Skip to content
laws.sgby aturio
Grounds publishedDecided 7 Apr 2009
Contents

High Court

Public Prosecutor v Ismil bin Kadar and Another

Feedback & support

[2009] SGHC 84Case no. CC 9/2006

What happened, in plain English

There is no plain-English summary of this judgment yet.

Ask about this judgment

Laws this judgment relies on

Grounds of decision

Official text from eLitigation

  1. Woo Bih Li J:

  2. Introduction

  3. [1] The first accused person Ismil Bin Kadar (“Ismil”) and the second accused person Muhammad Bin Kadar (“Muhammad”) are brothers who faced the following charge initially:

  4. [2] After the two trials-within-a-trial or voir dire which I shall elaborate on below, the charge was amended to specifically mention that the common intention was to commit robbery as was all along understood to be the prosecution’s case. Accordingly the charge, as amended, was as follows:

  5. [3] For easy reference, I will refer to the victim as “Mdm Tham” or “the deceased” and to the relevant block of flats as “Block 185”. I will also refer to the premises #05-156 at which Mdm Tham was killed, as “the deceased’s flat” or “her flat”. This was a two-bedroom Housing and Development Board flat. Ismil and Muhammad were residing one floor below at Block 185 Boon Lay Avenue #04-154 (“#04-154”) on the date when Mdm Tham was killed. Their dates of birth are 27 April 1968 and 29 June 1975 respectively. On 6 May 2005, they were 37 and 29 years of age respectively. Their heights are 1.7 metres and 1.68 metres respectively.

  6. [4] The deceased stayed at her flat with her 69 year old husband Loh Siew Kow (“Mr Loh”), a bedridden stroke patient. In the morning of 6 May 2005, some time between 8am and 9am, Mdm Tan Bee Choo had called and spoken to the deceased to arrange to visit the deceased’s flat to change a nasogastric tube attached to the nose of Mr Loh. Mdm Tan was attached to the Home Nursing Foundation located at Bukit Batok Polyclinic and her duty was to visit and provide medical treatment to bedridden patients at their homes. Mr Loh was one of her patients.

  7. [5] Pursuant to the arrangement made earlier that day, Mdm Tan arrived at the deceased’s flat at about 4pm. The iron gate and wooden door were closed. She knocked on the door but no one responded. She called out for the deceased but there was no response. She then used her mobile phone to call the residential line of the deceased. She could hear the phone inside the deceased’s flat ringing but no one answered her call. Mdm Tan decided to call Loh Yim Leng, whom she referred to as Catherine, a daughter of the deceased. She informed Catherine that the deceased was not responding to her knocks on the door or to her calls to the residential line. She would return to her office and would visit Mr Loh the following day. Catherine said she would visit the deceased’s flat after work. Catherine’s evidence was that she also called the residential line but without success. After work, she went to and arrived at the deceased’s flat at about 7.30pm. The gate and door were closed. She knocked on the door but there was no response. She again called the residential line and heard the phone inside the deceased’s flat ringing but no one answered the call. She sought the assistance of the police.

  8. [6] Two policemen arrived outside the deceased’s flat at about 8.00pm. The front gate was open but not the door. They spoke to Catherine and eventually obtained her permission to break open the door. The policemen created a hole in the door and through that hole a hand was inserted to open the door from the inside. The deceased was found lying motionless on the living room floor in a pool of blood. Mr Loh was lying on a bed in a bedroom. A paramedic who arrived at the scene pronounced the deceased dead at about 8.40pm.

  9. [7] The material parts of the autopsy report by Dr Lai Siang Hui stated:

  10. [8] The prosecution relied heavily on various statements made by Ismil and by Muhammad to officers in the Special Investigation Section (“SIS”) of the Criminal Investigation Department (“CID”). Each of the accused persons contested the admissibility of their respective statements for various reasons. I set out below various legal principles in respect of the admissibility of statements made by an accused person.

  11. The Law on Admissibility of Statements

  12. [9] The admissibility of statements from an accused person is governed by s 122(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) (“CPC”) which is similar to s 24 of the Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed). For present purposes, I need set out only s 122(5) which states:

  13. [10] However, where an accused person simply denies that he made a statement attributed to him, the admissibility of the statement is not in issue and hence there is no need to conduct a voir dire. This is the fourth typical situation referred to by the Privy Council in Seeraj Ajodha v The State [1982] A C 204 (“Ajodha”). Lord Bridge of Harwich said at 221 and 222:

  14. [11] The principle from the fourth typical situation stated in Ajodha was implicitly accepted by the Court of Appeal in PP v Oh Laye Koh [1994] 2 SLR 385 at 395.

  15. [12] However, where a statement is challenged on the ground that it was not made and the circumstances are such as to raise the question that if it was made, it was not made voluntarily, then a voir dire should be held. It seemed to me that this proposition was envisaged in the third typical situation in Ajodha. Subsequent cases have applied this proposition, see Seow Choon Meng v PP [1994] 2 SLR 853 (“Seow Choon Meng”), Thongjai v R [1998] AC 54 and Timothy v The State [2001] 1 WLR 485.

  16. [13] As regards the question of a threat, inducement or promise, the Court of Appeal in Gulam Bin Notan Mohd Shariff Jamalddin v PP [1999] 2 SLR 181 (“Gulam”) said at 203:

  17. [14] In Lim Thian Lai v PP [2006] 1 SLR 319, Chao Hick Tin JA reiterated the objective and subjective components at [14].

  18. [15] It is a question of fact to be determined in the circumstances of each case whether a statement or conduct by someone else, usually a police officer, constitutes an inducement, threat or promise which operated on the mind of an accused person and caused him to give his statement.

  19. [16] I now come to oppressive circumstances. Such circumstances such as prolonged interrogation have been sometimes described as a form of inducement or threat. Again, it would be a question of fact whether a given set of circumstances is oppressive.

  20. [17] In Seow Choon Meng ([12] supra), Karthigesu JA said at 864 and 865:

  21. [18] In Chai Chien Wei Kelvin v PP [1999] 1 SLR 25, Yong Pung How CJ (“CJ Yong”), delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal said at [48] to [50]:

  22. [19] It was also not disputed that even if the proviso to s 122(5) does not apply, the court has a discretion to admit or to reject the statement of an accused person, see again Rajendran J’s judgment in PP v Dahalan bin Ladaewa [1996] 1 SLR 783 (“Dahalan”) at 792 and 793. However, I would add that if the proviso applies there is no discretion and the statement must be rejected.

  23. [20] Another area of possible contention regarding the admissibility of statements from an accused person is when the accused person abuses drugs. In Garnam Singh v PP [1994] 2 SLR 243, Karthigesu JA said at 247 that in order for the effects of withdrawal from drugs to render any statement a person makes to be involuntary, that person must be in a state of near delirium, that is, “that his mind did not go with the statements that he was making”.

  24. [21] That passage from Karthigesu JA was cited by Rajendran J in Dahalan. Rajendran J said at 801 to 802:

  25. [22] The trial judge’s decision on admissibility was upheld by the Court of Appeal in PP v Dahalan bin Ladaewa [1995] SGCA 87 reported in [1996] 1 CLAS News 75.

  26. [23] It seemed to me that while Rajendran J had concluded that the mind of the accused person in that case did not go with the statements he was making, the learned judge stopped short of making a finding that the accused person there was in a state of near delirium.

  27. [24] In Chua Poh Kiat Anthony v PP [1998] 2 SLR 713, Yong CJ said at [13] and [14]:

  28. [25] A similar proposition was reiterated in Gulam ([13] supra) by Yong CJ when he was delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal at [54]. In that case, the court concluded that there was no evidence that the first appellant was anywhere in a state of near delirium.

  29. [26] I would respectfully suggest that a drug abuser’s mind may not go with his statements even if he was not in a state of near delirium. Thus, a drug abuser may not be nearly delirious but still be in a state of drowsiness or confusion such as to make it unsafe to admit his statement made in such circumstances.

  30. The Voir Dire for Ismil

  31. [27] The admissibility of the following statements allegedly made by Ismil was in issue:

  32. For easy reference, a table of Ismil’s statements that were in issue is attached in Schedule A. The table includes information on the relevant exhibit numbers and the pages in the preliminary inquiry bundle (“PIB”) where the statements may be found, if they are in the PIB.

