(to return to lexborneo.com click here)
Recently I have been following the media coverage nationwide and I feel that too much attention is being paid to crimes of passion such as the Norita and Fanny Ong murder cases. Is this a reflection everything wrong with our society today? Anyway what exactly is a crime of passion and why does it stir so much attention?
IVANNA KEEL
LEX BORNEO:
Everybody knows what a crime of passion is but there is problem when it comes to exactly defining what it is. Perhaps at best we can do is to use situations of what they look like but avoid generalizations. For example when 2 lovers quarrel and one lover ends the discussion and the life of the other lover with a kitchen knife or when 2 lovers plot to kill the spouse of another, these as crimes of passion for we can see the passion and the crimes the passions leads to. In a crime of passion the victim will usually suffers death or injury as a result of the other person’s intention to kill or injure him..
I do not however quite agree with your statement of excessive coverage of crimes of passion. In the annals of criminal law, there is no record more intriguing and more fascinating than that of crimes of passion. Why? Perhaps it is because crimes of passion are not committed by a professional criminals but by ordinary people just like you and me. These people are criminalized because of this only act of violence. They could be celebrities or labourers, university professors or school dropouts. They are committed by men and women who are pushed to the limit to do the unthinkable in response to unbearable betrayal, broken hearts, ruined lives and injured pride. Crimes of passion have inspired movies, legends, literature, novel, operas and the graphic arts. We all are to a greater or lesser degree fascinated by crimes of passion and the media is only acting in response to satisfy our insatiable thirst in this regard. In this article we look at crimes of passion in 3 leading cases from the jurisdictions Sabah, Brunei and Singapore.
But first the law.
A crime of passion ending in death is usually classified as a homicide. A homicide is death from a killing. The question is whether that homicide is murder for which the sentence is the death sentence or culpable homicide which is not murder and a lesser offence for which the guilty person is sent to a prison term of “x” number of years or to life imprisonment.
What is murder? It is defined under Section 300 of the Penal Code as when a person commits an act which ends in death and the act was done with the intention of causing death or such bodily injury that would result in death anyway.
But what if these acts were done in circumstances where the accused was acting in self defence or because he was provoked by the victim?
The first exception of self defence will succeed against the a charge of a murder.
So will the second exception of provocation. A homicide is not a murder is if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident:
The law takes into account the frailty of human nature and recognizes that if a man was provoked to such an extent that in the heat of passion or blood he was rendered deaf to the voice of reason he cannot be found guilty of murder even though he knew the dastardly consequences of his unlawful act.
TAWAU’S CRIME OF PASSION
The year was 1964.
The place, the High Court of Tawau and in a criminal trial presided over by Justice Simpsons and ex- High Court Judge Datuk Charles Ho was the Public Prosecutor.
The accused was charged with the murder of a fellow Indonesian, Labidah at Kampong Ambar, Tawau, on 8th June, 1963. On medical examination Labidah was found to have several extremely severe wounds mainly on the head, neck and shoulders caused by a weapon such as parang. Death was due to these wounds, more than one of which would have been immediately fatal. The wounds were caused by Lasakke and he intentionally caused the death of Labidah. Lassake made no attempt to deny that fact. The only question was whether the accused was deprived of his powers of self control by grave and sudden provocation. According to Lasakke when he asked before he was arrested why he killed Labidah, the accused replied, “He interfered (sexually) with my wife.” Lasakke’s wife said that on three occasions when her husband had gone to work, the deceased tried to have intercourse with her but she refused. She told her husband but he took no further action apart from stopping the deceased from having his meals with them. The deceased also told her that he wanted to marry her and threatened that if her husband would not divorce her, he would kill him to achieve his purpose.
HAVE YOU DIVORCED YOUR WIFE YET?
On that fateful day, when Lassake arrived at a friend’s house where the deceased was also present, the deceased said quietly to him, “Eh? Have you divorced you wife yet?” Later the deceased again taunted him with the words, “Eh, are you not ashamed? Don’t you realise all your friends know I have interfered with your wife? Why don’t you divorce her?” The accused did nothing but tears of shame came into his eyes. After the meal with the deceased at the friend’s place, the accused went to the window of the friend’s with his head bowed and his mind confused. He decided to go home but as he reached the steps of the front door, Labidah who was standing there, held him and struck him on the forehead or obstructed him deliberately. According to the Judge” this action of the deceased would provide the last of series undoubtedly grave provocations. There was no doubt that the accused was at the moment deprived of the power of self control. I find that this act of provocation was having regard to all circumstances sufficiently grave and sudden to prevent the offence from amounting to murder. I find the accused not guilty of murder but guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder
Sentence of the Court.
