Blood Lust Read online

  The crux of David’s defence was that he did not conspire to kill. He did not take part in the robbery, but agreed to assist his brother to ‘catch one man’. He also insisted that the three men were still alive when they were put into the car.

  The crux of Peter’s defence was that he did not conspire to kill. Augustine was to rob some gold merchants and he would keep the gold for a day.

  The crux of Ringo Lee’s defence was that he did not conspire with Augustine Ang and the others to kill Ngo, Leong and Ang Boon Chai. He went to the Chous’ house on the night of the 29th because he was told his help was needed. All he did was to carry the bodies. They were already dead when they were carried into the Volkswagen.

  The crux of Richard James’ defence was that he did not conspire to kill. He did not assault any person that night. He helped to throw away the bodies.

  Stephen Francis denied that he had conspired to kill. He said his part in the affair was only to assist in assaulting some people if asked to do so. He did not take part in any assault that night. He was told to go with the others to throw the bodies away.

  The crux of Konesekaram’s defence was that he did not conspire to kill. He said his part was to assist in assaulting some people but that night he did not assault anyone. He went with the others to throw the bodies away.

  The crux of Stephen Lee’s defence was that he did not conspire to kill Ngo, Leong and Ang Boon Chai. He went to the Chous’ house because Augustine Ang told him that Andrew had some trouble and wanted him to go and help. He did nothing except help to carry out the bodies.

  Concluded the Judges: “We considered very carefully the evidence against and on behalf of each of the accused separately and we did not allow evidence which implicated one of them to influence us in arriving at our decision regarding the others. We also bore in mind that the evidence given by an accused person in a joint trial of several accused is not evidence against his co-accused. The main question before us was whether or not the common object of all the accused and Augustine Ang on the night of 29 December 1971 was to kill Ngo Cheng Poh, Leong Chin Woo and Ang Boon Chai. Now, all the accused admitted that they were at Andrew Chou’s house with Augustine Ang that night, but their versions varied as to why they were there … All the accused also admitted that Ngo, Leong and Ang Boon Chai were attacked and assaulted that night but they disagreed as to who attacked and assaulted these three persons … Peter Lim, Alex Yau and Stephen Lee admitted that on Hari Raya Day, 1971, they all went with Fernando Lee, Soo Ah Seng and Anchor to Andrew Chou’s house and saw Augustine Ang, as alleged by Augustine Ang. Peter Lim admitted that he brought all these people there. Andrew Chou, David Chou and Peter Lim, Alex Yau and Stephen Lee admitted that they went with Augustine Ang, Fernando Lee, Anchor and others to Changi Point on the night of Hari Raya as alleged by Augustine Ang. Peter Lim admitted that a few days after the visit to Changi Point he handed a packet of money from Augustine Ang to Fernando Lee. Peter Lim, Alex Yau and Stephen Lee admitted that some days after Hari Raya, they went with Fernando Lee, Anchor and Augustine Ang to Andrew Chou’s house, as alleged by Augustine Ang. Stephen Lee admitted that Fernando Lee had told him that one of his friends had been detained by the police. Peter Lim admitted that he was aware that Fernando Lee and Anchor were to be used to assault some people. Andrew Chou and Peter Lim admitted that they went to Beng Swee Place one evening early in December as alleged by Augustine Ang, and there they met a group of people and they all went into a station wagon and drove to Changi, where the station wagon had a flat tyre. And this was precisely the place where the dead bodies were later found. Stephen Lee admitted that he was in the station wagon which belonged to his father. Peter Lim, Alex Yau, Ringo Lee, Richard James, Stephen Francis, Konesekaram and Stephen Lee admitted that they went to dump the bodies at Changi.

  “We considered again the evidence of Augustine Ang in the light of the evidence given on oath by Andrew Chou and David Chou, and the statements made to the Court by the other accused in their defence and we were convinced in our view that Augustine Ang was speaking the truth. Augustine Ang had not tried to minimize his part in this conspiracy. He even admitted that he hit Ang Boon Chai with a piece of wood. He had not tried to exculpate himself in order to implicate others.