  33. [28] Ismil’s challenge to the admissibility of the statements (in [27] above) was based on two broad reasons: (a) the effect of withdrawal from his consumption of Dormicum on 6 May 2005; and (b) threats, inducements and oppressive circumstances.

  34. [29] According to Ismil, his highest educational qualification was primary six. He started consuming drugs from the age of 15. He consumed cannabis and sniffed glue. He also smoked opium. He was imprisoned for a month in 1998 for being absent without official leave from national service. From 1989 to 2003, he was sent to a drug rehabilitation centre (“DRC”) five times and was placed on long-term detention. Before 6 May 2005, he had been questioned by the police more than five times.

  35. [30] Ismil said that in April/May 2005, he would mostly inject himself with Subutex, Dormicum and Dormi or a combination of these drugs for about four to five times daily. Before 6 May 2005, he had been working as a general worker and if he did not take drugs for one or two days, he would be weak, he would have diarrhoea, nausea and bone aches and be confused and not function properly. On 6 May 2005 he had taken six Dormicum pills orally in the morning and at about 9 plus in the morning, he had injected himself with a dose of two pills of Dormicum. Between 1 to 2pm, he injected himself again with drugs at the flat of the girlfriend of a friend Saini Bin Mansor (“Saini”).

  36. [31] I now set out the circumstances leading to Ismil’s arrest.

  37. [32] At about 3pm on 6 May 2005, one Yoo Yee Weng (“Yee Weng”), who was operating a handphone business at Boon Lay Shopping Centre (“BLSC”) #02-126, discovered that two Nokia mobile phones were missing from a display showcase at his shop. He informed his friend Tan Yi Long Jafred (“Jafred”) who was also operating a similar business at #02-198 at BLSC to keep a look out for the phones in case anyone should try to sell the phones to Jafred. At about 4.30pm Jafred called Yee Weng to inform him that a Malay man was in his shop trying to sell a Nokia mobile phone to him. Yee Weng went over and identified that phone as one of the two that had been taken from his display showcase. The Malay man was Ismil. The police were called for. Ismil was standing inside #02-198 when two policemen arrived at about 4.48pm. He admitted to the police that he had stolen the mobile phone in question and was arrested at about 5.30pm. Ismil was then brought to Jurong Police Division Headquarters.

  38. The Cantonment threat

  39. [33] The next day, 7 May 2005, SSI Lai Chun Hong (“SSI Lai”) and Inspector Steven Wee (“Inspector Wee”) from SIS, CID, interviewed Ismil at Jurong Police Division Headquarters at about 5.55am. The interview was carried out at the request of the IO who had learned about Ismil’s arrest for theft. During the interview, Ismil said he did not know of any murder at Block 185 and denied any involvement in the murder.

  40. [34] Inspector Wee said he noticed that Ismil was staggering as he was brought out from the lock-up but he did not appear intoxicated. Ismil had had a swollen right ankle although he was able to walk. Ismil said he had fallen while cycling a few days ago. There were some scratches on one of his upper arms which Ismil said were also sustained from his fall while cycling. Inspector Wee observed Ismil to be restless and tired with bloodshot eyes and a little slurred in his speech. He suspected that Ismil might then be under the influence of drugs. Inspector Wee described Ismil as unresponsive in that the same questions had to be asked a few times before he would give a response.

  41. [35] SSI Lai and Inspector Wee denied that they had applied pressure on Ismil to get him to confess that he was involved in the deceased’s murder. Ismil’s version was that SSI Lai had muttered to him “wait until you get to Cantonment and then you will know, and we can talk” or words to that effect. I will refer to this allegation as “the Cantonment threat”. Both these officers denied that the Cantonment threat was made. They also denied that SSI Lai had told Ismil that many people had seen the murder of the deceased and it was like a “wayang” which is a Malay word for a show. Inspector Wee also denied that he had told Ismil that Ismil was associated with a taxi stand murder. As I mentioned, Ismil had denied any involvement with a murder at Block 185.

  42. [36] Ismil said that he was questioned by two Chinese police officers in the early hours of 7 May 2005. They said they wanted to check his DNA. If his DNA was positive the officer who said this threatened to slap him on the face. They asked him whether he knew about a murder case at his block of flats and one at a taxi stand. They mentioned there were many people who witnessed the murder at his block of flats and it was like a “wayang”. He said they made the Cantonment threat.

  43. [37] Ismil initially said he did not know what the reference to “Cantonment” meant at the time the Cantonment threat was made but in cross-examination, he said he knew it referred to a police station. It was not disputed at the trial that the office of SIS, CID was and is at PCC.

  44. [38] Ismil said that he was fearful of being assaulted if he was brought to Cantonment. The officers were very fierce and he was in pain and had a craving for drugs. He had been assaulted by CID officers before, although this was supposedly clarified to be Central Narcotics Bureau (“CNB”) officers instead. He told the two Chinese police officers that he was feeling cold and he knew about a theft case only. He did not know anything about a murder. His bones and joints were aching, he was shivering, he felt weak, he felt like vomiting and also he had to go to the toilet many times. His mind was in disarray and he was confused. It was also Ismil’s evidence that he was suffering from withdrawal symptoms between the period when the alleged statements were recorded, ie, between 7 May 2005 to 9 June 2005 and his condition had been deteriorating generally until he was first admitted for a psychiatric assessment on 27 May 2005. Also, the Cantonment threat was still in his mind when his subsequent statements were recorded in that period.

  45. Ismil’s unsigned statement to SSI Zainal on 7 May 2005 between 11.10am and 11.20am

  46. [39] Tiu Kian Chai, also known as Denis Tiu, was a police officer holding the rank of a sergeant. At the time of the trial, he was no longer with the police force. On 6 May 2005, he was performing the duty of Senior Investigation Officer at Jurong Police Division Headquarters. At about 8.50pm of 6 May 2005, he was informed about Mdm Tham’s murder. He went to her flat and returned at about 4.20am of 7 May 2005. He went through various arrest reports and noted that Ismil was staying one floor below the deceased’s flat. It was he who informed the IO about this and the IO said he would get officers from SIS, CID, to interview Ismil. These officers were SSI Lai and Inspector Wee whom I have referred to. Mr Tiu said he saw Ismil in the lock-up at about 4.50am (before the interview by the CID officers at about 5.55am). He noticed Ismil was limping and he appeared tired. However, Ismil did not appear unwell nor did he complain about being unwell. After the interview by the CID officers, Ismil was handed back to Mr Tiu at about 7.35am. Ismil appeared alright then. At about 9.20am, Mr Tiu told the IO he was bringing Ismil to #04-154 for further investigation into the offence of theft of the mobile phone. Mr Tiu said Ismil did not tell him that Ismil was cold while in the lock-up.

  47. [40] At about 10.45am of 7 May 2005, Mr Tiu and another officer reached the car park of Block 185 with Ismil. SSI Zainal and other officers from CID were also in the vicinity of the car park. SSI Zainal then entered the car they were in and asked the two officers to leave as he wanted to interview Ismil. They did as directed, leaving SSI Zainal seated with Ismil in the rear of the car. This was at about 11.10am.

  48. [41] SSI Zainal said that his interview with Ismil was conducted in Malay. It was between 11.10am and 11.20am. During that interview, Ismil initially said he could not remember anything and then confessed to having attacked the deceased. SSI Zainal said he wrote this confession down on a piece of paper, which was Exhibit P152. It stated:

  49. This was the first of Ismil’s statements in issue. SSI Zainal said Ismil was alert and had responded to his questions promptly. Ismil was shaking his two legs. However, SSI Zainal denied that Ismil had told him he was “sakit”, which is a Malay word to mean he was ill, or that Ismil had indicated that he was suffering from withdrawal symptoms.

  50. [42] At the time of that interview, SSI Zainal was aware that a fingerprint had been found in the deceased’s flat although he did not know whose fingerprint it was. He said that he had asked Ismil during the interview what if his fingerprint was found and it was in response to this that Ismil admitted he had stabbed an old female Chinese on Friday morning, ie, 6 May 2005.

