Public Prosecutor v Wang Zhijian

Chan Seng Onn J:

[1] The accused, Wang Zhijian (“Wang”), is a 46 year-old male Chinese national who faced the following four charges:

[2] The Prosecution stood down the Third Charge for attempted murder and proceeded with the First, Second and Fourth Charges (“the murder charges”). The trial lasted 10 days and took place over three tranches. Although it was not specified in the murder charges, the Prosecution clarified that they were proceeding under limb (a) of s 300 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed), which states:

[3] At the close of the Prosecution’s case, I was satisfied that there was some evidence which is not inherently incredible and which satisfies each and every element of the charges as framed by the Prosecution. I therefore called upon Wang to give his defence and he elected to take the stand and give evidence. Wang admitted that he committed the acts that caused the death of Zhang Meng (“Zhang”) and Feng Jianyu (“Feng”). However, Wang did not admit that he caused the injuries found on the fingers of Yang Jie (“Yang”). There was also some dispute as to the sequence of events leading to the death of Yang. The Defence relied exclusively on the defence of diminished responsibility found at Exception 7 to s 300 of the Penal Code, which states:

[4] Unusually, the Prosecution’s and Defence’s psychiatric experts both agreed that Wang was suffering from a medical condition known as “adjustment disorder”. However, both experts disagreed on whether the Wang’s adjustment disorder had substantially impaired his mental responsibility at time of committing the offences. The trial before me essentially involved three issues:

(a) whether the elements of murder under s 300(a) of the Penal Code were satisfied in relation to Wang’s attack on Zhang, Feng and Yang;

(b) what was Wang’s state of mind when he killed each victim; and

(c) whether Wang qualifies for the defence of diminished responsibility by virtue of his adjustment disorder for each of the killings?

[5] I shall first set out the undisputed facts. Next, I will evaluate the disputed evidence and make the necessary findings. Based on my findings, I shall then determine Wang’s state of mind when he killed each victim. Finally, if I am of the view that Wang is guilty of an offence under s 300(a) of the Penal Code, I will evaluate the relevant evidence and in particular the experts’ evidence in order to determine whether or not Wang qualifies for the defence of diminished responsibility.

[6] The background of the parties is not in dispute and can be stated briefly. Wang met Zhang in China in 2005, where they began a romantic relationship. In 2007, Zhang’s daughter, Feng, came to Singapore to study. Zhang came to Singapore with Feng and rented two bedrooms in a flat at Yishun Avenue 11 (“the Flat”). Zhang stayed in one of the bedrooms (“Bedroom 1”) of the Flat, while Feng stayed in another bedroom (“Bedroom 3”). The two tenants staying in the remaining bedroom in the Flat (“Bedroom 2”) were Yang, and her daughter Li Meilin (“Li”). Zhang, Feng, Yang and Li were Chinese nationals. Li attended the same school in Singapore as Feng. Yang and Li were not related to Wang and Zhang.

[7] Wang’s undisputed evidence was that he had a troubled history with Zhang and her family. After Zhang’s family members found out about his relationship with Zhang, they objected to the relationship. Some of Zhang’s family members went to Wang’s home and his workplace to harass him, in order to force him to leave Zhang. To avoid the repeated harassment, Wang had to change his place of residence frequently and was unable to continue working as a result. Wang chose to retire early, and he received about RMB 400,000 as retirement funds.

[8] Wang maintained that he continued to love Zhang deeply despite her family members’ objections, and Zhang had loved him in return. Wang stated in court that Zhang was an emotional person. Zhang had allegedly attempted suicide when Wang tried to break up with her in September 2006. Wang also stated that Zhang was difficult to maintain because she led a lavish lifestyle. Even before Wang came to Singapore, his retirement funds were quickly depleted to RMB 50,000 through Zhang’s expenditure and losses in the stock market. Wang’s explanation and description of the tattoos on his body in his statement recorded by the police pursuant to s 121 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) (“Long Statement”) on 2 October 2008 offered a glimpse into his extremely complicated relationship with Zhang:

[9] In November 2007, Feng secured a place in a secondary school in Singapore. Zhang decided to accompany her daughter to Singapore. Zhang suggested that Wang should come to Singapore to be with her, and promised to help him find work. In that way, they could be together far away from her family members. Before Zhang’s death, Wang came to Singapore three times to be with Zhang. Wang’s third visit to Singapore was on 9 September 2008. During this visit, he stayed with Zhang in Bedroom 1 of the Flat until her death nine days later on 18 September 2008.

[10] Wang’s evidence was that he was subjected to rather bizarre treatment by Zhang during his visits to Singapore. Apparently, Zhang did not allow Wang to leave Bedroom 1 and insisted that Wang had to remain in Bedroom 1 naked. As a result, Wang had to urinate and defecate into plastic bags in Bedroom 1 because the room did not have an attached toilet. Zhang also prohibited Wang from interacting with anybody else in the Flat or leaving Bedroom 1 to use the toilet in the kitchen. Wang stated in his Long Statement recorded on 25 September 2008 that:

[11] Wang gave further details of Zhang’s bizarre treatment of him by stating in his Long Statement recorded on 2 October 2008 that:

[12] The Prosecution did not dispute this aspect of Wang’s evidence. In fact, Li, who appeared as the Prosecution’s witness, testified in court that Wang rarely walked around the Flat, and each time she saw Wang, he kept his head down without ever starting a conversation or establishing eye contact with her or Yang. This aspect of Wang’s evidence was relatively consistent with what he told the two psychiatrists who examined him a year apart, and with Wang’s oral testimony in court. I accept this aspect of Wang’s evidence, viz, Zhang’s bizarre treatment of him while he was in Singapore.

[13] The facts leading to Zhang’s and Feng’s death are also not disputed. On the day of the incident, at about 8 pm, Wang and Zhang had an argument in Bedroom 1. The argument appeared to be triggered by Zhang’s demand for money from Wang to buy crabs for dinner. In response, Wang told her not to spend money this way and to save up the money instead. Zhang became unhappy and started berating Wang using vulgarities. In Wang’s statement recorded pursuant to s 122(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) (“Cautioned Statement”) on 19 September 2008, he stated that:

[14] It appears that Zhang’s berating of Wang on the evening of 18 September 2008 was, proverbially speaking, the “straw that broke the camel’s back”. After the argument, Zhang slept at about 9 pm. Wang laid down on his mattress in the same room but could not fall asleep. After about an hour, Wang went into the kitchen and remained there for some time. Thereafter, Wang grabbed a knife (“the serrated knife”) and walked back to Bedroom 1 and closed the door without turning on the lights. Wang stabbed Zhang in her abdomen area. When Wang stabbed Zhang the first time, she was surprised and screamed “AR … …”. Wang then stabbed Zhang repeatedly with the serrated knife until she became motionless. Wang’s evidence on the stabbing was corroborated by the autopsy report prepared by Dr Wee Keng Poh (“Dr Wee”), where he identified 48 wounds (most of which were stab or slash wounds) to Zhang’s head, neck, chest, abdomen and limbs. Dr Wee also stated that Zhang died as a result of these wounds, 6 of which were fatal.

