Chinese national Wang Wenfeng was convicted of murder of taxi driver Yuen Swee Hong in the High Court in 2011 and sentenced to death. However a review was done in regards to capital punishment and all hangings (the method of execution here) were put on hold. Finally the changes in Law were made effective January 2013, and all those facing capital punishment had their sentences remitted back to the High Court, to see whether they qualified to be sentenced under the new regime. Wang's case came before Justice Lee Sieu Kin and in November last year, he set aside the original death sentence and substituted with one of life imprisonment plus 24 strokes of the cane. The judgment was released earlier this month.
Justice Lee Sieu Kin heard the original case against Wang and imposed the then mandatory death penalty upon convicting him.
Based on media reports and television dramatisations (it appeared in an episode of Crimewatch), I felt Wang deserved the death penalty. My belief was reinforced when I read the original judgment of the trial. (Unfortunately it's no longer on the Singapore Law Reports webpage as they keep the page updated, you'd have to personally purchase a copy I think, or get a lawyer to retrieve it for you). As such I've forgotten a few details - notably the defensive wounds (if any) or how soon death was caused after the injuries were inflicted. It's very important when commenting on a court's decision to read the full judgment, and not rely solely on media reports. A judgment details the offence, the prosecution's case and the defense rebuttal. More importantly it shows what factors the trial judge took in and based his decision on. I was sufficiently convinced that justice was done after reading that report.
Wang Wenfang is lucky to be alive today. He was due to be hanged until a review on the death penalty put a moratorium on all executions.
Now this case had been referred back tot he High Court to consider the sentence based on the changes in law for murder. This referral is not a relook at his conviction, he's been found guilty and that verdict was upheld in the automatic appeal before the Court of Appeal (CoA). This referral is solely to relook at whether the prisoner's sentence should fall under the new provisions for murder. The revamped section for Murder under Sec 300 of the Penal Code reads like this:
Murder
300. Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder —
a) if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death;
b) if it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused;
c) if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person, and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; or
d) if the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death, or such injury as aforesaid.
Illustrations are provided and the relevant one is:
(c) A intentionally gives Z a knife-cut or club-wound sufficient to cause the death of a man in the ordinary course of nature. Z dies in consequence. Here A is guilty of murder, although he may not have intended to cause Z’s death.
The punishment for murder previously was the mandatory death penalty. However with the changes, Section 302 (the punishment for murder) reads like this:
Punishment for Murder
302.—(1) Whoever commits murder within the meaning of section 300(a) shall be punished with death.
(2) Whoever commits murder within the meaning of section 300(b), (c) or (d) shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall, if he is not punished with death, also be liable to caning.
So only if you are charged and convicted under Section 300 (a), the death sentence is mandatory. For the other 3, you can still be sentenced to death or given life imprisonment with/without caning. The decision on which section you will be charged rests entirely with the prosecution not with the judge, although the judge can after hearing a case decide to substitute highest charge - Section 300 (a) with any of the other 3, if he finds the evidence demands it. He however cannot substitute any of the lower charges to the highest one - that is strictly the prosecutor's prerogative.
The prosecutor in this case, Bala Reddy, submitted a charge under Sec 300 (c) for this re-sentencing and again asked for the death sentence. Wang was represented by Wendell Wong, who argued for the life term. As it's crucial to make an opinion solely on the judgment, here's the link:
Brief Facts of the Case:
Wang was working in Singapore, but had lost his job and due to leave Singapore by 15th April 2009. His attempts to get money to buy a plane ticket were futile and he decided to resort to robbery. In the early hours of April 11th, he went to Sun Plaza armed with a 12.5cm fruit knife, a haversack, water-bottle and gloves. He decided to rob taxi drivers because he found them an easy target. He flagged down the victim's taxi and directed him to 'Bottle Tree Park or Bao Ping Chun' in Sembawang. Once near he directed the victim to Jalan Selimang and put on his gloves and took the knife out.
Police Officers conducting the search for taxi driver Yuen Swee Hong in the Sembawang area. (Inset Wang's now estranged wife)
He grabbed the victim from behind and pointed the knife using his left hand at his chest, and demanded money. A struggle ensued and he stabbed the victim 5 times. The victim bled and soon became limp. Wang believed him to be dead and dragged his body to the nearby forest and dumped it there, after rifling through his pockets and taking his cash and valuables including his hand-phone (HP).
