Public Prosecutor v Leow Kok Meng

Kan Ting Chiu J:

[1] The accused Leow Kok Meng pleaded guilty to one charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under s 304(a) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) and one charge of voluntarily causing grievous hurt by means of a knife under s 326 of the Penal Code. He was convicted on the charges and sentenced to life imprisonment for each offence with two offences of vandalism taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing. The offences were committed on 29 August 2008. The accused was 47 years 10 months old at that time, and is 50 years 4 months old now.

[2] The accused had attacked two persons. The person in the first offence was Karunagaran s/o Jaganathan (“Karunagaran”), who died, and the person in the second offence was Balan s/o G Krishnan (“Balan”), who was injured.

[3] The accused, Karunagaran and Balan used to hang out in the Mei Ling Street vicinity. They knew one another; Karunagaran and Balan were good friends, but they were not on friendly terms with the accused as the accused had fought with Karunagaran a few years ago.

[4] According to the accused, he ran into Karunagaran and Balan on several occasions on the day of the offence, starting from the morning. Karunagaran verbally abused him and his mother in Hokkien, but he kept out of the way of Karunagaran and Balan, and went about attending to his own matters, which included drinking stout and whiskey. When he was returning home in the afternoon, he noted that Karunagaran and Balan were still there. That annoyed him, and when he got home, he retrieved a hunting knife, put it in a sheath, then tucked the knife and sheath under his T-shirt, left his home and went downstairs.

[5] What happened next were described in the Statement of Facts which he had admitted:

When the police arrived at the scene and arrested the accused, he was in an intoxicated state, speaking incoherently and had to be supported to get to a police car.

[6] Karunagaran died at the scene of the attack. Post-mortem examination revealed that there were 15 stab and incised wounds over different parts of his body. The cause of his death was certified as “multiple stab and incised wounds”.

[7] Balan sustained multiple lacerations on his right palm, chest and back. The lacerations to the palm had resulted in 100% cuts to two tendons and a median nerve.

[8] Dr Arthur Lee, Senior Consultant Psychiatrist & Acting Chief, Addiction Medicine Department, Institute of Mental Health examined the accused in September 2008. In his report dated 13 October 2008, Dr Lee noted that the accused had a history of daily and excessive alcohol consumption going back more than 10 years. In the conclusion of his report, Dr Lee stated:

[9] Dr Lee followed up on the report with his opinion on whether the accused would be a serious danger to the public for an indeterminate period of time and whether the accused needed psychiatric care and treatment for an indefinite period of time. In a letter dated 5 October 2009, he stated:

[10] The accused was seen by another psychiatrist, Dr Todd Tomita, Acting Chief & Consultant Psychiatrist, Department of General & Forensic Psychiatry, Institute of Mental Health/Woodbridge Hospital. Dr Tomita’s involvement came after the accused was convicted, and the case had moved onto the sentencing phase.

[11] In his report dated 27 April 2010, Dr Tomita sets out the accused’s background history:

the accused’s alcohol and substance use history:

and the accused’s past violence history:

[12] Dr Tomita then presented a Violence Risk Assessment on the accused. In this Assessment, Dr Tomita noted:

and the Risk Assessment Summary was that:

[13] Dr Tomita ended the report with his findings:

[14] Dr Tomita who is attached to the Institute of Mental Health had no knowledge of the treatment facilities that may be available to the accused when he serves his sentence in prison. The prosecution called a representative of the prison services, Salina bte Samion, Assistant Director, Special Population, Psychological and Counselling Services to supply the information. She disclosed that the prison services do not offer programmes for mentally disordered or for alcohol dependence offenders. There is, however, a violence intervention programme which is designed to increase the insight of persons who have committed violent offences of their violent behaviour. This is a voluntary programme for prisoners assessed to have moderate or high risk of re-offending who are found suitable to participate in the programme.

[15] The accused did not call any psychiatrist to give evidence on his behalf.