[15] While Wang was stabbing Zhang, the door to Bedroom 1 suddenly opened and a person stood at the doorway. Wang recalled seeing a person at the doorway but did not immediately identify the person as Feng. Wang then proceeded to attack the person and stab her repeatedly in the abdomen region with the serrated knife until she too collapsed. Dr Wee found 45 wounds (most of which were stab or slash wounds) on Feng, 12 of which were fatal. Feng also died as a result of these injuries.

[16] The profile of some of the wounds on both Zhang and Feng were consistent with the pattern found on the blade of the serrated knife. The Defence did not dispute the Prosecution’s case that all the wounds found on Zhang and Feng were inflicted by Wang. The details in the above narration were consistent with Wang’s Long Statement recorded on 29 September 2008:

[17] I note that while Wang stated in his Long Statement recorded on 29 September 2008 that he had lost his mind and could not control his emotions when he was stabbing Zhang and Feng, he was able to remember many details extremely vividly. The Prosecution submitted that the requisite mens rea for murder under s 300(a) of the Penal Code was established because Wang’s mind was not “blank” when he killed Zhang and Feng. All the vivid details that Wang narrated in his Long Statement were a product of conscious recollection and not reconstruction. Wang could not have reconstructed details such as how Zhang and Feng struggled or screamed just by looking at the aftermath in Bedroom 1. Therefore, the Prosecution submitted that Wang did not “lose his mind”. The fact that Wang was able to provide such a detailed account of the attacks suggested that Wang was aware of what he was doing when he was stabbing Zhang and Feng. The Prosecution submitted that Wang had intended to kill Zhang and “the person standing at the bedroom doorway” by stabbing them to death.

[18] I accept the Prosecution’s submissions. The degree of recollection, albeit imperfect at times, suggests that Wang was sufficiently conscious to react to external stimuli and could even feel emotions while committing the acts of stabbing. The acts of stabbing were clearly intentional in nature and Wang had intended to kill both Zhang and Feng at the time when he stabbed them multiple times with the serrated knife. I therefore find that the mens rea for murder under s 300(a) of the Penal Code has been established beyond reasonable doubt with respect to the killing of Zhang and Feng. The issue then becomes whether Wang qualifies for the defence of diminished responsibility under Exception 7 to s 300 of the Penal Code.

[19] In relation to the defence of diminished responsibility, I am prepared on the facts of this case to treat Wang’s acts of stabbing both Zhang and Feng as a single transaction because the two incidents followed each other so closely in time that it was extremely unlikely that Wang’s state of mind, his cognisance and understanding of the nature and consequences of his acts, his ability to form a rational judgment on whether his actions were right or wrong and, in particular, his ability to and the degree of exercise self-control would have changed significantly in the interval of time between stabbing Zhang and stabbing Feng. The implication of treating both killings as one transaction would be that any defence that would apply to the murder of Zhang would also apply to the murder of Feng. I shall deal with the defence of diminished responsibility later in my judgment (see [55] – [900]) where the psychiatric evidence will be additionally considered.

[20] There appears to be some dispute as to what happened after Wang stabbed Zhang and Feng. Unlike the stabbing of Zhang and Feng, to which there were no witnesses, Li (who was the sole survivor of the fateful incident) had witnessed how Wang entered Bedroom 2 to attack herself and her mother and she was able to give evidence in court. I will now scrutinize the forensic evidence and the evidence of both Wang and Li in order to make findings of fact as to what happened, and to draw the necessary inferences about Wang’s mental state when he attacked Yang and Li after killing Zhang and Feng.

[21] In his Long Statement voluntarily given to the police and recorded on 29 September 2008, Wang described the following sequence of events and the emotions he felt at each stage of attacking Yang and Li:

[22] The extract from his Long Statement (above, at [21]) are based on his recollection of the events, and I accept that his recollection might be imperfect and certain facts could have been forgotten by Wang or omitted because his attention was not drawn to them at the time the statement was given. It is also possible that he might have intentionally added false facts, omitted certain true facts or embellished his narration of the events in other ways in order to mitigate his involvement or reduce his culpability, in particular for Yang’s death.

[23] Although some portions of the sequence of events stated by Wang in his Long Statement reproduced at [21] above are not consistent with the forensic evidence and appear to differ from the testimony of Li, I will at this juncture treat Wang’s recollection of the events and the emotions he felt at that time to be true and correct. Without considering Li’s evidence and looking solely on the extract from his Long Statement reproduced at [21] above, I find that even if I were to assume that Wang was not in full command of his senses and full control of himself when he was stabbing and slashing Zhang and Feng in an apparent frenzy, he must have regained sufficient mental faculty to understand the nature and consequences of his actions, to judge rationally the rightness or wrongness of those actions and to exercise self-control over them by the time he first approached Bedroom 2 in order to attack Yang and Li with a sharp weapon. I base my above finding on the following five aspects of Wang’s Long Statement dated 29 September 2008.

[24] For a start, Wang was able to make extremely logical deductions and rationalisations from the facts that he perceived. For example, after seeing two persons standing at the doorway of Bedroom 2, he was able to deduce immediately that they must have been the tenants of the Flat, Yang and Li, although he could not see their faces in the darkness, because they were the only ones occupying that room. From this, Wang could further logically reason that the person who had suddenly appeared at the doorway to Bedroom 1 whilst he was stabbing Zhang and whom he had stabbed earlier in Bedroom 1 must have been Feng, and not Yang or Li.

[25] The next significant aspect of Wang’s Long Statement was that whilst he was stabbing Li, he was observant enough to notice that Yang had run out of Bedroom 2. Shortly after, when Wang was searching the Flat, he had the presence of mind to deduce that the person who escaped from Bedroom 2 was still in the Flat merely from an observation that the sliding door to the balcony had remained closed. This was because the main door of the Flat was situated in the balcony itself and one could only reach the main door by entering the balcony first.

[26] Thirdly, the fact that Wang “panicked” when he searched the Flat and could not locate the person (Yang) after she escaped from Bedroom 2 gives rise to the inference that he was able, at that time, to fully comprehend the serious consequences that would follow if Yang had indeed escaped from the Flat and raised an alarm, then he might not have sufficient time to escape.