  51. [43] Ismil said that at about 10.50am of 7 May 2005, he was sitting alone in a police car at Blk 185 when he was questioned by a Malay police officer, ie, SSI Zainal. He denied any involvement with the murder at his block but was told that his fingerprints were found at the deceased’s flat. He considered this a threat. His evidence was that he said, “If yes, yes, if not, not” or words to that effect. SSI Zainal also told him there were two people in the deceased’s flat and he considered that information a threat as well.

  52. Ismil’s unsigned statement to SSI Zainal on 7 May 2005 between 11.30am and 11.50am

  53. [44] After the interview in the car that morning, Ismil was brought to a briefing room at JWNPC where SSI Zainal had a second interview with him between about 11.30am and 11.50am. According to SSI Zainal, Ismil was more relaxed. He was not shaking his legs. Ismil told him at JWNPC that he had gone to the deceased’s flat to borrow money and that he had taken a knife from the deceased’s flat. Ismil also told him that there was an old man lying in a bed in the deceased’s flat. Ismil also said he had acted alone. Most of the elaboration and the alleged admission in the car were recorded much later after lunch by SSI Zainal in his field diary, Exhibit P153, but on the same day. The material entries stated:

  54. 1110

  55. As directed by ASP Goh Tat Boon, at C/park of Blk 185 Boon Lay, Interview one:-

  56. Ismil B. Kadar (DOB: M/37) NRIC No.: S6813242H Blk 185 B/Lay Ave #04-154

  57. Inside marked police car. S/Sgt Toh Chin Hoe (95473) and Sgt 96869, Tiu Kin Chai stood outside. I commence to interview the subject concerning the case and he claimed that he could not remember anything. Subsequently, he told me that he had stabbed an old F/Chinese lady on Friday morning at Blk 185 Boon Lay Ave.

  58. Subsequently ASP Goh Tat Boon and ASP Ng Poh Lai joined me in the police car.

  59. 1120

  60. …

  61. 1130

  62. At Jurong West NPC. Subject was brought to the briefing room. I commenced to interview him again. The subject added that he went to the deceased’s house that morning to borrow some money. He also said that he took the knife from the deceased’s house and added there was an old man lying on the bed.

  63. [45] I would add that on that day, SSI Zainal’s field diary remained in his office at PCC while he was at the carpark of Block 185 and at JWNPC. He said he had not brought his field diary with him as he was not the investigating officer of the murder case.

  64. [46] SSI Zainal also denied that at JWNPC Ismil had told him that he was cold.

  65. [47] Ismil said that when he was at JWNPC, he was questioned by SSI Zainal and other police officers. He claimed that they were forcing him to tell them about the murder but he told them he did not know anything about the murder case. They were torturing and pressurising him. By torture, he meant that much stress and pressure was applied on him. He said he told the officers he was feeling sick, cold and confused. Ismil’s evidence was not confined to the time when he was alone with SSI Zainal at JWNPC. It included the time when other officers were in the room before Ismil was eventually brought to another room, ie, the VSC office where ASP Bakar was waiting to record a statement from him.

  66. [48] Between 12.10pm and 12.25pm, Ismil’s fingernails were clipped by a forensic management officer and between 11.50am and 12.40pm, various officers, that is, SSI Soh Eng Seng, SI Teh Hwee Cheng and Inspector Wee were in the same room with Ismil although not necessarily throughout the same duration. Ismil said that although the Cantonment threat was not repeated on this occasion by these other officers he took the threat seriously. However, he still did not admit to any involvement in the deceased’s murder then.

  67. Ismil’s signed statement to ASP Bakar on 7 May 2005 between 12.45pm and 1.20pm

  68. [49] At about 12.40pm of 7 May 2005, Ismil was handed over to ASP Bakar who thereafter recorded a statement from him under s 121 CPC. This was done between 12.45pm and 1.20pm at the VSC office at JWNPC. Ismil spoke to ASP Bakar in Malay. Ismil signed below the statement which was Exhibit P154. The entire statement was in issue in the voir dire. ASP Bakar’s request for information and Ismil’s statement were recorded as follows:

  69. [50] Ismil had also signed on the next page of the statement whereby he affirmed the statement to be true and correct and that no threat, inducement or promise had been rendered to him during the recording of the statement.

  70. [51] ASP Bakar said Inspector Wee had given a briefing at about 9am of 7 May 2005 and during the briefing, Inspector Wee had said Ismil seemed to be “high” and was not responsive to questions earlier that day.

  71. [52] ASP Bakar said he had asked Ismil to be truthful when he asked Ismil what he knew about the murder of the deceased. Ismil appeared normal, calm and responsive. He did not appear high then. ASP Bakar also denied that Ismil had complained of being hungry or that he was sick. Ismil had no complaint.

  72. [53] It was Ismil’s evidence that when he was brought to see ASP Bakar, he had initially denied involvement in the murder. He told ASP Bakar that he had not taken his meal yet and that he was sick and the room was very cold. ASP Bakar told him that he should give his statement first and then he would be allowed to eat. ASP Bakar also looked fierce. Ismil did not deny signing

  73. the statement. He said he had no choice because of the pressure he faced and the officers refusing to believe his denials. The pressure was due also to his fear of being assaulted arising from the Cantonment threat. He believed the Cantonment threat because he had experienced it before. Part of the substance of the statement came from suggestions from ASP Bakar or Ismil had lied in part of his statement. His mind was in a mess and he was weak.

  74. Ismil was brought to #04-154 and then to PCC

  75. [54] At about 1.25pm the same day, Ismil was handed over to SSI Soh Eng Seng, SI Teh Hwee Cheng and Inspector Wee. Thereafter, he was brought to #04-154 during which ASP Bakar, who was also present there, asked him questions. According to Senior Staff Sergeant (“SSSGT”) Chandra Seakaran (“SSSGT Chandra”), who was one of the escorting officers at that scene, Ismil looked calm and appeared quite responsive to questions posed by ASP Bakar. Ismil was not exhibiting any discomfort. He did not notice Ismil limping. According to the IO who was also present then at that scene, Ismil looked calm, alert and responsive. The IO did not notice Ismil having a running nose or shivering or exhibiting any discomfort.

  76. [55] At about 3.10pm, Ismil was brought from #04-154 to PCC. He and the escorting officers arrived at PCC at about 3.40 pm. Ismil was given a hot drink and biscuits and at about 4.35pm, he was brought to a lock-up at PCC. According to SI Teh Hwee Cheng, Ismil had said in the car on the way back to PCC that he had not eaten.

  77. [56] Ismil accepted that he was brought to #04-154 from JWNPC. However, he said that whilst there, ASP Bakar had threatened him by asking him where he had put the red shirt he had worn during the murder. Ismil also perceived ASP Bakar’s warning to him not to speak to his family as a threat. Thereafter he was brought to PCC. He said he had mentioned again in the car on the way back to PCC that he was hungry. Back at PCC, he again said he had not had his lunch. He was then given a cup of Milo and biscuits. This was close to 4pm. As his hands were in restraints he said he felt helpless and it seemed that the officers could do whatever they liked to him. He could not even hold the cup or eat properly. He felt he was being treated like an animal and he felt cold. The escorting officers were also having their own meals at PCC. He was brought to the lock-up thereafter.

  78. Pre-statement medical examination

  79. [57] At about 4.55pm of 7 May 2005, Ismil was taken from the lock-up at PCC to Alexandra Hospital (“AH”) for a pre-statement examination before he was invited to give a statement under s 122(6) CPC. The party arrived at AH at about 5.15pm. At about 6pm, Ismil was examined by Dr Cheong Hong Fai (“Dr Cheong”) who spoke to him in English. Dr Cheong issued a report dated 21 June 2005 of that examination. The material part stated:

  80. [58] Dr Cheong said that Ismil did not make any specific complaint although he had said he was unwell. For example, Dr Cheong had asked whether Ismil had any cough, cold, fever or abdominal pain but Ismil was unable to confirm any of this. Dr Cheong said he had mentioned nausea as Ismil said that he felt like vomiting. As far as Dr Cheong could remember, Ismil was alert and comfortable. Although Ismil had mentioned he was unwell, Dr Cheong did not think he needed to be admitted to hospital. As for Ismil’s nausea, Dr Cheong said he was unaware that someone with drug withdrawal symptoms would have this complaint but he accepted it might be possible. However, Dr Cheong did not notice any running nose or shivering from Ismil. Dr Cheong said that he did not recall Ismil having told him he was in pain.