[16] The accused admitted to the following antecedents:

[17] In the mitigation plea, counsel referred to the facts of the offences, laying emphasis of Karunagaran’s abuse and provocation, and the accused’s decision to keep away from Karunagaran and Balan.

[18] The collection of the knife from the flat, and its use on Karunagaran and Balan were covered in [13]to [15] of the plea:

[19] It is to be noted that he did not see Karunagaran or Balan with a metal pipe on that day, and that he had attacked the two victims separately, Balan first before turning to Karunagaran.

[20] In response to the prosecution’s submission that the accused be sentenced to life imprisonment for the offences, defence counsel submitted that the accused did not fall within the second condition of the Hodgson criteria (see [22]). Counsel referred to Dr Tomita’s opinion that the accused was not mentally unsound and did not require psychiatric treatment. Counsel also indicated that the accused will volunteer himself for the anger management programme and seek treatment for his alcohol dependence after his release, and that his family is committed to support him and ensure his rehabilitation.

[21] The accused was liable to be punished with imprisonment for life, or a term of up to 20 years for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and to life imprisonment or a term of up to 15 years for voluntarily causing grievous hurt. He was also liable to be fined and caned for both offences.

[22] The prosecution had argued that the accused should be sentenced to life imprisonment for the offences and submitted that the Hodgson criteria are satisfied. The criteria took its name from R v Rowland Jack Forster Hodgson (1982) 52 Cr App R 113 where MacKenna J stated at 114:

[23] In Public Prosecutor v Aniza bte Essa [2009] 3 SLR(R) 327, the Hodgson criteria and their application to Singapore came under the careful consideration of the Court of Appeal. Chan Sek Keong CJ delivering the judgment of the Court ruled at [34]:

[24] I had the evidence of the two psychiatrists, Dr Lee and Dr Tomita. Their evidence was not contradicted by any psychiatric evidence. When Dr Tomita was cross-examined by defence counsel, his diagnosis was not challenged, and the cross-examination was focused on the post-conviction management of the accused.

[25] To recapitulate, Dr Lee had concluded that “custodial psychiatric care and treatment for an indefinite period of time may be beneficial for his mental well being, sustained sobriety and more importantly, for public safety” and Dr Tomita’s opinion was that “the defendant will likely remain at least a moderate level of risk over the long term”.

[26] The defence conceded that the first Hodgson criterion was met. There could be no question about it – the accused had brutally attacked and killed Karunagaran, and Balan may have suffered the same fate if the accused had not transferred his aggression to Karunagaran.

[27] Defence counsel submitted, against the weight of evidence, that the second Hodgson criterion was not met. The accused was diagnosed with anti-social personality disorder, alcohol dependence and a moderate level of psychopathy. These characteristics made him a person of unstable character. He has a history of anger and of violence with or without the use of knives. The evidence is that he was likely to behave in the same way in the future without intervention. The second Hodgson criterion was satisfied.

[28] The third criterion was not specifically addressed, but the answer was obvious. If the accused were to re-offend in the future, the consequences would be serious. I only need to remind myself of Karunagaran and Balan.

[29] Having established that the Hodgson criteria were met, I had to consider whether an indeterminate life imprisonment or appropriate determinate sentences were appropriate in this case. To do this, I had to look at the psychiatric evidence and the treatment facilities available to the accused. Dr Tomita had stated that “[p]ersonality traits are by definition long standing and difficult to modify” and he believed that the accused may benefit from treatment for his alcohol dependence and from anger management counselling, but the accused’s anti-social and psychopathic personality traits could not be removed.

[30] Dr Tomita’s views had to be considered against the fact that the accused could not receive any treatment for alcohol dependence while he is in prison, and may receive anger management help only if he sought it and was found to be suitable for the programme.

[31] In deciding on the sentences for the accused, I took into account:

and I sentenced the accused to life imprisonment on the two charges on which he was convicted. The sentences are appropriate and are needed to protect the public from the dire consequences of any repeated outburst of anger and aggression from the accused.