[27] Fourthly, Wang was “shocked” when he found that the person (Li) whom he knew he had stabbed many times in the abdomen region was no longer in Bedroom 2. Wang discovered this on returning to Bedroom 2 after having searched in vain for Yang, who had escaped. Wang understandably used the term “shocked” to describe his emotions and feelings at that time, because it was indeed quite astonishing for a person (in this case, Li) who had been stabbed many times in the abdomen to be mobile and capable of walking out of Bedroom 2 without any assistance.

[28] Fifthly, when Wang then started looking for Li, he was able to deduce that Li was hiding inside the kitchen toilet because he observed that the kitchen toilet door was closed when he returned to the kitchen. His alert mind furnished him with a good logical basis for his suspicion because when he looked for Yang earlier in this same toilet, he had left the toilet door open but it was now closed. Wang decided to break down the locked toilet door. Finding Li inside, he stabbed her again. When Li managed to snatch the knife away from him and held it in her left hand, Wang became “frighten[ed]”. That was yet another emotional response that he was able to experience during this episode. Wang then retrieved another knife and continued to attack Li. After he had stabbed Li to the point that she was motionless, he came out of the toilet and was observant enough to notice that the units from the opposite block had switched on their lights, when it was dark previously. He even noticed that the residents from those units were looking towards the direction of the ground floor. He also looked down and saw a body lying on the ground floor. He then deduced that the body was that of Yang.

[29] From the exposition above, it is clear that Wang was observant and sensitive to his surroundings. He even had the presence of mind to close the kitchen window, possibly to avoid suspicion that Yang’s body fell from the kitchen window of the Flat that he was staying in. Wang had given another statement to the police that he closed the kitchen window as he “did not want to attract attention”. In my view, the clarity of Wang’s thought and reasoning processes, the rationalisations and deductions he made, and the relevant kind of emotions he experienced during the entire period after he entered Bedroom 2 to commence his attack on Yang and Li were not consistent with someone who was in a state of loss of self-control or who was having a blank state of mind at that time. Wang’s actions were directed, purposeful and certainly not mindless.

[30] Therefore, based solely on Wang’s own version of the events as set out in his statements to the police, and regardless of Wang’s earlier state of mind when he was stabbing Zhang and Feng, I find that Wang’s mind must have been sufficiently clear and that he was in sufficient control of his mental faculties, his senses and his actions by the time he entered Bedroom 2 to attack Yang and Li, such that he could substantially, if not fully appreciate the nature, consequences and rightness and wrongness of his actions and therefore, he should be made to bear substantial mental responsibility for his acts. Wang was capable at that time of thinking rationally and clearly. He was fully able to experience varied emotions of panic, shock and fear (as the case may be) as he progressed through the various situations he found himself in. I therefore reject the Defence’s submission that Wang’s mind was a complete blank or that he was still in a state of loss of his self-control when he was attacking Yang and Li. By the time Wang started attacking Yang and Li, he had not lost his mind nor had he been unable to control his emotions as alleged in his Long Statements.

[31] The Prosecution disputed Wang’s Long Statement that as he was stabbing Feng, the door of Bedroom 2 opened “suddenly” with Yang and Li appearing at the doorway, which led him to rush immediately towards Bedroom 2 to attack Yang and Li with the same serrated knife that was used to stab Zhang and Feng earlier. The Prosecution’s case theory was that after stabbing Zhang and Feng in Bedroom 1, Wang did not immediately enter Bedroom 2 to attack Yang and Li. Instead, there was a short but significant break in time when Wang entered the kitchen to search for another weapon. There, Wang picked up a metal spatula (“the spatula”), but subsequently deposited the spatula into the washing machine upon realizing that it was not a sufficiently sharp object to kill a person with. Wang then picked up a chopper (“the chopper”) and entered Bedroom 2 to attack Yang and Li with the intention of silencing them.

[32] The Prosecution relied on Li’s evidence to dispute this specific part of the sequence of events described by Wang in his Long Statement recorded on 29 September 2008: see [21] above. Li testified that both she and her mother were sleeping in Bedroom 2 when she was awakened by the sound of heavy breathing outside her bedroom which sounded like someone suffocating. Then, the door to her bedroom suddenly swung open and Wang rushed in to attack Li, slashing her on her left cheek. Li retreated and squatted down, and raised both her hands to cover her face. Wang continued to slash Li many times. Thereafter, Wang left Bedroom 2. Apparently, Li was not aware at that time that her mother, Yang, had seized the opportunity to run out of Bedroom 2 whilst he was attacking her and that Wang left Bedroom 2 in order to pursue Yang. When Wang was outside Bedroom 2, Li heard Wang telling her in Mandarin words to the effect “you do not move, you do not move.” Li’s testimony, if true, would show that Wang even had the presence of mind to give coherent instructions to warn Li not to move out of Bedroom 2 as he embarked on his search for Yang.

[33] I find that Li’s evidence on the whole was consistent with the evidence given by the Prosecution’s expert forensic witness, Ms Lim Chin Chin (“Ms Lim”), the Senior Consultant Forensic Scientist at the Health Sciences Authority of Singapore (“HSA”). Ms Lim prepared a Crime Scene Reconstruction Report (“the Reconstruction Report”) of the entire episode based on the information and findings from thirteen expert reports. Blood smudges containing a mixture of the DNA profile of Wang, Zhang and Feng were found on the exterior door knob of Bedroom 2. This establishes that it was very likely that it was Wang who had opened Yang’s and Li’s bedroom door to enter their bedroom to attack them. Having regard to the locations of the three knife exhibits recovered from the scene of crime (of which only one had unique serrated edges), the photographs and DNA evidence found on the knife exhibits, it was clear that the serrated knife used to kill Zhang and Feng was not the weapon used by Wang to attack Yang and Li.

[34] Only the DNA profiles of Zhang and Feng, as well as that of Wang, were found on the serrated knife. Li’s DNA was never found on the serrated knife. Several of the wounds found on Zhang and Feng bore intermittent small marks that were consistent with the test cuts and test marks from the serrated knife. On the other hand, Li’s wounds were consistent with injuries inflicted with the chopper, on which her DNA was found. This shows that it was unlikely that Li had at any time been stabbed or slashed with the serrated knife. More importantly, the serrated knife was recovered by the police from a location hidden underneath the bed spreads on the floor in Bedroom 1 and it does not appear that the serrated knife had been taken out of Bedroom 1 after Wang had used it to stab Zhang and Feng. The fact that Wang’s DNA was also found on the serrated knife further indicates that Wang had most probably cut his finger in the course of killing Zhang and Feng whilst in Bedroom 1, and not when he was attacking Li in the kitchen toilet as alleged by Wang in his Long Statement recorded on 29 September 2008.