He then drove the taxi to a carpark in Canberra Road and cleaned it as best he could. He would later dump the haversack with knife, gloves and his soled clothes in another forest at Nee Soon Road. While on his way back, he received a few missed calls from the victim's wife. Sensing an opportunity, he made a ransom demand for $150,000 from her saying he had kidnapped her husband. He gave her the illusion that her husband was still alive, warning her over the next 2 days that he hadn't eaten. After a wild goose chase, he did not meet her or attempted to collect the ransom. Instead he had bought a flight ticket home for April 14th. However swift action by the police meant that he was arrested on April 13th, 2 days after the murder. He initially denied having anything to do with the victim's then disappearance, although the police had by then assumed him dead owing to the pathologist's determination of bloodletting in the taxi - meant 1 thing, the victim would be dead due to the huge loss of blood unless he had received immediate medical support. (Which still could result in death depending on the injuries).
Finally after 10 days, Wang confessed and led police to the dumping ground, where Yuen's decomposed body was located. He also led to police to retrieve his dastardly tools of the crime.
The Prosecution's Case
The prosecution submitted the Minister of Law's parliamentary speech when moving the amendments on when the death penalty should be preferred for offences under the 3 lower limbs. These were:
(1) the seriousness of the offence, both in terms of the harm that the commission of the offence is likely to cause to the victim and to society, and the personal culpability of the accused;
(2) how frequent or widespread an offence is; and (3) deterrence.
For seriousness, the prosecution highlighted the cruel manner of the crime, the premeditation and planning. He chose the early hours, came prepared with knife, gloves and a change of clothes. He chose a vulnerable victim (taxi driver) and made him drive to a deserted area. He chose a dangerous weapon with a 12.5cm blade and 2 of the stab wounds were very deep in a vulnerable part, and 1 went all the way in. The victim suffered an agonising death.
Moreover Wang did not show remorse, he robbed the victim, attempted to conceal his tracks by disposing of evidence, tried to extort money from the wife and made plans to flee the country. He led police on a wild goose chase for several days before finally admitting. He had no mitigating value, financial difficulty is not an excuse to commit crime. They also pointed out that Wang was much stronger than the victim and took him by surprise and there was a lot of public outrage over the murder.
This taxi driver was a victim of assault. Working alone and being older, they are vulnerable to attack by those with sinister designs.
For widespread they mentioned a series of violent offences against taxi drivers in the preceding years. For deterrence, they argued that taxi drivers were vulnerable and pointed out that the Courts have taken a dim view of assaults on taxi drivers.
Although 3 similar murder cases before Wang's resulted in the overturning of the death penalty, they argued this case was different. Wang's premeditation and cruelty, together with the outrage meant he unlike the others, deserved the death penalty.
The Defense's Case
Defense counsel argued using previous cases both here and in other jurisdictions, that the death penalty for murder should only be imposed for the most serious ones, bereft of mitigating value and of a heinous nature. They submitted this was not so in Wang's case. They submitted that Wang did not plan to inflict fatal wounds and these happened during the struggle. He had no intention to stab the victim and only carried the knife to scare a victim into submitting during the robbery.
Defense Counsel Wendell Wong was able to present a more coherent argument than his opposite number thus convincing the judge not to impose the maximum sentence.
He did not stab him in cold blood and inflicted no further injuries to ensure the victim's death. As for what he did after the stabbing, they asked the court not to put weight to it. These were done in panic, fear and adrenalin. They asked the judge to focus on Wang's intention at the start of the offence not what happened after it.
They argued Wang did not plan to commit murder, only carried the knife to commit robbery, did not have a clear mind as he was under financial distress, did not cause Yuen to suffer prolonged pain as it was over within 2 minutes. And although he lied initially, he cooperated eventually and led them to the body. He's also young (30) and can be rehabilitated and reformed. He's parents are not that old and hope to be re-united with him 1 day as does his 12 year old daughter. They submitted for a life sentence and 10 strokes of the cane.
The Judge's Decision.
Justice Lee was the initial trial judge and as such he was aware of the full facts of the case. He ruled that Wang did not set out to commit murder but robbery. He chose taxi drivers because they were vulnerable and chose a deserted spot to rob them. He pointed the knife to force the victim to hand over the money but the victim tried to grab it and as a result of the struggle the fatal wounds were inflicted. He ascertained the victim was dead before dragging him from the taxi and hiding the body.