  81. [59] Ismil said he was able to understand Dr Cheong who spoke to him in simple English. He said he told the doctor he was a drug addict and his bones felt painful and he felt like vomiting. He said he did not mention any other complaint because he had difficulty expressing himself or comprehending the doctor unless the doctor spoke in simple English. He spoke in a mixture of English and Malay to the doctor. Also, he wanted to tell the doctor how he had been pressurised by CID officers and that he did not commit any murder but he did not say so to the doctor because of the presence of escorting officers in the same room.

  82. [60] In cross-examination, he said he had no complaints physically when he saw Dr Cheong but he was mentally stressed. Dr Cheong had not asked him if he had any complaints.

  83. [61] Ismil said he was feeling very cold in Dr Cheong’s room but he did not inform Dr Cheong. He said Dr Cheong should know he would feel cold as he had told Dr Cheong he was a drug addict.

  84. Ismil’s signed cautioned statement to Inspector Ang on 7 May 2005 between 8.50pm and 9.45pm

  85. [62] After the pre-statement examination, Ismil was brought back to PCC at around 6.45pm. Later, Inspector Ang recorded a cautioned statement from Ismil pursuant to s 122(6) CPC in room 4, PCC lock-up between 8.50pm and 9.45pm. He was assisted by Sapiahtun who was interpreting in the Malay language. A charge of murdering Mdm Tham on 6 May 2005 between 8am and 7.49pm at the deceased’s flat was read out to Ismil with the usual caution. Ismil was then recorded as stating:

  86. [63] Inspector Ang said that Ismil looked normal to him and Ismil had not made any complaint during the recording of the statement. He also said that if he had noticed Ismil having any withdrawal symptoms, he would not have continued recording his statement.

  87. [64] Sapiahtun was initially uncertain but eventually agreed that Ismil had told her that the room was cold. She had opened the door a bit to let the air go out as the temperature could not be adjusted because of central air-conditioning. She then asked him if that was “okay” and he replied, “okay”. Although the room was quite cold, she did not notice Ismil shivering. Neither did she recall Ismil saying that he was cold because he was suffering from drug withdrawal.

  88. [65] Ismil said his condition had worsened by then. He said that when Sapiahtun opened the door of the room ajar, it did not increase the temperature in the room. He told her he still felt cold. Sapiahtun asked him to sign a piece of paper containing a charge. He declined because he noticed a charge relating to section 302. He said that she insisted he sign and he still refused. He had noticed the punishment (of death) stated at the bottom of the charge. Even if the possible sentence was less harsh he would not sign on the charge because he did not commit the offence of murder. She threatened him that if he did not sign, the court would take action against him. He thought this threat of action being taken against him was as serious as the murder charge. She then said that if he were to sign, the charge could be reduced. As he had committed theft, he decided to sign, thinking his charge would be reduced to one of theft. The only reason why he signed the cautioned statement in addition to signing below the charge, was because of Sapiahtun’s inducement about the reduction of the charge. I will refer to this as “Sapiahtun’s inducement”. As he was still suffering from pain, confusion and cold, he had no choice but to lie by making the cautioned statement.

  89. [66] He trusted Sapiahtun but he did not tell her or Inspector Ang that he was innocent of the murder because he perceived them to be CID officers and he was exhausted.

  90. Post-statement medical examination

  91. [67] After Ismil had given his cautioned statement, he was brought back to AH for a post-statement medical examination. Dr Cheong examined him at about 10.35pm. He issued a report dated 21 June 2005 on this examination. The material part of that report stated:

  92. Ismil did not give any evidence-in-chief about the post-statement examination.

  93. 8 May 2005

  94. [68] When Ismil was brought to court the next day, ie, 8 May 2005 and charged with murder, he said he was shocked and confused and sick. He was angry. I should add that Ismil also eventually said that he had had diarrhoea in the morning of 8 May 2005. He was disappointed with Sapiahtun. He had no chance to tell the court about mistreatment by CID officers. There were CID officers all over the place. His mind was disturbed. However, it was his evidence that Sapiahtun’s inducement continued to operate on his mind between 7 May 2005 to 9 June 2005.

  95. [69] Ismil’s position was that he was still fearful of being assaulted as he was in the clutches of CID even though he had cooperated with CID so far.

  96. Ismil’s signed statement to the IO on 11 May 2005 between 2.30pm and 4.45pm

  97. [70] I come now to Ismil’s statement on 11 May 2005 to the IO with Sapiahtun as the interpreter. The statement was recorded in room 7, PCC lock-up between 2.30pm and 4.45pm. It stated:

  98. Question:

  99. What do you know about the fact of the case?

  100. Answer:

  101. On 6 May 2005 at about 8.30 am. I woke up and noticed that my younger brother, Mamat was still sleeping in our room. I then went to the kitchen to take water. As I was at the living room, I noticed that my mother room door was slightly ajar and I did not know whether she was at home. As I was in the kitchen, I poured a cup of water and brought it to my room. When I was in my room, I swallowed 6 tablets of “Domician” (sleeping pills) with water. Next, I grinded 2 tablets of “Domician” into powdery form and added it with hot water which turned into liquid form. Following that, I placed the liquid into a syringe and jabbed it into my left upper arm. Thereafter, I rested and relaxed in the bedroom and shortly I became “steam” (accused further explained that “steam” means “high”).

  102. [2] At about 10.00 am. I left the house. My younger brother was still sleeping in the bedroom and I did not see my mother in the house but her bedroom door was slightly ajar. I remembered that I was wearing a shorts [sic] when I left the house but I could not remember the colour and design of the shorts. I also did not know what I was wearing on my upper body but I am sure that I wore something. I remembered wearing a cap. I could not remember the colour of cap that I was wearing. I could not remember whether I have brought anything along with me.

  103. [3] Next, I wore my slippers that were placed along the corridor outside my house. Next, I turned right and climbed up the staircase. Next thing I remembered, I was inside my Chinese neighbour’s house. I did not know the unit number or the floor which my Chinese neighbour was staying. I also did not know how I managed to enter my neighbour’s house.

  104. [4] When I was inside my neighbour’s house, I saw an elderly Chinese woman whom I recognised her as my neighbour who lives on the 5 floor near the staircase. I then spoke to her in Malay and I asked her to lend me some money. She replied me in Malay and said that she did not have money. She raised her voice when replying me. I got angry and fed-up over her raised voice. I could not remember which part of the house we were in. I then went to the kitchen and took a knife from a shelf. My intention was to use the knife to scare her, so that she would give me her money. I then approached and pointed the knife at the elderly woman and asked her in Malay to give me her money. I could not remember which part of the house we were in then. I was then holding the knife in my right hand. Next, she held my right wrist with both her hands and she uttered something which I could not remember now. I then tried to pull my hand away from her but she held my wrist very tightly. Suddenly, she let go one of her hands and I accidentally pushed the knife forward and stabbed her. I could not remember where I had stabbed her. After stabbing her, all I could remember was that I left the house. I walked down the staircase and returned to my house. I could not remember how I entered my house.

  105. Stopped at 4.30 pm.

  106. The above statement was read and explained to Ismil Bin Kadar in Malay by the interpreter. He affirmed the contents of the statement are true and correct.

  107. [71] According to the IO the words in inverted commas or in italics were the actual words used by Ismil. The IO spelt Dormicum wrongly in the statement because at that time the IO was not certain about the spelling for that drug. The IO said that most of the time during this session, Ismil said he could not remember what he did in the deceased’s flat. He found Ismil to be forthcoming, calm and alert. Ismil did not appear unwell to him. Sapiahtun also said Ismil appeared normal that day. He did not appear unwell or in pain or in fear. Ismil’s position was that the session was actually in a question and answer format but Sapiahtun disagreed. Ismil’s position was also that he felt compelled to agree to suggestions made by the IO owing to threats and inducements extended to him earlier. However, Sapiahtun denied the IO had made several suggestions. Sapiahtun said she was not aware of any threat or inducement to Ismil.

  108. [72] Ismil said that when he was questioned by the IO, he was still experiencing withdrawal symptoms and his mind was not alert. He was also afraid that he would be beaten up because he was remanded at PCC and because of the Cantonment threat. He initially said he signed the statement because of pressure from officers who refused to accept his denials but then said he signed because of Sapiahtun’s inducement to reduce the charge and because he was afraid something would be done to him.