[35] Accordingly, I find that Wang did not use the serrated knife to attack Li in Bedroom 2 and therefore, Wang must have gone to the kitchen first to obtain another weapon before he set out to attack the tenants in Bedroom 2. This again contradicts Wang’s Long Statement recorded on 29 September 2008 that he basically went straight from Bedroom 1 to Bedroom 2, still holding on to the same serrated knife when he crossed over to attack the occupants in Bedroom 2. I also accept the analysis and findings in the Reconstruction Report which states that before the assault on Li started in Bedroom 2, Wang had not only gone to the kitchen. He had also gone into Bedroom 3, switched on the light and opened the wardrobe there. What he was looking for is unclear. He had gone into the kitchen and made contact with the metal turner in the red basket beside the kitchen sink and he had also placed the metal spatula in the washing machine. All this meant that a considerable interval of time had elapsed (ie, since the frenzied attack on Zhang and Feng), which was spent by Wang doing these other things as described above before he embarked on his attack on the tenants Yang and Li, who were pretty much keeping to themselves inside Bedroom 2 with the door closed.

[36] Whether or not Wang’s ability to form a rational judgment, understand his actions or exercise his self-control could be said to have been impaired by the “adjustment disorder” that both experts agree he was suffering from, I find that there was nevertheless a sufficient interval of time elapsing thereafter to enable Wang to regain his senses, his rational judgment and his self-control even if he had substantially lost all of that earlier whilst he was stabbing both Zhang and Feng. This is buttressed by what I have earlier stated at [23] to [30] above about Wang’s state of mind.

[37] In summary, I therefore find that neither Yang nor Li had voluntarily opened the door of Bedroom 2 to find out what was happening outside out of curiosity. They had not intruded into what Wang was doing at that time. They continued to keep to themselves and probably, they were fearful after hearing the commotion and had not even dared to interfere. I accept the Prosecution’s case theory that Wang himself had burst into Bedroom 2 after obtaining a chopper in the kitchen and that there was a distinct and marked temporal break between (i) the time Wang attacked Zhang and Feng; and (ii) the time he entered Bedroom 2 in order to attack Yang and Li. The natural consequence of this finding is that, assuming that the Prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that Wang murdered Yang, Yang’s murder would be considered a separate transaction from Zhang’s and Feng’s murder. Whatever defence that applies to the first two murders does not necessarily apply to the murder of Yang as well, and any defence applicable to the Yang’s murder must be considered separately.

[38] I now make determinations as to the events leading to Yang’s death, whether Wang inflicted any injuries on Yang, and if so, then what was Wang’s state of mind at that time.

[39] In sharp contrast to the level of detail that Wang provided on his attack of the other three victims, Wang did not describe in any detail how Yang fell to her death when he was interviewed by the police and by both the Prosecution’s and Defendant’s psychiatric experts. In my view, this omission could mean one of several things:

(a) Wang did not inflict any injuries on Yang and therefore, Wang did not know what happened to Yang until he looked out of the kitchen window and saw a body at the foot of the block of the Flat, from which he could only surmise that Yang had, after running out of Bedroom 2, climbed out of the window to hide from him but had unfortunately fallen to her death;

(b) Wang did not know what he was doing when he cut Yang’s fingers and therefore no memory of cutting Yang’s fingers had registered in his mind;

(c) Wang knew what he was doing when he cut Yang’s fingers but he had forgotten to mention this aspect of the incident in his statements to the police and psychiatric experts; or

(d) Wang knew and understood what he was doing when he cut Yang’s fingers and he was intentionally concealing his knowledge by not mentioning this aspect of his knowledge to the police in order to reduce his culpability.

[40] The answer to the above question must be deduced from the circumstantial evidence in their totality. The Prosecution submitted that Wang knew what he was doing and had deliberately concealed his knowledge. The Prosecution’s case was that as Wang was attacking Li in Bedroom 2 with the chopper, Yang ran outside and into the kitchen. Yang then climbed out of the kitchen window to stand on the narrow concrete overhang, holding on to the laundry pole holders right below the window sill. Worried that she might escape from the Flat and raise an alarm, Wang then came out of Bedroom 2 to pursue Yang. Upon finding Yang on the overhang, Wang used the chopper to cut Yang’s fingers, causing Yang to lose her grip on the two laundry pole holders and to fall down from a height of six storeys to her death.

[41] Dr Wee opined that the incised wounds on Yang’s fingers were not caused by the fall or by the metallic window frame ledge. Dr Wee testified that the incised wounds on the anterior aspect of Yang’s right hand fingers appeared to be defensive injuries, which could have been inflicted when Yang gripped a sharp instrument with her hand, while the sharp instrument was being removed by her assailant. Dr Wee significantly concluded, after having regard to the Reconstruction Report, that the assailant had cut the back of Yang’s fingers on her left hand while Yang was holding on to the two bamboo pole holders outside the Flat. I agree with Dr Wee’s conclusions and I find that the injuries to Yang’s left hand as depicted in Exhibit P466 were neither defensive injuries nor injuries caused by the fall or the window frame ledge.

[42] I also accept the forensic analysis of Ms Lim and the conclusion she reached in the Reconstruction Report based on the vast amount of forensic evidence gathered from the scene of crime that there was no evidence to suggest that Yang’s fingers were cut whilst she was in the Flat. If Yang’s fingers were cut in the manner as shown in Exhibit P466 and Exhibit P467 whilst she was still inside the flat, one would naturally expect to find some of her DNA in the blood swabs taken within the flat, given that there must have been considerable bleeding from those wounds which would have at least left traces of DNA from Yang’s blood on the floor within the Flat as she made her way to from Bedroom 2 to the kitchen.

[43] If Yang’s fingers were cut whilst she was in the Flat, some of Yang’s DNA would have been found on (i) the inner kitchen wall, (ii) the kitchen window frame, (iii) the kitchen window sill areas; and/or (iv) the kitchen sink area, because in the process of climbing out of the kitchen window, Yang’s bloodied fingers would have at least made contact with some of those areas. However, out of more than 300 swabs taken from various interior areas and items within the Flat, as well as the numerous swabs taken from the window and sink areas in the kitchen itself, none of the swabs contained any of Yang’s DNA profile. The absence of Yang’s DNA evidence within the Flat indicates that it was highly unlikely for Yang to have sustained the injuries to her fingers whilst she was inside the Flat.

[44] On the contrary, the analysis of the blood smudges and finger marks found at the interior surface of the window and sink areas in the kitchen revealed that these contained a mixture of the Wang’s, Feng’s and Li’s (but not Yang’s) DNA profile. The presence of Wang’s DNA profile in these areas is consistent with the Prosecution’s case that Wang was at the kitchen window to slash Yang’s fingers when she was standing on the overhang outside the kitchen window and holding on to the bamboo pole holders. The presence of the DNA profiles of Wang, Feng and Li on the interior surface of the kitchen window is consistent with the Prosecution’s case that Wang attacked Yang at the kitchen window after he stabbed Feng and injured his finger at Bedroom 1, and after he stabbed Li in Bedroom 2.

