The Court of Appeal held that premeditation does not by itself bar diminished responsibility, but dismissed the appeal because the appellant failed to prove it on the facts.
The court found beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased died from manual compression of the neck, that the accused intentionally looped and tightened a towel around her neck and continued until she became motionless, and that manual compression of the neck is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; the defences of grave and sudden provocation and diminished responsibility were not established on the balance of probabilities given the nature of the parties' relationship and uncontested expert opinion that the accused had no mental disorder, therefore the accused was guilt…
Source excerpt
Murder under s 300(c) penal code
Partial defence of grave and sudden provocation (exception 1)
The Court of Appeal dismissed a sentence appeal for culpable homicide, affirming 18 years’ imprisonment after finding deliberate post-assault conduct and sufficient premeditation.
The accused pleaded guilty to culpable homicide and repeat drug consumption. The High Court imposed consecutive sentences totaling 9 years 6 months and 3 cane strokes.
The High Court convicted Micheal Anak Garing and Tony Anak Imba of murder arising from a gang robbery spree, finding common intention and admissible connected-acts evidence.
Murder (s300(c))
Common intention (s34)
Admissibility of similar fact/connected acts evidence
On re-sentencing for murder under s 300(c), the High Court imposed life imprisonment and 10 strokes of the cane, emphasizing the violence of the assault and comparative sentencing.
Murder under s 300(c)
Caning as corporal punishment
Life imprisonment
Re-sentencing pursuant to penal code (amendment) act 2012
The High Court re-sentenced Kho Jabing for murder to life imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane, finding the death penalty was not appropriate on the facts.