  109. [73] He did not ask Sapiahtun about the reduction of the charge as he thought he should just “follow”, ie, do what was expected of him. He still trusted Sapiahtun. He then said he had forgotten to ask her about the reduction of the charge. He had forgotten about Sapiahtun’s inducement then. He then reverted to say he had not forgotten that day. He agreed that he had met Sapiahtun on subsequent occasions when she also acted as interpreter but he did not ask her about the reduction in the charge because he was very sick, confused and pressured and the interview room was cold. He was feeling terribly weak.

  110. 12 May 2005

  111. [74] On 12 May 2005, Ismil was interviewed by SSI Mazlan Bin Shariff (“SSI Mazlan”) and ASP Bakar at an interview room in the office of SIS on the 18th floor at PCC. The interview was between about 4.05pm to 5.45pm and ASP Bakar was present until about 4.45pm. Although the prosecution was not relying on a statement made by Ismil at this interview to SSI Mazlan, after ASP Bakar had left, this session had some relevance to the voir dire. Ismil’s position was that ASP Bakar was never present at this interview.

  112. [75] The interview was conducted at the request of ASP Bakar who said he wanted to find out if anyone else was involved in the murder and to obtain information about the theft of the mobile phones. ASP Bakar said the IO was not involved in this interview as the IO was engaged in other matters. ASP Bakar denied the defence’s suggestion that the IO was excluded so that SSI Mazlan could exert threats on Ismil so as to soften him up. He also denied that SSI Mazlan was used as an enforcer to obtain incriminating evidence from Ismil.

  113. [76] Ismil said he was frightened because SSI Mazlan had been aggressive. SSI Mazlan had been smoking a brand of Next cigarettes in the room and his face looked aggressive. SSI Mazlan told him not to waste his time. Ismil was still experiencing withdrawal symptoms which had gotten worse and was confused and unable to focus. He told SSI Mazlan he did not know anything about the murder.

  114. Ismil’s signed statement to the IO on 17 May 2005 between 10.15am and 12.30pm and between 2.35pm and 4.30pm

  115. [77] Ismil’s statement of 17 May 2005 was recorded by the IO with Sapiahtun as interpreter in room 6, PCC lock-up between 10.15am and 12.30pm and between 2.35pm and 4.30pm. The material part of the statement stated:

  116. [78] The IO said that the earlier statement of 11 May 2005 ended with Ismil stating that he had gone back home after stabbing the deceased. Hence, the purpose of recording a further statement on 17 May 2005 was to record what Ismil had done when he returned home. The words in italics were the actual words used by Ismil who was cooperative, responsive and alert. Sapiahtun said Ismil was normal.

  117. [79] Ismil’s position was that the entire taking of the statement was in the form of a question and answer but this was denied by the IO and Sapiahtun.

  118. [80] Ismil described the IO as being very fierce that day and the IO would not believe whatever he said. The room was cold and he was still suffering from withdrawal symptoms which had become worse. He could still remember the Cantonment threat. He provided a statement because he was hoping to be spared any physical abuse.

  119. Ismil’s signed statement to the IO on 18 May 2005 between 3pm and 5.15pm

  120. [81] Ismil’s statement of 18 May 2005 was recorded by the IO with Sapiahtun as interpreter in room 6, PCC lock-up between 3pm and 5.15pm. The material part of the statement stated:

  121. Q16:

  122. You mentioned that you saw the deceased’s sickly husband lying on the bed in the bedroom. What else did you see inside the room?

  123. A16:

  124. I am not sure. He was lying on the bed with his legs pointing at my direction when I saw him. I was “high” then.

  125. Q17:

  126. What did the deceased’s sickly husband do, when you saw him?

  127. A17:

  128. He was lying on the bed not doing anything with his eye opened. I also do not know whether I have done anything to him. I think he is sickly. I am not sure whether he had seen me.

  129. Q18:

  130. Can you describe the interior of the deceased’s house?

  131. A18:

  132. I was very “high” and I could not remember the interior of her flat.

  133. Q19:

  134. Did you search the deceased’s house?

  135. A19:

  136. I do not know and I could not remember.

  137. Q20:

  138. After consuming 8 tablets of “Dormicum” in the morning, how many “Dormicun” tablets do you have before you gave “Mamat” S$15/- to help you to buy 5 “Dormium” tablets?

  139. A20:

  140. I have no more “Dormicum” tablet left after taking the 8 tablets in the morning.

  141. Q21:

  142. Did “Mamat” give you 5 “Dormicum” tablets?

  143. A21:

  144. Yes, he did. I have taken 2 tablets at Sani’s girlfriend house. When I was arrested, I left with 3 tablets.

  145. Q22:

  146. How much money did you have before you went to the deceased’s house?

  147. A22:

  148. I had about $21/-

  149. Q23:

  150. Did you wash your hands inside the deceased’s house?

  151. A23:

  152. I did not know and I could not remember.

  153. Q24:

  154. What was the colour of the slipper that you wore to the deceased’s house?

  155. A24:

  156. I did not know. When I was arrested I was wearing a pair blue slipper and I also do not know whether I wore the same slipper to the deceased’s house.

  157. Q25:

  158. How many slippers did you have?

  159. A25:

  160. I have two pairs. One is blue and the other is white.

  161. Q26:

  162. Did you wear your slipper into the deceased’s house?

  163. A26:

  164. I do not know and I could not remember.

  165. Q27:

  166. What was the deceased’s wearing when she opened the door for you?

  167. A27:

  168. I do not know and I could not remember. I was “high” then.

  169. Q28:

  170. Did the deceased unlock the gate lock or pad lock when you knocked her door?

  171. A28:

  172. I could not remember.

  173. Q29:

  174. Do you know the deceased and her family members?

  175. A29:

  176. I do not know them.

  177. Q30:

  178. What can you remember doing inside the deceased’s house?

  179. A30:

  180. What I can remember was I took a knife from her house and I pointed it at her to scare her. I asked her for money one more time and she raised her voice. She then held my right wrist with both hands. I was holding the knife in my right hand. There was a struggle and she let go one of hands and I accidentally stabbed her. I did not know where I stabbed her.

  181. Q31:

  182. Why did you not confess to the Chinese CID officers at Jurong Police Station when they interviewed you regarding this murder case?

  183. A31:

  184. At that time, I was high and I was shocked when the officers told me that an old woman was found murdered at my block. It did not cross my mind that the deceased was the same woman whom I stabbed. I just replied to the officers that I did not know anything about the murder.

  185. Q32:

  186. What make you confess to the stabbing of your neighbour to the Malay CID officer?

  187. A32:

  188. He told me that an old woman was found murdered in her house and my fingerprint was found in the house. Upon hearing that, I knew that the CID knows that I had stabbed the deceased. I then confessed to him that I stabbed the old woman. Even if the officer did not tell me that my fingerprint was found there, I would still confess to the offence. This is because I had stabbed her accidentally.

  189. Q33:

  190. Did the CID officer tell you who the deceased was?

  191. A33:

  192. They did not tell who the deceased was. They just told me that there was a murder.

  193. [82] The IO said Ismil was cooperative, responsive and alert on 18 May 2005. Sapiahtun said he was normal.

  194. [83] Ismil’s position was again that the answers for questions 16 to 30 were given by him because he felt compelled to do so. Answer 31 was because he had agreed to a suggestion made by the IO. As for Answer 32, Ismil’s position was that he did not give the responses from the second sentence thereof beginning with “Upon hearing that…” to “This is because I had stabbed her accidentally”. He had signed the statement nevertheless because he felt compelled to do so.

  195. [84] Ismil said he made this statement because of the Cantonment threat and Sapiahtun’s inducement to have the charge reduced. He was simply agreeing to whatever the IO wanted as he was still suffering from withdrawal symptoms.

  196. [85] The IO disagreed that he had given any suggested response or that Ismil was compelled to sign the statement. He also asserted that what was recorded in Answer 32 represented Ismil’s response. Sapiahtun’s evidence was that there were no threats or inducements, no suggestions and Ismil was not compelled to agree to suggestions or to fabricate a story.