  The statement given by Peter Lim to the Court in his defence varies from the cautioned statement given by him to Inspector Oh Chye Bee. In his statement to the Court he said that he took no part whatever in the assault, whereas in his cautioned statement he said that he and the others kicked and punched the three victims. He said in his defence that the cautioned statement was prepared by the inspector who asked him to sign it saying that he was going to be a prosecution witness. We are satisfied that Peter Lim was the author of the cautioned statement and that it was made voluntarily. After considering the whole of the evidence in this case we came to the unhesitating conclusion that his cautioned statement was true.”

  The Judges dealt in detail with the contradictions in evidence given by the other accused in their voluntary statements given to the magistrates and the police shortly after arrest, and their verbal statements from the dock. In each instance, the Judges said they were satisfied that the written statements were voluntarily made and that after considering the whole of the evidence ‘we came unhesitantly to the conclusion’ that the statements were true. What the seven said from the dock, therefore, was rejected when it conflicted with the voluntary statements.

  The Judges remarked that the Solicitor-General had drawn their attention to Section 30 of the Evidence Act, which provides that:

  When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some others of such persons is proved, the Court may take into consideration such confession as against such other persons as well as against the person who makes such confession.

  The Judges said: “We were aware that this provision should be used with the greatest caution and that although the Court may take into consideration the confession of a co-accused, its value is less than that of the evidence of an accomplice. On the evidence before us we had no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that Ngo, Leong and Ang Boon Chai were attacked, brutally assaulted, tied up and strangled to death at Andrew Chou’s house on 29 December 1971, and that their dead bodies were carried away in the Volkswagen and dumped at Changi near the Reformative Training Centre.

  “We came to the conclusion that the Chou brothers took part in the brutal assault on the three victims in the course of which these accused sustained their injuries (damaged hand and bruised back) that night.”

  The Judges said they came to the conclusion that Peter Lim got the bloodstains on his shirt at Andrew Chou’s house, not from the car, but when he took part in the brutal attack.

  “After considering all the evidence we did not believe the story of each of the nine accused. We also considered the case against each accused separately in the light of his defence. Their defence did not create a reasonable doubt in our minds as to the strength of the case for the prosecution nor as to the guilt of each of the nine accused. We were convinced that Augustine Ang was speaking the truth. His story runs true when considered in the light of the rest of the evidence and the surrounding circumstances. The first accused (Andrew Chou) was, without doubt, the prime mover of the conspiracy because without him there would have been no gold to rob. Augustine Ang was merely Chou’s errand boy and was all the time acting under Andrew Chou’s orders. David Chou was in charge of operations, while Peter Lim was the person who recruited the boys. Alex Yau and Stephen Lee were members of the original team of boys recruited for the job by Peter Lim. When Fernando Lee and Anchor withdrew it was Peter Lim who recruited the new boys—Ringo Lee, Richard James, Stephen Francis and Konesekaram.”

  There was no doubt that all the nine accused and Augustine Ang were present at Andrew Chou’s house on the night of 29 December 1971 and that all of them knew that some people were to be killed ther
e that night. The Chou brothers and Peter Lim together with Augustine Ang were the principal conspirators in the plot to kill Ngo and his assistants for their gold. “Alex Yau knew that some persons would be attacked and their dead bodies had to be carried away and dumped. He was in the plot from the beginning.” So was Stephen Lee. “When he rushed out of the kitchen that night with the others he went to help in the killings.” The four new recruits also knew what was to take place that night. “They all knew that some people were to be killed and when they all rushed out of the kitchen they joined in the killing,” and later went to dispose of the bodies. “We had no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the common object of the nine accused was to kill Ngo, Leong and Ang Boon Chai. The evidence was overwhelming and clear that on the night in question when the nine accused and Augustine Ang assembled at 19 Chepstow Close, they were all members of an unlawful assembly whose common object was to cause the death of Ngo, Leong and Ang Boon Chai, and that while they were members of that unlawful assembly some members thereof, if not all, in the prosecution of the unlawful assembly, committed murder by causing the death of Ngo, Leong and Ang Boon Chai. We accordingly found all the nine accused persons guilty on all the three charges, and they were all convicted thereon.”

  The Appeal

  THE APPEAL WAS HEARD BEFORE Chief Justice Wee Chong Jin, Justice Winslow and Justice Kulasekaram, and the Judgement was handed down on 29 March 1974.