Deliberate killing with extreme violence provocation has reduced Lassake’s offence to culpable homicide but the accused must learn that he cannot come to this country and commit such acts of violence. I sentence accused to 10 years imprisonment”
PROVOCATION IN A CRIME OF PASSION
- ADULTERY AND THE SIZE OF MANHOOD
In 1995 a Bruneian man killed his Sabahan wife when during a fight the wife when she made unsavoury remarks about the accused’s manhood and explicitly stated she was unfaithful to him.
In the High Court of Brunei, the accused Lim Eng Kiat faced the following charge: “That you, on 28 March 1994 between 2pm to 3pm at No DL Sen Pelangi flat, Kampong Berangan, Bandar Sen Bengawan, Brunei Darussalam, did commit murder by intentionally causing the death of your wife, Liaw Hong Pen, to wit: you strangled her to death, and you thereby committed an offence of murder punishable under s 304 of the Brunei Penal Code.”
.
According to the facts the accused Lim had left his home flat with two of his kids and the amah on 28 March 1994. He was half way to the main road, when he went back to the flat, as he wanted to get some money from his wife.
When Lim first asked her for money, she did not reply. He said that he had not had his share of the monthly rental for 4 months. When he asked her a second time for money, she replied, ‘Don’t talk about money’. She said the divorce document was ready and asked him to sign it, saying that he must get out of the house.
The wife told him that he could move out if he was not happy. Then there ensued an argument between them. In the course of the argument, he said, ‘You go out every night. Do you think I do not know about it?’. She replied, ‘Yes, I went out every night and had sex. And what is more, your penis is too small and you are no fun’. After she has spoken to him as described above, she threw a stapler at him, which missed him. Then his wife used a pen to hit him in the stomach. It hurt him. Then he had a fight with her and hit her several times. She was standing up and he pushed her back into the chair. Her head hit against the desk. When she tried to get out of the chair, he kicked her. She fell to the ground and he grabbed a piece of string from somewhere and tied it round her neck from the front. He added that he was so confused that he could not remember how many times he hit or kicked her.
Lim said ‘I killed my wife because we had an argument and I became angry. I did not kill her because there was a buildup of anger but because the words she used were too shameful for me. I was scolded by her like a dog. And she told me she had sex with another man and complained about the size of my penis and that hurt my feelings.”
According to the Court, the main reason for the provocation was the confession of adultery by the wife and insulting reference to his penis. The confession was coupled with a serious insult about the size of the husband’s penis and the allegation that he was not much fun, the natural implication of this being that the wife’s lover had given the wife more pleasure. The Court said it was not necessary to find that adultery did in fact take place, but the evidence was such that the husband had good reason to believe that the wife’s admission of it was true. The confession of adultery could itself amount to grave and sudden provocation. This was aggravated by the insult about his organ.
The Court acquitted the accused if the charge of murder for which he would have hung. In its place the Court found the accused guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and sentenced the accused to life imprisonment.
THE PERFECT MURDER – THE TRIAL OF SUNNY ANG
One of the most infamous crimes of passion in the 1960s was the trial of Sunny Ang. It was the case of the “perfect” or “almost perfect murder” because the body of the victim could not be found. Without a body how could Sunny Ang be found guilty? The case of the prosecution was based entirely on circumstantial evidence and the issue was whether that was sufficient to send Sunny Ang to the gallows in Singapore.
Sunny Ang was convicted in the Singapore High Court on 18th May 1965 for the murder of one Jenny Cheok Cheng Kid (hereinafter referred to as Jenny) and was sentenced to death. He appealed against that conviction to the Federal Court of Singapore namely on the grounds that the prosecution had no evidence of Jenny’s death and their evidence was entirely circumstantial. According to the prosecution the offence was committed on the 27th August 1963 at about 5pm at sea near two islands. Sunny had hired a sampan from a boatman called Yusof and on his directions Yusof had taken both Sunny and Jenny to a place between the two islands where he dropped anchor. Sunny stated that his object in going there was to collect corrals and that Jenny was to assist him in doing so. According to the prosecution Sunny’s real intention was to murder Jenny and in pursuance of the intention he assisted Jenny to put on the diving equipment which had been brought in the sampan and allowed her, a novice diver, to go down alone, wearing a flipper which had previously been cut, into waters which he knew were dangerous and hazardous with the result that she met her death.