[45] Crucially, Ms Lim stated in the Reconstruction Report that Yang’s DNA profile was found in contact bloodstains and spatter stains outside the Flat, specifically on the exterior wall surface of the kitchen beside the bamboo pole holders and on the third and fourth bamboo pole holders outside the Flat thereby establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that Yang’s fingers were cut when she was still holding on to the bamboo pole holders to steady herself whilst standing precariously outside the Flat on the concrete ledge outside the kitchen window of the Flat. I therefore find as a fact that Yang was not injured with a bleeding wound before she climbed out of the kitchen window. Based on the totality of the evidence before me, I find beyond a reasonable doubt that it was none other than Wang who had cut the fingers of Yang, whilst she was holding on to the bamboo pole holders and standing on the concrete overhang outside the kitchen window of the Flat.

[46] I turn now to examine Wang’s state of mind when he slashed Yang’s fingers while she was holding on to the two bamboo pole holders. I have given my reasons at [23] to [30] above as to why I find that Wang had a clear state of mind when he was attacking Yang. The behaviour and actions of an accused immediately before, during and immediately after the criminal acts in question will naturally carry far more weight and have much greater probative value in the court’s determination of the mental state of the accused at the time of commission of his criminal acts than any of his behaviour and actions long before or long after the criminal acts in question.

[47] Although the Third Charge relating to Li had been stood down, the testimony of Li on what transpired after Wang returned to look for her in Bedroom 2 to attack her a second time, which was immediately after Yang’s killing, is relevant because it helps to fortify my findings on Wang’s mental state at the time he killed Yang.

[48] Li’s evidence was that after Wang left Bedroom 2, she had walked towards the door to close it. Wang thereafter returned to Bedroom 2 and pushed her to the lower deck of the double-decker bed. Li saw that Wang was holding a knife. Wang spoke to her in Mandarin, instructing her to “close her eyes and not to scream”. Wang promised Li that he would not kill her. It would appear from Li’s evidence that Wang had the clarity of mind to practise trickery on Li by promising not kill her. Li agreed but did not close her eyes fully as she did not trust Wang. Li then saw through the slit of her eyes that Wang used one of his hands to hold her shoulder while using the other to thrust the knife towards her body, whereupon she screamed and kicked Wang. Li then ran out of Bedroom 2 and across the living room into the kitchen toilet, where she locked herself in by securing the foldable door. Wang then pursued Li into the kitchen and attempted to dismantle the door by hitting it with a hard object. When Wang ultimately pulled the door apart and entered the toilet, he used a weapon to slash Li repeatedly at her face and neck. Thereafter, Wang said, in Mandarin, words to the effect “I do not chop you anymore” and walked out of the toilet. As Li laid in pain on the toilet floor, she said to herself, in Mandarin, words to the effect “God, let me go”. At this juncture, Wang returned to the toilet and stabbed Li several more times. I infer from Li’s evidence that when Wang heard Li’s voice and realised that she was not dead yet, he returned to stab her with the aim of finishing her off.

[49] When the police subsequently arrived at the Flat, Wang informed the Senior Investigating Officer, Desmond Tan Hsien Yang, that the three occupants in the Flat did not have any signs of life. From this fact, I deduce that Wang believed (albeit wrongly) that he had succeeded in killing Li. I further infer that Wang had the intention of silencing Li permanently and he was determined to do so as could be seen from the repeated attacks on Li, despite the fact that Li was another innocent party like her mother, Yang. Based on the DNA profiles found on the blood stains on a knife and chopper retrieved from the attached bathroom in Bedroom 3, it would appear likely that Wang had used the chopper and the knife to viciously stab and slash Li at numerous places whilst Li was in the toilet, with the intention of killing her.

[50] I accept Li’s version of events, which was corroborated by the Reconstruction Report. I find that Wang’s actions were consistent with the Prosecution’s case theory that Wang had intended to kill everyone else in the Flat after he killed Zhang and Feng. The fact that Li had survived the attack was completely fortuitous. In my view, Wang stopped stabbing Li further after she became motionless in the toilet most likely because he thought that Li was already dead. I therefore agree with the Prosecution’s case theory that Wang’s intention that night was to silence everyone present in the Flat including Yang and Li because they recognised him and they could provide useful information to enable the police to trace and identify him as the killer of Zhang and Feng. He therefore decided to kill both Yang and Li with the aim of making it more difficult for the police to find leads to trace the killing of Zhang and Feng to him.

[51] In fact, after completing his attack on Yang and Li, Wang made immediate preparations for his escape but before he could do so, the police arrived at the Flat and found him there. Indeed, in his Long Statement recorded on 29 September 2008, Wang described how he packed his bag and collected his documents. The undisputed evidence showed that the bag which Wang was referring to contained his passport and some money. To my mind, these actions were consistent with someone who was trying not only to flee the crime scene, but to flee Singapore and return to China, where it would be almost impossible to trace him. Wang further stated in his Long Statement as follows:

[52] The evidence showed that after Wang had repeatedly stabbed Li in the kitchen toilet, he went to the attached bathroom in Bedroom 3 where he deposited the knife and the chopper that he had used to attack Yang and Li on the bathroom floor, and proceeded to take a bath. The Prosecution submitted that Wang was trying to wash off the bloodstains on his body. After Wang showered, he dressed up, put plasters on his injured finger, packed his bag, took his travel documents, and wore his shoes. In my view, the only logical explanation for Wang dressing up and wearing his shoes in the middle of the night was that he was preparing to flee the crime scene. I therefore find that Wang had the presence of mind to make preparations to leave the Flat and never to return. Such conduct is consistent with that expected of a person who could exercise rational judgment and who was in control of his mental faculties.

[53] Returning to the various possible options I suggested above at [39], I accordingly find that the Prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Wang was fully aware of and understood what he was doing when he cut Yang’s fingers and that he had concealed his knowledge in his Long Statements and in his evidence in court of how he had deliberately caused Yang to fall to her death. I also find that Wang had intended to kill Yang in order to silence her as well. Wang did so by intentionally cutting the back of Yang’s left second, third and fifth fingers with a sharp instrument whilst she was standing on the narrow concrete overhang, to force her to release her grip on the bamboo pole holders, so that Yang would fall down six storeys to her death. This leads me to the finding that Wang also possessed the requisite mens rea for murder under s 300(a) of the Penal Code in relation to the killing of Yang.