  197. Ismil’s signed statement to the IO on 19 May 2005 between 12pm and 1.15pm

  198. [86] On 19 May 2005, Ismil was brought to Block 185 to reconstruct the events leading to the death of the deceased. According to the IO, Ismil led the way from the lift landing on the ground floor of Block 185 to the deceased’s flat. Ismil was cooperative and did not look frightened or complain of ill-treatment or of feeling unwell. What Ismil did and said during this reconstruction was recorded by the IO in his field diary between 12pm and 1.15pm with the interpretation done by Sapiahtun. The IO, Sapiahtun and Ismil had signed on the hand-written record. The material part of the notes stated:

  199. 1200

  200. Arrived at car park of Blk 185 Boon Lay Ave & I commence the investigation with the accused Ismil. Through the interpreter, I asked the accused to bring me to the flat where he said that he stabbed his female Chinese neighbour on 6/5/2005.

  201. The accused then led us to unit #05-156. Outside the unit #05-156, the accused pointed to the unit and said “This is the house”.

  202. I used the keys to unlock the pad lock & wooden door.

  203. I then asked the accused to relate the event leading to the incident. Through the interpreter, the accused said.

  204. “When I was outside the flat, I knocked at the door. The door & the gate were closed. The Chinese lady opened the door but not the gate. I asked her to lend me money. She said no and raised her voice. I did not know whether the gate was locked. I opened the gate and walked into the house. I stood right in front of the door and asked her for money again. She raised her voice and said no. I got angry and went to the kitchen. I could not remember I took a knife or a parang. (The accused walked to the kitchen and pointed to a knife holder placed next to the washing basin). I pointed it at her and to scare her. I could not remember which part of the house I was standing when I pointed the knife or parang at her. The old woman held my wrist and there was a struggle. While struggling, she let go one of her hands and I stabbed her accidentally. I could not remember whether I ransacked the house. After stabbing her and before I left the house, I saw an old man lying on a bed in the bedroom facing the car park. At that time, I was in the hall. The old man was very sickly and he raised his head and shoulder. (The accused walked to the hall from the kitchen. He showed me where he stood when he saw the old man). The old man was lying on the bed near the window. (The accused pointed to the bed). Then, I left the house and went home.

  205. [87] Ismil said he made the statement because he was afraid of being assaulted and because of Sapiahtun’s inducement. His condition was deteriorating because of his withdrawal symptoms. The other police officers who were with him at the deceased’s flat looked very fierce and this caused him to be more afraid of being assaulted.

  206. Ismil’s signed statement to the IO on 19 May 2005 between 1.15pm and 1.25pm

  207. [88] From the deceased’s flat, the party then went to #04-154 but did not gain entry into that flat. Another statement was recorded by the IO in his field diary with the interpretation of Sapiahtun outside #04-154 between 1.15pm and 1.25pm. The entry stated:

  208. The entry that day involving what Ismil had said was signed by Ismil, Sapiahtun and the IO.

  209. [89] After the visit to the deceased’s flat and to #04-154 on 19 May 2005, Ismil was brought to BLSC the same day and led the party to the shop where he stole two handphones at #02-126. He told the IO he stole the handphones on 6 May 2005.

  210. [90] Sapiahtun said nothing unusual happened during the reconstruction of events on 19 May 2005 at Block 185. The IO and Sapiahtun disagreed that the oral statement made by Ismil on 19 May 2005 regarding what he did at the deceased’s flat on 6 May 2005 was fabricated because of earlier threats made or inducements offered to him.

  211. Ismil’s signed statement to the IO on 20 May 2005 between 3.35pm and 4pm

  212. [91] On 20 May 2005, the party went again to #04-154 as they had not gained entry on 19 May 2005. However, the interpreter that day was Iskandar. At about 3.35pm, the IO asked Ismil what he had done when he returned home after stabbing the deceased. Ismil gave a response which was recorded in the IO’s field diary (Exhibit P190) between 3.35pm and 4pm. The relevant entry was signed by Ismil, Iskandar and the IO. It stated:

  213. [92] The IO said Ismil was cooperative. He disagreed that Ismil felt compelled to give his statement of 19 May 2005 as a result of past threats and inducements emanating from the following:

  214. [93] The IO also disagreed that such threats and inducements operated in Ismil’s mind throughout his remand at PCC.

  215. [94] Iskandar also said that as far as he knew, there was no threat made or inducement offered to Ismil prior to his statement of 20 May 2005. Although he had not asked Ismil if he had any complaints, there was in any event no complaint by Ismil.

  216. [95] Ismil said he made the statement on 20 May 2005 because of his past experiences, for example, the Cantonment threat, the allegation about his fingerprints and his not having been given any food during lunch time on 7 May 2005, his having to eat like an animal later that day when his hands were shackled and how he was feeling very cold when his cautioned statement was recorded and because of his withdrawal symptoms.

  217. Ismil’s signed statement to the IO on 24 May 2005 between 2.30pm and 4.30pm

  218. [96] A statement was recorded from Ismil on 24 May 2005 by the IO at room 6, PCC lock-up between 2.30pm and 4.30pm. Iskandar was also the interpreter on this occasion. The statement stated:

  219. Q34:

  220. On 19 May 2005, when you were in the deceased’s house for investigation, you mentioned that you could not remember whether you took a knife or a parang from the kitchen, can you differentiate between knife and parang?

  221. A34:

  222. Knife is long and light. The handle is made of wood. Parang is broad and heavy. (recorder offered the accused some paper to draw a knife and parang but the accused claimed that he did not know how to draw)

  223. Q35:

  224. Now, before you is a piece of paper with three diagrams, can you tell me what are they (recorder draws a parang, knife and a chopper and show it to the accused)?

  225. A35:

  226. A is a parang. B is a knife. C is a parang. In my statement I mentioned “parang” which I meant is showed in diagram C that used to cut meat.

  227. Q36:

  228. How many times did you stab the deceased?

  229. A36:

  230. I could not remember.

  231. Q37:

  232. How long did you remain in the deceased’s house?

  233. A37:

  234. About half an hour.

  235. Q38:

  236. Did you see the deceased sitting on a plastic chair in the kitchen after you had stabbed her?

  237. A38:

  238. I did not notice.

  239. Q39:

  240. What did the deceased do after you had stabbed her?

  241. A39:

  242. I did not know.

  243. Q40:

  244. Did you close the main door when you left the deceased’s house?

  245. A40:

  246. I did not know.

  247. Q41:

  248. Did you change your brief when you changed another set of clothing after you had stabbed the deceased?

  249. A41:

  250. No, I did not. I still used the same brief when I was arrested.

  251. Q42:

  252. Can you tell me what time did you return home on 5 May 2005?

  253. A42:

  254. I could not remember as I was always steam.

  255. Q43:

  256. Did you ever borrow money from your neighbour?

  257. A43:

  258. No, that was my first time I tried to borrow money from my neighbour.

  259. Q44:

  260. What language did the deceased speak to you?

  261. A44:

  262. I spoke to her in Malay and she replied in Malay.

  263. Q45:

  264. How much do you intent to borrow from the deceased?

  265. A45:

  266. About S$20/-.

  267. Q46:

  268. Why must you still need to borrow money from the deceased if you had S$21/-?

  269. A46:

  270. Not enough to buy Dormicum?

  271. Q47:

  272. How much do you need to buy Dormicum?

  273. A47:

  274. About S$40/- plus.

  275. Q48:

  276. How many Dormicum tablets do you need a day?

  277. A48:

  278. About 10 tablets.

  279. Q49:

  280. How much does it cost a tablet of “Dormicum”?

  281. A49:

  282. S$3/- each.

  283. Q50:

  284. Where and how did you get your money to buy your Dormicum tablets daily?

  285. A50:

  286. I worked three or four times a week as general worker. When I want to work, I would go to Boon Lay Shopping Centre to for [sic] a male Malay “Man”. I did not have his contact number and he would tell me whether there is job for that day. If there is job, he would ask me to go onto a lorry that would bring me to the work site to work. I do not work at a fix work site. My employer is a male Indian Muslim called Nasir. I did not have his contact number. I was paid daily which about S$40/- per day from 8.00am to 5.00pm.

  287. [97] The IO again said Ismil was cooperative and alert when he gave his responses. He disagreed that Ismil felt compelled to give such statements owing to the same earlier threats and inducements which had been raised in respect of Ismil’s earlier statements.