The body of Jenny could not be located and the evidence relied upon by the prosecution was wholly circumstantial as follows:-
(1) Sunny had been made a bankrupt in October 1962 and was still bankrupt on the 27th August 1963, being the day on which the offence was alleged to have been committed. He was in need of money and that could be a motive for the crime.
(2) On the 27th August 1963 Jenny was insured against accidents with several insurance companies, the total sum being $450,000.
(3) One of the insurance policies under which Jenny was insured for the sum of $150,000 had lapsed on the 26th August 1963 but was renewed by Sunny on the morning of the 27th August 1963 for another five days. Sunny however, did not renew or extend his own insurance policy which has been taken out at the same time.
(4) Another one of these insurance policies, which was for the sum of $100,000,was due to expire on the 38th August 1963.
(5) The beneficiary named in some of the policies was Sunny’s mother. In the case of the other policies the benefit was to go to Jenny’s estate.
(6) Jenny, who was 22 years of age and was a bar waitress earning $90 per month and about $10 in tips per day when she worked, made a will on the 7th August 1963 in which Sunny’s mother was named as the sole beneficiary. Sunny accompanied Jenny to the solicitor’s office when instructions for the preparation of the will were given to the solicitor.
(7) Jenny had only a little experience of what is called scuba diving and might fairly be described as a novice scuba diver. This was known to Sunny, although he claimed that she had made good progress under his tuition.
(8) On the 27th August 1963 Sunny allowed Jenny to go down into the waters near Pulau Dua alone According to an expert witness, it was not safe for a novice to scuba dive alone.
(9) The waters near Pulau Dua were dangerous and hazardous. Sunny had dived in these waters on previous occasions and was in position to know this.
(10) Sunny did not go down into the water himself even after Jenny had failed to come to the surface.
(11) One of the flippers worn by Jenny that day was found on the 3rd September 1963 at a depth about 45 feet not very far from the place where she had gone into the water. The heel strap were severed and on examination it was found that the strap had been cut in two places by a knife or sharp instrument. There was no direct evidence to show who had cut the strap but it was open to the jury, if they decided to do so, to find that is was Sunny who had cut it. If a diver suddenly loses one of his flippers whilst scuba diving, his equilibrium would be upset, his mobility impaired and it might well lead to panic in the case of an inexperienced diver.
(12) After the disappearance of Jenny there was a lack of urgency in the conduct of Sunny at the relevant time.
(13) Less than 24 hours after the disappearance of Jenny, Sunny made formal claims on the three insurance companies which had issued policies covering her against accidents.
Even though the body of Jenny could not be found and the only available evidence against Sunny was entirely circumstantial, the Federal Court found Sunny guilty of the murder of Jenny.
The Singapore Federal Court said ”This case depending as it does on circumstantial evidence, is whether the cumulative effect of all the evidence leads you to the irresistible conclusion that it was the accused who committed this crime or is there some reasonably possible explanation such as for example ‘Was it an accident?’. One of the points about circumstantial evidence is its cumulative effect. Any one of these points taken alone might, you may think, be capable of explanation. The questions for you are required to ask is where does the totality of them, the total effect of them, all lead you to? Adding them together, considering them, not merely each one itself, but altogether, does it or does it not lead you to the irresistible inference and conclusion that the accused committed this crime? Or is there some other reasonably possible explanation of those facts? The prosecution case is that the effect of all this evidence drives you inevitably and inexorably to the one conclusion only: that it was the accused who caused the death of this young girl”.
The Court said that although Jenny’s body has never been found, there is overwhelming evidence on the record that Sunny murdered her.The Federal Court of Singapore dismissed Sunny Ang’s appeal. They upheld the death sentence of Sunny Ang.
LEX BORNEO POSER: Do you agree with the verdict of the Singapore Federal Court in Sunny Ang’s murder trial? While there may be strong circumstantial evidence, can it not be argued in favour of Sunny that he committed no act to kill her? Was there any duty on the part of Sunny to ensure that Jenny would not get killed? Jenny could have refused to dive and Sunny may have been negligent but does that make him a murderer? Let us have your views
