] Furthermore, the two psychiatrists I have mentioned have reported that the Accused required drug treatment for his mental illness for an indefinite period and that he was likely to default in taking medication if not supervised. Even if the relationship between the Accused and his parents, from whom he had been estranged for almost ten years, had improved, there was really nothing to suggest that that would assist him significantly in coping with his mental illness.

[22] Thirdly, if future offences were to be committed by the Accused, the consequences would be likely to be very serious as could be seen from the amended first charge where a life was taken. Also, the Accused’s wanton conduct did not stop after he had slashed the deceased. He went to get other paper cutters and continued slashing around as a result of which he disfigured another person’s face permanently. This was the subject of the amended second charge.

[23] After considering the facts before me and the submissions on sentencing, I was of the view that it was in the interest of society and the Accused himself that he be incarcerated for life. Accordingly, I sentenced the Accused to a term of imprisonment for life from the date of remand, ie 15 August 2003, with a direction that the Accused be given treatment on a regular basis for his illness whilst serving his sentence.

[24] I have mentioned that the life imprisonment is from the date of remand as that may assist the prison authorities in determining when the Accused is eligible for consideration of remission of sentence under the Prisons Regulations (Cap 247, Rg 2, 2002 Rev Ed).