Public Prosecutor v Low Chuan Woo

Tay Yong Kwang J:

[1] The accused, who was born on 6 Dec 1968, pleaded guilty to the following Charges:

[2] The accused admitted the following Charges and gave his consent for them to be taken into consideration for the purpose of sentence:

[3] The SOF below sets out the circumstances leading to the offence. The accused admitted all the facts in the SOF without qualification. The SOF reads:

[4] The accused was fined $50 in 1987 for the offence of using abusive language. In 2008, he was fined $600 for the offence of affray and $800 for having committed mischief.

[5] The accused was arrested on 16 January 2013 and has been in remand since that date.

[6] For the charge under s 304(a) of the Penal Code, the prosecution submitted that the court ought to sentence the accused to at least 12 years’ imprisonment and caning. For the two charges under s 146(1) of the Women’s Charter, the prosecution suggested a sentence of 4 to 6 months’ imprisonment for each charge. In respect of the charge under s 147(1) of the Women’s Charter, the prosecution suggested a sentence of 3 to 6 months’ imprisonment.

[7] The prosecution argued that the accused had acted disproportionately. He had managed to break free from the deceased but, instead of escaping from the fight or calling for help, he ran back into the pub to get a knife and returned to confront the deceased. The accused therefore ceased to be a victim at that point and turned into an aggressor. After the stabbing, the accused again went back into the pub and returned with a billiards cue. It was agreed that the accused did not use the billiards cue to attack the deceased. The deceased was unarmed throughout the fight and was defenceless against the knife attack. The accused got away with minor scratches, cuts and abrasions.

[8] As a result of the amendments made to the Penal Code with effect from 1 February 2008, the maximum imprisonment term (other than a sentence of life imprisonment) for s 304(a) was increased from 10 to 20 years. While accepting that the Court of Appeal in PP v Tan Kei Loon Allan [1998] 3 SLR(R) 679 has stated that sentencing for culpable homicide should be determined on the facts of each case as there is no such thing as a “typical” homicide, the prosecution argued that cases to which the 2008 amendments to the Penal Code applied should carry greater weight than those which were decided under the previous law. Several decisions decided pre-2008 amendments and post-2008 amendments were cited for guidance.

[9] For the charges under the Women's Charter, the case law from the State Courts shows a range of 4 to 6 months’ imprisonment for s 146(1) charges and a range of 3 to 6 months’ imprisonment for s 147(1) charges.

[10] The 45 year old accused was educated up to GCE N level. He is single and lived in a public housing flat with his 73 year old mother and a younger sister. He used to be a taxi driver before setting up the pub in 2007.

[11] The accused has pleaded guilty. While fines could be imposed for the offences under the Women's Charter, he would be unable to pay the fines. Defence counsel therefore asked that a short custodial sentence be imposed, with only 2 imprisonment terms to run consecutively.

[12] In respect of the s 304(a) Penal Code charge, it was submitted that a term of 3 years’ imprisonment would be a fair sentence. Caning should not be imposed. His plea of guilt has saved considerable time for all. It also showed his deep remorse. He cooperated fully during the investigations. It was the intoxicated deceased who started the incident and the accused was the victim of his prolonged verbal abuse and physical violence. The accused showed restraint throughout the incident and did nothing to provoke the deceased’s rage. He was shocked by the deceased’s treatment of the women in the pub. The stabbing was not premeditated and was committed out of the accused’s fear for his life. There is no likelihood of a recurrence of such an incident.

[13] The deceased was a “raging bull who had gone berserk”. He was 1.7m tall and weighed 97 kg. He was muscular and had both arms heavily tattooed. In contrast, the 1.68m tall accused weighed only about 60 kg at the material time. The deceased posed a grave threat to the accused.

[14] Citing several cases decided under s 304(b) of the Penal Code, defence counsel submitted that the particular combination of extenuating circumstances of this case took it outside the precedents in s 304(a) cases and brought it within the scope of the s 304(b) cases. Caning should therefore not be ordered on the facts of this case.

[15] The accused was a victim of circumstances. While he did not seek trouble, trouble came looking for him. His business had collapsed. His ardent wish is to be reunited with his mother to whom he is very close.