[54] In the light of my findings, I am satisfied that the Prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt the elements of the offence under s 300(a) of the Penal Code for the murder charges. As the Defence relies solely on the defence of diminished responsibility for all the murder charges, I shall next consider whether the Defence has succeeded in proving on a balance of probabilities that Wang is entitled to rely on such a defence. I note in passing that Wang has to succeed in proving his defence for all the murder charges in order to avoid the mandatory death penalty for murder under s 302 of the Penal Code.

[55] It is well-established that the defence of diminished responsibility has three limbs. The Court of Appeal in Ong Pang Siew v Public Prosecutor [2011] 1 SLR 606 (“Ong Pang Siew”) restated at [58] the three-limb test which an accused must satisfy in order to establish the defence of diminished responsibility:

[56] The Prosecution called Dr Kenneth Gerard Koh Wun Wu (“Dr Koh”) as its psychiatric expert witness, whereas the Defence called Dr Tommy Tan Kay Seng (“Dr Tan”) to provide expert evidence. Both experts agreed that Wang was suffering from adjustment disorder. In fact, both experts were of the opinion that Wang satisfied both limbs (a) and (b) of the defence of diminished responsibility as set out in Ong Pang Siew at [58]; specifically that Wang was suffering from an abnormality of mind at the time that he caused the victims’ deaths which arose from a condition of arrested or retarded development of mind or any inherent causes. In this case, both experts also agreed that the abnormality of mind arose from inherent causes and not from any arrested or retarded development of Wang’s mind. Given the agreement, my role is limited to evaluating whether the experts’ conclusion in this regard flew in the face of proven extrinsic facts: see Khoo James and another v Gunapathy d/o Muniandy and another appeal [2002] 2 SLR(R) 414 (at [65]), and [72] below. Since I am satisfied that it does not, I find that Wang has satisfied limbs (a) and (b) of the defence of diminished responsibility for all three murder charges.

[57] I shall turn next to limb (c) of the defence, which requires me to make a finding as to whether the abnormality of mind substantially impaired Wang’s mental responsibility for his acts. The three-stage test for the defence of diminished responsibility is essentially a composite one: see G Krishnasamy Naidu v Public Prosecutor [2006] 4 SLR(R) 874 at [6]. The Prosecution submitted and I agree that not every accused person who satisfies limbs (a) and (b) would automatically satisfy limb (c); otherwise, limb (c) would be rendered wholly otiose. Therefore, it is necessary for the Defence to prove on a balance of probabilities that Wang’s mental responsibility was impaired at the material time, and the impairment was substantial.

[58] Choo Han Teck J in Public Prosecutor v Juminem and another [2005] 4 SLR(R) 536 (“Juminem”) noted (at [30]) that the phrase “substantially impairs his mental responsibility” in the defence of diminish responsibility had has no precise definition, and endorsed Ashworth J’s common-sense definition of “substantial” in Regina v Lloyd [1967] 1 QB 175 at 178:

[59] Choo J’s definition in Juminem was endorsed by the Court of Appeal in Ong Pang Siew at [64], where the court also emphasized that the question of whether or not the impairment was substantial was ultimately a question of fact to be decided by the court based on all the circumstances of the case:

[60] I shall now turn to evaluate each expert’s evidence. The Defence called Dr Tan to support their case that Wang’s adjustment disorder substantially impaired his mental responsibility for all the killings. Dr Tan is currently a Consultant Psychiatrist at Novena Psychiatry Clinic of Novena Medical Center. Dr Tan obtained a Postgraduate Diploma in Forensic Psychiatry in August 1999 from the University of London, and has given expert evidence in court before on many occasions. In terms of both his qualifications and experience, I find Dr Tan to be well-placed to give expert evidence in the present case.

[61] Dr Tan examined Wang on 1 October 2010, about two years after the incident, and in his report dated 10 January 2011, Dr Tan was of the opinion that at the time of committing the offences, Wang was suffering from prolonged depressive reaction (F43.21, ICD-10) or adjustment disorder with depressed mood (309.0, DSM-IV-TR). Dr Tan clarified that both diagnoses referred to the same thing, depending on which classification system one adopted. The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders: Clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines (“ICD-10”) issued by the World Health Organization in 1992 classifies “prolonged depressive reaction” as a form of adjustment disorder at p 149:

[62] Similarly, the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 4th Ed, Text Revision) (“DSM-IV-TR”) classifies adjustment disorder with depressed mood as a sub-type of adjustment disorder at p 679:

[63] For the sake of consistency, I shall refer to Dr Tan’s diagnosis of Wang’s condition simply as “adjustment disorder”. At p 7 of his psychiatric evaluation report, Dr Tan was of the opinion that Wang’s adjustment disorder was caused by the following multiple stressors (which were not in dispute), all of which could be attributed or linked to Zhang:

[64] As a result of the multiple stressors above, Dr Tan opined that Wang suffered from adjustment disorder characterized by a prolonged depressive mood coupled with feelings of helplessness:

[65] Based on the facts that Wang conveyed to him during the evaluation, Dr Tan concluded that Wang’s mental responsibility in causing the deaths of Zhang and her daughter was substantially impaired as a result of suffering from adjustment disorder, because it made Wang more liable to outbursts of violence:

[66] I note in passing that Dr Tan in his evaluation did not immediately conclude that in his opinion the defence of diminished responsibility also applied to Wang’s act of causing Yang’s death. It was only in court that Dr Tan testified that in his opinion, the defence also applied to Wang’s act of causing Yang’s death.

[67] Dr Tan explained in court that he based his opinion that patients with adjustment disorders “are more liable to outbursts of violence” on a study of the statistical relation between certain attributes and the risk of violence known as the MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment Study (“the MacArthur Study”). In the MacArthur Study, researchers studied a sample size of 1,136 individuals and statistically identified factors that were—or were not—related to increases in the risk of violence. According to Dr Tan, one factor that researchers from the MacArthur Study identified would significantly increase a person’s risk of violence was a diagnosis of a major mental disorder:

[68] Relying on a subsequent work that summarized and integrated the principle findings of the MacArthur Study, John Monahan et al, Rethinking Risk Assessment: The MacArthur Study of Mental Disorder and Violence (Oxford University Press, 2001) at p 63, Dr Tan explained that the MacArthur Study separated participants suffering from “major” mental disorders from those suffering from “other” mental disorders. Participants suffering from adjustment disorder fell within the latter group of “other” mental disorders. The results of the MacArthur study suggested that the prevalence of violence rate for participants diagnosed with “other” mental disorders was higher than those diagnosed with “major” mental disorders, and the difference was statistically significant. Dr Tan concluded that because Wang’s adjustment disorder impaired his mental responsibility by causing him to become more prone to violence, such impairment should be considered substantial; and Wang was therefore in his opinion entitled to the defence of diminished responsibility for the murder charges.