After that he cleaned himself, hid the taxi and disposed of the body and attempted to leave the country. The extortion part was opportunistic and not part of his original plans. It only came about when the wife called the HP.
Justice Lee accepted taxi drivers and other public transport workers deserve protection from the law and deterrent sentences should be meted out. But it's 1 thing to suggest increasing a fine or jail sentence for assault or robbery, and another between choosing capital punishment or life imprisonment.
For this the prosecution must show that the life term is inadequate and a more deterrent effect is needed. There was just 1 case of murder of taxi driver in the past 5 year - this case. There have been cases of assault against taxi drivers but there was no upward trend. So the deterrence factor wasn't there.
The prosecution argued on the premeditation and planning but did not elaborate on whether this was for the robbery or murder. Both he and the CoA had found that the offence of murder was not premeditated. Death was caused by the struggle, although Wang should have known this. The judge felt Wang deserved the benefit of doubt for his post-killings acts. He did not pre-plan them but acted out of self -preservation. Although the extortion attempt was cruel, it too wasn't pre-planned but opportunistic. Justice Lee felt that the ends of justice would be met if he sentenced Wang to the full brunt of the law, but just short of the death penalty. As such he imposed a life term with 24 strokes of the cane.
The prosecution is disagreeing to this and will file an appeal to the CoA.
My Take.
Having read the initial trial judgment and sentence and this new sentencing decision, I remain unmoved. I still feel that Wang deserves the death sentence. I don't entirely blame the judge for this erroneous decision, as I feel the Prosecutor did not prepare or submit well enough for this re-sentencing. Perhaps Mr Reddy was too over-confident and thus became complacent in his arguments.
Armed robberies in Singapore like this case seldom result in murder. Which leads to the question, what exactly was Wang's true intentions? Just to rob or to rob and use the knife?
Still I think the judge placed too much emphasis on Wang's intention to commit robbery and too little on the particular limb in the law regarding this type of murder. To recap Sec 300 (c) states:
c) if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person, and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death;
Here Wang came prepared to commit robbery with a very dangerous weapon - a 12.5cm knife. He wore gloves and chose a vulnerable victim. What would his intention be, in bringing such a knife? Obviously to use it if necessary. He could have chosen a smaller knife or blade if he really only wanted to 'scare' the victim. So why such a large knife? Firstly to induce fear, which the judge rightly finds, but what about the next possible cause if the fear factor fails? Definitely to inflict some form of injury. In this particular subsection and crucially in the illustration it mentions:
(c) A intentionally gives Z a knife-cut or club-wound sufficient to cause the death of a man in the ordinary course of nature. Z dies in consequence. Here A is guilty of murder, although he may not have intended to cause Z’s death.
By pointing the knife at the victim's chest, this is a particularly dangerous area. Wang chose his spot carefully. He sat behind the victim and use the seat as a support to point the knife at the chest, giving him maximum thrusting ability. If he wanted only to rob and scare, he could have sat in front and pointed the knife directly at the victim, or even in the back, prodded it at a less vulnerable area - the victim's side or back. Wang would have realised that his victims could possibly fight back, that's why he chose to seat directly behind, not even the rear left passenger seat where he could again have pointed the knife at the victim's side. He knew that in a struggle he would have to use that knife to overawe and subdue the victim. His choice of seating and area of attack indicated premeditation on his part to stab the victim. He would have known that if such a stab wound occurred it would as the subsection and illustration suggest be sufficient in the ordinary course cause death.
Would this be enough to warrant the death penalty? Alone and a single stab wound, possibly, but Wang repeatedly stabbed the victim, including 2 very deep cuts into the heart area. 1 went the full 12.5cm length. DPP Reddy failed to elaborate on this and the fact that after the 1st stab wound to indicate he meant business, Wang could have at any time ceased the attack against his far weaker opponent. Would the victim have resisted further if Wang stopped? I don't think so.
Senior DPP Bala Reddy wasn't very convincing in his arguments during re-sentencing.