  288. [98] Ismil said he provided a statement on 24 May 2005 for the same reasons as when he provided a statement on 20 May 2005. He also said he was not able to withstand mental pressure exerted by police officers and his condition was aggravated by his withdrawal symptoms. He was still fearful of being assaulted.

  289. 27 May 2005 to 2 June 2005

  290. [99] On 27 May 2005, an order was made for Ismil to be sent for a psychiatric assessment. He was brought to Changi Prison Hospital which has since shifted to Changi Complex Medical Centre. He was seen by Staff Nurse Herbert Phoon (“S/N Phoon”) on admission. S/N Phoon’s notes stated:

  291. [100] S/N Phoon explained that Ismil’s general condition was based on his vital signs like his blood pressure, pulse rate and respiration rate. S/N Phoon also noted that Ismil was rational and coherent, meaning Ismil was able to say his name, his I/C number and where he was at and the time and persons around him. Ismil was able to understand and answer questions. Ismil was also noted as not disturbed, meaning there was no abnormal behaviour like shouting or struggling.

  292. [101] S/N Phoon did not observe any tearing, running nose or trembling hands. Also, he was not told by Ismil that he was suffering withdrawal symptoms or had been ill-treated by the police. He said if Ismil had told him either of these things, he would have noted it down. He accepted that he was not paying particular attention as to whether Ismil was exhibiting signs of drug withdrawal.

  293. [102] Dr Mohd Emran Bin Mamat was the physician who examined Ismil on three days at Changi Prison Hospital, ie, 30 May, 1 June and 2 June 2005. His notes stated:

  294. [103] Dr Emran explained that “gantung” is a Malay word meaning “hanging”. On 30 May 2005, he found Ismil to be alert, relevant and orientated although Ismil complained he was unable to sleep. Ismil had complained of abdominal discomfort but Dr Emran’s examination found the stomach to be soft, not guarded and not distended. This suggested the abdomen to be normal. There was no complaint of nausea or vomiting. Rantidine and Buscopan were prescribed. The former was a gastric medication and the latter a pain reliever.

  295. [104] On 1 June 2005, Ismil was still complaining of abdomen discomfort.

  296. [105] On 2 June 2005, Ismil complained of body ache and athralgia meaning joint ache. Ismil had a reduced appetite but requested extra bread and milk presumably for his gastric discomfort. Dr Emran said Ismil claimed he was having stress thinking about his case and that was the cause of reduced appetite and the aches. The vital signs were within the normal range.

  297. [106] As the aches were vague symptoms and very subjective and Ismil had attributed his symptoms to stress from the case, Dr Emran did not suspect that Ismil might be suffering withdrawal symptoms. However, even if Ismil was suffering from withdrawal symptoms then, Dr Emran would consider them to be mild as severe withdrawal would present more severe symptoms like severe tremors and abdominal pain and the vital signs would be affected although he was not familiar with Dormicum withdrawal. Ismil was alert and clear in speech based on daily notes made by a nurse.

  298. Ismil’s signed statement to ASP Bakar on 3 June 2005 between 6.15pm and 7.15pm

  299. [107] On 3 June 2005, Ismil was brought to the Subordinate Courts where an amended murder charge was read to him which mentioned the involvement of Muhammad. He said that when he found out Muhammad was also the subject of the charge, he was shocked, confused and his stress level increased. From the Subordinate Courts, Ismil was brought to PCC where he gave another statement at an interview room in the office of SIS between 6.15pm and 7.15pm. The recording officer was ASP Bakar and Ismil spoke to him in Malay. SSI Mazlan was also present initially at 4.45pm but was asked by ASP Bakar to leave. The material part of the statement stated:

  300. [108] ASP Bakar said that initially Ismil was questioned about Muhammad’s involvement in the deceased’s murder.Ismil was not forthcoming but eventually he mentioned the involvement of his brother Muhammad. This was at about 5 to 5.15pm and ASP Bakar then told SSI Mazlan to leave the room. ASP Bakar denied that SSI Mazlan and he had compelled Ismil to give the statement of 3 June 2005 or that Ismil was labouring under a threat that if he did not provide such a statement, he would be assaulted by SIS officers or that SSI Mazlan had told Ismil that Muhammad had implicated him (Ismil) and Ismil should provide a statement to save himself. ASP Bakar also disagreed that Ismil’s statement was based on suggestions and on a chronology provided by ASP Bakar because Ismil was afraid of being assaulted.

  301. [109] The evidence of SSI Mazlan was that Ismil was told during the interview on 3 June 2005 that Muhammad had revealed that he (Muhammad) was present at the scene of the crime and Ismil was asked what he had to say. Ismil was quiet and not forthcoming initially for about 20 to 25 minutes before he mentioned Muhammad’s involvement at the deceased’s flat. There was no denial as such about Muhammad’s involvement. SSI Mazlan denied he had exerted pressure on Ismil or that he had told Ismil to do something to save Muhammad. He also denied that Ismil had given a statement to ASP Bakar as a result of pressure or inducement from him (SSI Mazlan).

  302. [110] Ismil’s evidence was that SSI Mazlan was pressurising him to save his younger brother and was aggressive. SSI Mazlan had a fierce face and was moving his hands about. SSI Mazlan also told Ismil what Muhammad had said and suggested that Ismil should adopt that too. Ismil said he had to agree or he would be in more trouble. He was feeling sick and cold and his mind was becoming more muddled. He felt pressured ever since his arrest on 6 May 2005. He was wondering why Muhammad would involve him when he (Ismil) was not involved at all.

  303. Ismil’s signed statement to the IO on 9 June 2005 between 10.30am and 12.55pm and 4.10pm and 6.25pm

  304. [111] The IO recorded another statement from Ismil with Sapiahtun as interpreter at room 6 and 7, PCC lock-up between 10.30am and 12.55pm and between 4.10pm and 6.25pm. This was on 9 June 2005. The material part of the statement stated:

  305. The following questions were posed to me.

  306. Q51:

  307. You mentioned earlier that you have observed the deceased’s house for about one week before the incident. How did you observe?

  308. A51:

  309. Whenever I went to SANI’s house at 9 floor, I would walk up the staircase and would pass by the Chinese woman’s house. I noticed that the door and gate were always closed. I did not pay attention whether the gate was padlocked. I also noticed that the corridor was quiet. I did not stand outside the house to observe and I also did not peep into the house through the window to observe. The house is located at a corner unlike the other units that are located in a row.

  310. Q52:

  311. When was the last time you observed the deceased’s house prior to the incident?

  312. A52:

  313. I think it was 4 or 5 of May 2005.

  314. Q53:

  315. How many times did you observe the deceased’s house?

  316. A53:

  317. [3] or 4 times.

  318. Q54:

  319. You mentioned that you suggested to MAMAT to rob the house. What do you mean the word “rob the house”?

  320. A54:

  321. I mean housebreaking.

  322. Q55:

  323. During the week of your observation at deceased’s house, did you ever suggest and discuss with MAMAT to do housebreaking at the deceased’s house?

  324. A55:

  325. I did the observation alone. MAMAT did not know that I was planning to do housebreaking at the deceased’s house. He only got to know the plan and agreed to it before we went to the deceased’s house on 6 May 2005.

  326. Q56:

  327. Did you or MAMAT bring any instrument to the deceased’s house?

  328. A56:

  329. I could not remember and I did not know.

  330. Q57:

  331. Why did you have to knock at the deceased’s door if you would [sic] to do housebreaking?

  332. A57:

  333. I want to check whether anybody is there.

  334. Q58:

  335. In your answer to Q10, you mentioned you knocked at the deceased’s door was to borrow money from the deceased. Can you explain why your answer to Q57 was different from Q10?