[69] Dr Koh, currently a Consultant Psychiatrist at the Department of General and Forensic Psychiatry, is another well-qualified expert to give evidence of Wang’s condition. Dr Koh examined Wang on three separate occasions: 10 October, 16 October and 10 November 2008. Dr Koh spoke to Wang’s brother twice over the phone. He also interviewed Li, as well as Ms Ler Chui Sia, an acquaintance of Zhang. After setting out in detail significant points in his findings, Dr Koh made the following evaluation of Wang’s mental state when committing the acts of killing in his report dated 15 November 2008:

[70] Based on his observations of Wang above, Dr Koh came to the conclusion that Wang was suffering from adjustment disorder with depressed mood because, in his opinion, Wang’s condition was not sufficiently serious enough to “warrant a diagnosis of a major depressive disorder”:

[71] After receiving Dr Tan’s evaluation, the Prosecution requested a further opinion from Dr Koh specifically commenting on Dr Tan’s evaluation. In response, Dr Koh provided the following further opinion in a letter dated 14 April 2011 stating that he agreed with Dr Tan’s diagnosis but not with his conclusion of how the diagnosis of adjustment disorder applied to the defence of diminished responsibility:

[72] The principles governing a trial judge’s evaluation of conflicting expert testimony were stated by V K Rajah JA in Sakthivel Punithavathi v Public Prosecutor [2007] 2 SLR(R) 983 at [75]–[77]:

[73] The Prosecution argued that Dr Tan’s assessment methodology appeared to be “less than rigorous” than Dr Koh’s methodology for several reasons. Firstly, although this was not Dr Tan’s fault, Dr Tan only assessed Wang more than two years after the incident; whereas Dr Koh had the benefit of examining Wang barely a month after the incident. The inordinately long passage of time between the incident and Dr Tan’s interview with Wang made it more difficult for Dr Tan to obtain a contemporaneous account of the incident from Wang.

[74] Secondly, the Prosecution argued that Dr Koh’s holistic approach should be preferred over Dr Tan’s approach which was described by the Prosecution to have been “conducted in a vacuum”. Dr Koh had interviewed people who knew Wang and Zhang personally, such as Wang’s brother and an acquaintance of Zhang. Dr Koh also interviewed Li, the sole survivor of the incident who had first-hand testimony of Wang’s demeanour and actions before and after he had killed Yang. Dr Koh arranged for Wang to undergo a computerized tomographic (CT) scan and an electroencephalographic (EEG) examination in order to discern whether Wang was suffering from any physical impairment to the brain. In contrast, again through no fault on his part, Dr Tan did not have the benefit of conducting such an extensive and holistic assessment of Wang. One of the Prosecution’s criticisms of Dr Tan’s methodology was that even though he was given access to evidence such as Wang’s and Li’s statements to the police, Dr Tan had insisted on relying almost exclusively on his interview of Wang and on making independent findings without relying on any of the available contemporaneous evidence to shed light on Wang’s condition. As such, the Prosecution argued that Dr Tan’s evaluation was of limited assistance to the court.

[75] Thirdly, the Prosecution argued that Dr Tan’s heavy reliance on the MacArthur Study was misplaced because, as Dr Koh noted, there were several material differences between the participants of the MacArthur Study and Wang. Besides being based on admissions to acute civil inpatient facilities in several American cities, the participants of the MacArthur Study were of an entirely different age and ethnic profile from Wang.

[76] Lastly, and most importantly, the Prosecution argued that Dr Tan’s opinion appears to fly in the face of objective facts such as Wang’s ability to act methodically and think logically during the attacks, his ability to feel emotions consistent with the events as those events were unfolding, as well as Wang’s evasiveness in court as a witness. The fact that Wang had been able to give coherent and logical instructions to Li during the attack suggested that he was in full control of his mental faculties at the material time. Dr Koh had opined that Wang did not appear to have suffered from any significant loss of self-control at all, and his conclusion was fortified by Wang’s ability in his Long Statements and in court to remember the events and the purposive nature of his actions. Dr Tan, on the other hand, was only able to explain Wang’s actions on the basis that Wang had gone berserk and turned violent because he lost the ability to control himself as a result of his adjustment disorder.

[77] The Defence, on the other hand, argued that on a balance of probabilities, Dr Tan’s opinion should be preferred over Dr Koh’s opinion. Firstly, the Defence argued that Dr Koh’s took an overly-clinical approach towards the issue of substantial loss of self-control, concluding that Wang’s brain did not register such loss because the results for the CT scan were negative. Dr Koh had conceded at trial that the presence of anger (which was undisputed) could lead to the loss of some degree of self-control.

[78] Secondly, the Defence argued that Dr Koh seemed to have placed too little weight on the presence of multiple significant stressors which showed that Wang’s conduct during the incident was truly bizarre and entirely abnormal. Essentially, Dr Koh had underestimated the severity of the impact of those stressors which undeniably existed, and “over-simplified a complex amalgam of issues”.

[79] Thirdly, the Defence argued that looking at the surrounding facts, if Wang had intended to kill Zhang and to silence the rest, it was not necessary for him to inflict more than 40 wounds (many of which were fatal) on Zhang and Feng. If Wang had wanted to kill everyone, a few fatal stab wounds would already be sufficient. However, Dr Koh had failed to take this fact into account. Neither did he explain this exceptional fact in his report.

[80] I shall now set out my findings of whether the defence of diminished responsibility applies to Wang’s murder of (i) Zhang; (ii) Feng; and (iii) Yang respectively.

[81] After considering all the circumstances of the case, I am of the view that both the Prosecution and the Defence had raised valid arguments. I am inclined to agree with Dr Tan that, on a balance of probabilities, Wang was in a state of frenzy when he attacked Zhang. Taking into consideration Wang’s account of his history with Zhang, Zhang’s berating on the evening of 18 September 2008, Wang’s subsequent brooding and his description of “seeing red”, I find that these facts were consistent with the description of a person who had anger building up within him. I find that, coupled with his adjustment disorder, which might have reduced his capacity to control himself and which developed as a result of the multiple stressors, some of which were bizarre, Wang became so angry with Zhang on that evening that he went into a frenzy which was beyond his control and he wanted to kill Zhang. The frenzy manifested and culminated in Wang stabbing her more than 40 times and during this time, his mental responsibility had been substantially impaired by his adjustment disorder. I therefore hold that Wang has succeeded in proving on a balance of probabilities that the defence of diminished responsibility applies to his murder of Zhang.

[82] As for the murder of Feng, I have found at [15] above that Feng unfortunately entered Bedroom 1 while Wang was still in the frenzied state stabbing Zhang. In that frenzied state, Wang was unable to recognize Feng but wanted to kill “the person standing at the doorway” as well. I base this finding on the similar nature of the attacks on Zhang and Feng, in terms of type, location and number of wounds. Wang’s evidence consistently showed that he realised “the person” was Feng only after he saw Yang and Li.