The next point DPP Reddy failed to submit is the location and what would Wang's intentions had been if he solely set out to rob. You bring your victim to a deserted area and then rob him, he submits, what would you have done thereafter? You could not possibly flee and disappear into say a block of flats or some other area, where you can get into another cab and make good your escape. Wang was in the middle of nowhere, he had no getaway vehicle. He did not state his intention was to rob a taxi driver of cash and vehicle. He only planned to rob for money. If he had planned for all this, he would need to do extra planning, he must find an exit route, he must subdue the victim fully, remove his handphone and make sure the victim doesn't have a chance to raise the alarm. He did not come with a rope. Unless he expected to rob the victim and then expect the victim to drive him somewhere else, which would have been silly as the victim would have many chances to raise the alarm enroute. It's more likely that he planned the robbery with the full intention to use the knife at some point to inflict a very severe injury to the victim.
Although it's not proven in the initial trial and appeal that he set out to commit murder, the fact he used the knife to point at a very vulnerable spot should lend credence that he knew that any such injury from it would be sufficient to cause death if left untreated. Although there was a struggle and he stabbed him 5 times only, DPP Reddy failed to point out that 5 stab wounds including 2 serious would be sufficient to end all resistance and bring Mr Yuen to or close to death. Had his body not yet gone limp after the 5 wounds, what would Wang have done further? Surely one can assume it would be to inflict further injury until all resistance ended.
And his actions thereafter, we can discount the extortion that would be under a different charge altogether. He came with a bottle of water to wash up and clean himself together with a change of clothes. Does this suggest only robbery? How many robbers commit robbery with a bottle of water on standby and change of clothes? Why the water and clothes? To clean off any bloodstains and remove his blood-stained clothes which would arouse suspicion. He went into the robbery knowing full well that he would use the knife at some point.
DPP Reddy also used a poor example to example the widespread nature of the crime, this being the only case of murder of a taxi driver since the fatal stabbing over decade ago of the 4 men involved in the York Hill shooting. He should emphasised on the nature of the offence and the cruelty more. As for deterrence, he should have instead focused on the heinous and cunning nature of the accused. He was younger and stronger and could have simply subdued the victim by brute force or with a less serious stabbing to force submission. Justice Lee also focussed too much on defense submission of deterrence and rehabilitation. Murder is one of the few charges where the 3 sentencing principles of rehabilitation, prevention and deterrence pale very much when compared to the 4th - retribution or punishment. Unless an offender is very young and killed in the spur of the moment, there's very little rehabilitative value in reforming a prisoner committing murder. You cannot undo a murder or a life lost. Few murderers go on to commit other murders anyway upon release, most would be very old.
Madam Chan, Mr Yuen's wife was put through a very shameful ordeal that no wife ever imagines going through.
Wang is not a young man, at 30 he would be sufficiently matured. He's married and has a child. He knew what he was doing. This case has a lot of public outrage even we if we discount the public outrage at the extortion attempt and the 'false hope' he gave to Mrs Yuen and her son only with crushing blow that was to come. We can also discount the public outrage at the fact he's a PRC citizen, and we are currently extremely angry at foreigners who commit crimes here. All those should not affect the sentencing in a death penalty case. But there's outrage even without those for the cruel manner in which he stabbed Mr Yuen and disposed of the body, leaving it to rot for 10 days. He did not even give the victim's family a chance of an open coffin. After the robbery, he did not bother to check if the victim was fully dead only assuming it. Even if he was dead, Wang had many opportunities to direct the police, ambulance or his wife to the location so Mr Yuen could at least be given a proper funeral. If he solely set out to rob, he could well called an ambulance after making good his escape, to show some compassion for his victim. He was cruel plain and simple. This was clearly a heinous crime.
Madam Chan and her son leaving the High Court with family members. They will never see their husband or father again, something Wang's children can expect to.
I am not a keen proponent of the death penalty, but I feel this case is one that fully merits it. Wang is alive and will live, Mr Yuen isn't and can't. Wang's daughter and family can see him, Mr Yuen's family can't. And although he's got a life sentence, there's nothing to say he won't be released some day maybe 25 years from now. He'll still be only in his 50s or if later in his 60s. There's every chance he'll be released some day and be repatriated back to China. Unless there's a sentence where life imprisonment has the provision - no possibility of release, I feel this sentence although long and next to the maximum, is not appropriate. I hope the DPP does better in the appeal and the CoA pays more attention to the crime itself than the other factors and overturns Justice Lee's sentence and re-imposes the death penalty.
Sir Nelspruit
*The writer blogs at http://anyhowhantam.blogspot.sg/