  336. A58:

  337. Our intention was not to borrow money but to do housebreaking.

  338. Q59:

  339. When mentioned that you struggled with the deceased in the house, where was MAMAT then?

  340. A59:

  341. He was inside the house but I did not know in which part of the house he was.

  342. Q60:

  343. Were you still wearing your footwear when you rushed into the deceased’s house?

  344. A60:

  345. I could not remember that.

  346. Q61:

  347. How many injuries did the deceased sustain?

  348. A61:

  349. I could not remember.

  350. Q62:

  351. Could she had sustained more than one injury caused by the knife that you were holding?

  352. A62:

  353. I cannot answer this question. I cannot remember. I do not know.

  354. Q63:

  355. Can you describe the position of the deceased when she fell forward?

  356. A63:

  357. She was facing me when she fell forward.

  358. Q64:

  359. Which part of the house, when you and the deceased fell?

  360. A64:

  361. In the hall.

  362. Q65:

  363. Was MAMAT wearing his footwear when he went into the deceased’s house?

  364. A65:

  365. I did not know.

  366. Q66:

  367. Did MAMAT take anything from the deceased house when both of you left her house?

  368. A66:

  369. When we returned home from the deceased’s house, MAMAT took out S$60/- and threw them on the floor in the bedroom. He did not tell me whether the money was taken from the deceased’s house. I also did not know where he took the money from. I did not ask him how he got the money. I did not take the money and MAMAT took it back. I then told MAMAT to use the money to buy “Subutex”. At 4.00pm, we left SANI’s house, HAT and MAMAT went Clementi to buy “Subutex”. I did not follow them. HAT and MAMAT had mentioned that they wanted to go and buy “Subutex” when we were at SANI’s house.

  370. …

  371. Q70:

  372. When you suggested to MAMAT to do housebreaking at the deceased’s house, how much money did he had?

  373. A70:

  374. I did not know. I did not ask him and he did not tell me.

  375. Q71:

  376. Prior to this incident did MAMAT ever borrow money from you?

  377. A71:

  378. No. He did not.

  379. Q72:

  380. Prior to this incident, did you borrow money from your family members?

  381. A72:

  382. No, I did not.

  383. Stopped at 5.50pm

  384. [emphasis in original]

  385. [112] According to the IO, Ismil said during the interview in the afternoon that he was “fed up” because the IO was asking too many questions. This was corroborated by Sapiahtun who also said Ismil looked unhappy at this point of time.

  386. [113] The IO disagreed that Ismil provided this statement or the earlier statements because of earlier threats and inducements from SIS officers and SSI Mazlan’s threats and inducements of 3 June 2005. The IO also disagreed that during his recording of Ismil’s various statements, he had looked fierce and his (the IO’s) face would turn red on occasions.

  387. [114] Sapiahtun disagreed that the IO had made suggestions to Ismil when his statement of 9 June 2005 was being recorded.

  388. [115] Ismil agreed that he had said he was fed up during the recording of this statement. When he said he was fed up, the attitude of the IO and the interpreter did not change in that they were still fierce. He said he simply followed what was suggested to him and the pressure and threats including the Cantonment threat and Sapiahtun’s inducement still caused him to give this statement. He gave this statement also to save his brother and to cooperate with the police. However, he did not ask what was happening to Muhammad’s case as he was too sick to think.

  389. Evidence of Dr Winslow

  390. [116] The prosecution also called Dr Munidasa Winslow as a witness in the voir dire for Ismil’s statements to give expert evidence on the relevance of withdrawal symptoms from Dormicum and Subutex. Dr Winslow interviewed Ismil about a year later after his arrest on three occasions, ie, 26 April, 4 and 8 May 2006. The material part of his amended report dated 9 May 2006 stated:

  391. [117] Dr Winslow elaborated that Dormicum is a benzodiazepine hypnotic drug. It is a sleeping tablet with a half-life of between one and a half to two and a half hours. Half-life refers to the amount of time it takes for the body to remove half the substance from the body. Drug abusers would feel high or a period of euphoria and there would be some impairment to consciousness. There is a rapid development of tolerance to the drug. The main symptoms for withdrawal of Dormicum would be anxiety, nausea, tremors and in more severe cases, seizures or fits or paranoid delusions. Withdrawal symptoms would vary from person to person.

  392. [118] Dr Winslow’s notes recorded Ismil as having told him that he was “high” till 6 May 2005. The “steam” was still there till 7 May 2005 and he could last till the morning of 8 May 2005 before withdrawal symptoms were felt. Ismil also told him he was experiencing “ngian”, ie, a craving for the drugs, his bones were painful and his appetite was down because of withdrawal. His sleep was also affected after 8 May 2005.

  393. [119] In cross-examination, Dr Winslow elaborated that he spoke to Ismil in Malay although on the last occasion he had a Malay colleague with him to ensure that everything that was said was correct in the colloquial use of words. He agreed that Ismil had told him he had had diarrhoea two or three times on 7 May 2005 but there was no documentary evidence of this. He agreed that there would be some impairment to cognitive functioning of a person who consumed benzodiazepine on a long term basis. He agreed that confusion and delirium could occur when there is rapid withdrawal from high doses of benzodiazepine. A drug abuser would have some difficulty coping with stress after benzodiazepine cessation.

  394. [120] According to Dr Winslow, Ismil said he provided statements because he was scared and he had “ngian”. Ismil did also say he was confused but did not elaborate. However the context in which Ismil said he was confused may be elucidated by Dr Winslow’s case notes and evidence. I set them out below as well as Dr Winslow’s evidence as regards Ismil’s state of mind.

  395. “Question:

  396. Why did you voluntarily sign statements if you did not do it?

  397. Answer:

  398. I told them I didn’t do it. I was scared of beating. I told them I didn’t know anything. I bluffed them and told them what they wanted to hear.

  399. Question:

  400. You have been in prison or DRC many times. You know that what you sign will be used in court. You know that it is a legal document. So why did you sign?”

  401. There was silence.

  402. The next question:

  403. [Reads]

  404. “Question:

  405. For example, if you used Erimin, would you sign a statement saying that if you didn’t do it?”

  406. Hereafter some silence. He said:

  407. [Reads]

  408. “Answer:

  409. I signed because the interpreter said, ‘If you don’t sign, the court will take action against you’. I give you an example. They said, ‘If you sign, then you will get a lighter sentence’.”

  410. The first statement are conferment by Sapationg---Saptiong.

  411. Q:

  412. Tun, Sapiahtun.

  413. A:

  414. Sap---sorry, Saptiong---Saptun.

  415. Court:

  416. Sapiahtun.

  417. Witness:

  418. Sapiahtun, sorry.

  419. A:

  420. Same---same answer:

  421. [Reads]

  422. “Answer:

  423. They also said if you don’t sign, the court will take action. If you sign, mungkin” ---which means “perhaps”---“the charges can be reduced.”

  424. [Reads]

  425. “Question:

  426. Answer:

  427. Yes, but I was confused.”

  428. So that is the context in which the “I was confused” was used in.

  429. Q:

  430. Okay. How did you then determine whether he was indeed in a state of confusion following his arrest?

  431. A:

  432. It is the overall impression from the history-taking that I have. I have no doubt that he would have been in a state of anxiety for two reasons.

  433. Q:

  434. Okay.

  435. A:

  436. One is that I assumed that he would have some withdrawal symptoms because he had been a regular drug user and the second is, anybody being told that they are facing a murder charge, even if they are simple, should have some anxiety and apprehension.

  437. Q:

  438. But since confusion is a symptom that is specific to benzodiazepine withdrawal, were you able to rule that out now, a year after whatever happened?

  439. A:

  440. If you are asking for absolutes, no. It is on probabilities that if a person is able to give an account of events around that period and able to give you a pretty consistent history of what happened, then the amount of confusion that they were feeling most probably limit it.

  441. Q:

  442. So that is the only basis for you to say that---

  443. A:

  444. Yes.

  445. Q:

  446. ---that he was able to recollect what happened?

  447. A:

  448. It is again the overall picture, right. It is the recollection, the history-taking, the lack of noticeable physical symptoms from both the police officers and the doctors who examined him at that time.

  449. Q:

  450. But you cannot rule it out, correct?

  451. A:

  452. I cannot rule it out hundred per cent.

  453. [121] Dr Winslow also said sore eyes and running nose were not the symptoms he would usually associate with benzodiazepine withdrawal but if withdrawal symptoms or anxiety was strong enough, it would have been noticed by people looking at the person. Also, physical withdrawal symptoms would tend to go hand in hand with psychological withdrawal symptoms.

  454. [122] In re-examination, Dr Winslow said that for a short-acting benzodiazepine like Dormicum, the peak time when the most severe effects would be within 48 hours of cessation of the drug. He added, at NE 718 and 719:

  455. A:

The judgment continues past this page. Read the rest at eLitigation.