[83] In light of my finding at [19] above that the stabbing of Zhang and Feng should be viewed as a single transaction, I find that Wang has succeeded in proving on a balance of probabilities that the defence of diminished responsibility applies to his murder of Feng as well.

[84] Coming to the murder of Yang, I find that there was a sufficient interval of time for Wang to substantially recover his mental faculties and self-control from the time when he stopped stabbing Zhang and Feng to the time when he commenced his attack on Yang. Based on the totality of the evidence, I find that Wang had, on a balance of probabilities, at least regained sufficient control over his mental faculties and was able to exercise greater self-control to get out of his previous frenzied state before he entered Bedroom 2 to attack Yang and Li. In reaching my conclusion, I accord much weight to Li’s testimony, because Li was the sole survivor and could give direct evidence, and her evidence was independently corroborated by the forensic evidence and major points in the Reconstruction Report prepared independently by Ms Lim.

[85] Based on Li’s evidence and Wang’s account, I had earlier found that an interval of time had passed after Wang had stabbed Zhang and Feng during which Wang went into the kitchen to search for another weapon. I also found that Wang had subsequently entered the room where Li and Yang were in, and started attacking them with the intention of silencing them completely and permanently because they were possible witnesses to his killing of Zhang and Feng. Even though Yang and Li did not see Wang stabbing Zhang and Feng, they heard the commotion in Bedroom 1. More importantly, as tenants of the Flat, both Yang and Li recognized Wang. While motive is not an element of the offence of murder in Singapore, the presence of a logical explanation consistent with the evidence of why Wang had proceeded to another bedroom to attack two other victims who were totally unrelated to Zhang supports an inference that, on balance, the subsequent attacks on Yang and Li by Wang were done in cold blood in order to silence them and not in the heat of a frenzied attack.

[86] I accept Li’s evidence that Wang was able to converse coherently with her and could issue calculated instructions for her “not [to] move” and to “close her eyes and not to scream”; and to lie to her by promising that he would not kill her to induce her not to struggle so that he could continue with his determined physical attack on Li first in Bedroom 2 and subsequently in the kitchen toilet in order to kill her. Although the large number of wounds inflicted on both Zhang and Feng do indicate that he was in a sort of frenzy and that he had lost his self-control when he killed them, which on balance, I believe, is in part explainable by the stressors and by his adjustment disorder with depressed mood (an abnormality of mind from inherent causes) which substantially impaired his mental responsibility at that earlier time, I am inclined to believe however that by the time he attacked Yang at the kitchen window he had sufficiently regained his self-control and that his mental responsibility for his acts was no longer substantially impaired. The total of about 90 stab or slash wounds on Zhang and Feng must have caused Wang to expend a considerable amount of physical energy and it would have taken him several minutes to inflict. I also believe that there may have well been some cathartic effect and emotional release of the frustration and pent-up anger within Wang when he thrusted the serrated knife each time into the bodies of Zhang and subsequently of Feng, that by the time he was done with stabbing Zhang and Feng to the extent that he did, the frenzy, rage and anger in him would have sufficiently abated. This expenditure of physical energy in the process would have helped to reduce the rage and anger in him. Having killed the very person he was angry with and who had caused him much stress and misery, there ought to have been a considerable degree of release of his bottled up anger and emotions.

[87] Based on the evidence of Ms Lim, Wang had also spent some time doing the following before he killed Yang:

(a) walking into Bedroom 3, switching on the light and opening the wardrobe possibly looking for something in there;

(b) walking to kitchen, making contact with the metal turner in the red basket beside the kitchen sink and picking up a metal spatula when it was still dark in the kitchen because the light was not switched on (no blood stains found on the kitchen light switch);

(c) placing the metal spatula in the washing machine (possibly after realising that the spatula was not a good weapon);

(d) looking for another weapon in the kitchen, and this time picking up a chopper, before approaching Bedroom 2 to commence his attack on Yang and Li;

(e) attacking Li at the location towards the rear wall area of Bedroom 2 whereupon Yang seized the opportunity to rush out of the room and into the kitchen;

(f) leaving Bedroom 2 to look for Yang and warning Li not to move upon realising that Yang had escaped from the room;

(g) spending time looking for Yang whom he eventually found hiding outside the kitchen window of the Flat; and

(h) cutting Yang’s fingers with a knife, causing Yang to lose her grip and plunge down six storeys to her death.

[88] To my mind, the long series of acts described above (which I accepted happened) all took place prior to killing of Yang and would have allowed Wang an opportunity to cool down. There was time enough for reason to resume its seat, and for Wang to be a master of his own mind and to be mentally responsible for his actions. I would also have expected that after he stabbed Zhang (the very person who had caused him to harbour so much hatred and anger) till she was motionless, that would have assuaged his anger. The subsequent movements around the flat and his actions as described above do not appear to me to be the actions of a man still seeing “red”, still in a rage and in a state of loss of self-control. Clearly, Wang was no longer in a frenzied state by then, nor was he acting in an irrational manner or behaving in an uncontrolled fashion anymore. He knew and understood what he was doing when he cut Yang’s fingers. He was able to exercise his rational judgment and his intention to have Yang killed to silence her as a potential informant and witness was clear. I repeat what I had stated at [23] to [30] and [46] to [52] above to support my finding that Wang’s mental responsibility was no longer substantially impaired by this time. On the contrary, his acts were clearly deliberate, purposeful, directed and methodical.

[89] Having regard to the totality of the evidence, I do not accept the Defence’s submission that by the time Wang slashed the fingers of Yang with the intention of causing her to fall to her death, he had still not sufficiently regained his mental and emotional faculties and his self-control to the extent that his mental responsibility for his actions were not substantially impaired. It is also telling that the Defence’s expert, Dr Tan, conceded in his evidence in court that the fact that Wang was able to give instructions to Li (eg, “not [to] move”) before he pursued Yang to kill her was logically more consistent with him having regained his self-control rather than with him having a continuing loss of self-control.

[90] For the abovementioned reasons, I find that Wang has not succeeded in proving on a balance of probabilities that the defence of diminished responsibility applies to his murder of Yang.

[91] Accordingly, I find Wang guilty of murder under s 300(a) of the Penal Code in relation to the Fourth Charge, and sentence him to death.

[92] Given that he had successfully raised the defence of diminished responsibility for his murder of Zhang and Feng, I convict Wang on the lesser charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder in relation to the First and Second Charges.

I shall reserve my sentence on the First and Second Charges pending the outcome of the appeal for the Fourth Charge which shall follow in due course.