[16] Under s 304(a) of the Penal Code, whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall, if the act by which death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, be punished with imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to caning. Alternatively, the accused could be imprisoned for a term which may extend to 20 years and he shall also be liable to fine or to caning. For the offences under the Women's Charter, s 146(1) provides for imprisonment of up to 5 years and a liability to a fine not exceeding $10,000 while s 147(1) provides for a fine not exceeding $3,000 or imprisonment not exceeding 3 years or both in the case of a first conviction.

[17] While it is sad that the deceased had to die a violent death, it is hard not to conclude that much of the tragedy was caused by him. The accused was, quite literally, minding his business outside his pub when the deceased started the unfortunate chain of events that led to his untimely demise. At each stage, while the accused and his staff were trying to appease the drunk and raging deceased, he was implacable and seemed bent on insulting and assaulting whoever came into his path. The accused showed considerable restraint before he was provoked beyond what any normal person could reasonably bear in the situation.

[18] It could not be disputed that the deceased, who weighed 97 kg (about 214 pounds) and stood at 1.7 m in height, was a considerably larger (although not much taller) man than the accused who is 1.68 m tall and weighed only about 60 kg at the time of the incident. With the deceased behaving the way he did that night both inside and later just outside the pub, it was not surprising that the accused eventually felt that he had no choice but to arm himself. Unfortunately, he found a fruit knife, went out of the pub and engaged the deceased in further altercation. That was probably the only wrong and foolish thing that the accused did. Of course, with the calmness of hindsight, we could say that, having freed himself from the unwarranted and continual attacks, he ought to have escaped to a safe place and called the police. That would, however, unfairly ignore the urgency to quell the violence and to diminish the danger that was thrust upon the accused and his staff that night.

[19] The stabbing took place in the course of a fight with the deceased. There were 2 stabs, one to the right upper arm and the other to the back of the deceased’s chest. The one to the back caused the fatality but the deceased’s pre-existing heart condition also contributed to his death. The autopsy report classified these as the “substantive cause” and the “contributory cause” of death.

[20] It is true that the accused went back into the pub after the stabbing, placed the knife in a sink and then went out of the pub again with a billiards cue. It is equally true that the accused did not return to assault the wounded deceased further with what he had in his hands. He was also there to meet the police officers when they arrived a little later.

[21] It is clear that the accused did not want any trouble that night. He was not drunk. He was merely trying to run a business although, as the other charges show, he was also involved in illegal activities but those had nothing whatsoever to do with the events that night. The fruit knife and the billiards cue that he was forced to take up were everyday items used or available in the pub. They were certainly not kept as weapons. There was a pool table in the pub and the cue happened to be there.

[22] The accused’s antecedents concern the use of abusive language, affray and mischief. Those took place in 1987and in 2008 and resulted in fines. However, his non-violent reaction to the deceased’s intense provocation before he went to take the knife spoke well of his character in 2013 and showed maturity of thought. Certainly, he could not be said to be the trouble-maker on the night of the incident.

[23] The accused has pleaded guilty and cooperated in the investigations.

[24] I am aware that the precedents cited by defence counsel relate to charges under s 304(b) of the Penal Code instead of s 304(a). Offences under the first provision are subject to a lower tier of punishment than those under the second provision. That was true at the time the cited cases were decided and it is still true under the present s 304(a) and (b). Before the Penal Code was amended on 1 February 2008, s 304(b) also did not provide for caning. It also did not, and still does not, prescribe a mandatory custodial sentence.

[25] In the circumstances of this case, I do not think that the accused deserves to be caned. The violence was practically forced out of him by the deceased’s persistent and totally uncalled for provocation and assault. An imprisonment term of 4 years would be sufficient punishment for the offence under s 304(a) of the Penal Code. For the offences under the Women's Charter, I sentence the accused to 4 months’ imprisonment for each of the three charges. No underage female was involved but there are 4 other charges taken into consideration. The imprisonment terms for the third and the eighth charges are to run consecutively with the imprisonment term under s 304(a), making a total sentence of 4 years and 8 months with effect from the date of his arrest on 16 January 2013. The sentence for the sixth charge is to run concurrently with the rest of the sentences.

[26] The case exhibits may be disposed of by the police after any appeal has been dealt with or after the period for an appeal has lapsed.