  The Court reviewed the evidence. They found that when discovered, the body of Leong had bruises on the right eyebrow and the lower lip and rope marks around the neck. The body of Ngo had bruises over the front side of the face, on both ears and on the left side of the chest. There were also multiple bruises on the back of the body and rope marks around the neck. The testicles were swollen. The body of Ang Boon Chai had bruises on the left side of the face and rope marks around the neck. The three dead men had, therefore, clearly been brutally assaulted and strangled, and the cause of death as found by the pathologist was, in each case, by asphyxia from strangulation. It was the opinion of the pathologist that their deaths occurred sometime between 8:30 pm on 29 December and 2:30 am on 30 December 1971 and that death would have ensued within one to three minutes of the application of pressure to their necks.

  “Our attention was drawn to many passages in the transcript of Augustine Ang’s evidence where, when cross-examined, he admitted his earlier testimony was a mistake or changed his story as regards a particular incident, or where his evidence is contradictory to that of a police officer. It is submitted that these passages showed that the trial Judges’ assessment was completely unjustified as those passages, though they related to minor matters, clearly raised doubts as to Augustine Ang’s veracity. This Court has throughout the years always recognised the advantages which a jury, or a judge sitting alone, has in seeing and hearing the witnesses, and in the present case we have not been persuaded that the trial Judges were wrong, or were not justified, on all the evidence before them during the trial, in their assessment of Augustine Ang as a truthful witness.

  “The next criticism is that those passages at least gave rise to grave suspicion of Augustine Ang’s story of the central events on the fateful night and in the light of his being an accomplice, who was clearly involved from the beginning to the end in the three murders and also had the strongest possible motive in implicating all the accused, the trial Judges ought not to have convicted them on the uncorroborated and unsatisfactory evidence of such an accomplice. The law on the subject of corroboration has fairly recently been considered by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the case of Chiu Nang Hong v Public Prosecutor (1965), which was a case of rape, where there was no corroboration of the evidence of the complainant. Lord Donovan said: “On appeal the Court of Appeal decided that it could not interfere with the learned Judge’s judgement, though merely reading the notes of evidence the members of the Court might feel something less than satisfaction as to the guilt of the appellant. But the learned Judge had seen and heard the witnesses: he was aware of the danger of convicting without some corroborative evidence of the complainant’s story, and he knew there was no such evidence. Nevertheless, he was convinced of the truth of the complainant’s story, and in that position was entitled in law to convict the appellant. Their Lordships would be of the like opinion if it were correct to say that the learned Judge knew that he was convicting in the absence of corroborative evidence, and bearing the risk in mind of doing so, yet felt convinced of the truth of the complainant’s story.

  In our opinion the same principles are applicable where the uncorroborated evidence is that of an accomplice. Applying those principles, we are of the opinion that the judgement of the trial Judges clearly indicated that they were aware of the danger of convicting without corroborative evidence of Augustine Ang’s story, and that they knew that there was no such evidence but nevertheless were convinced that he was speaking the truth in the light of the evidence and the surrounding circumstances. Accordingly, in our judgement, there was no mis-direction, or non-direction, on the part of the trial Judges in accepting Augustine Ang as a truthful witness and in acting upon his evidence even though he was an accomplice whose evidence was uncorroborated. Furthermore, after a consideration of the careful arguments of all the counsel appearing before us, and after a searching review of the shorthand transcript of the evidence at the trial, we do not think that the verdicts of the trial Judges were wrong, nor do we think them in all the circumstances unsafe or unsatisfactory or unjust.”

  As for the contention on behalf of the Chou brothers that the trial Judges erred in law in refusing their applications to be tried separately from the other seven co-accused, the Court of Appeal said: “It is conceded that the law is that this is a matter for the discretion of the trial Judges, but the criticism is that there is no indication in the transcript that the trial Judges exercised their discretion at all. In our opinion this ground of appeal is also without substance. The transcript shows that the matter was argued fully on behalf of the two brothers, and having regard to the charges as framed, this Court of Appeal in principle ought to infer that the trial Court, which in this case consisted of two experienced trial Judges, had given due consideration to the matter although they did not think it necessary to give reasons for their decision. This being a matter of discretion it is not for this Court to interfere with the exercise of the discretion unless it is satisfied that the trial Judges acted upon wrong principles, and so far from being satisfied we are of the opinion that they were correct in refusing the applications for separate trials.”

  For the same reasons, the Court of Appeal also rejected as being without substance the same point raised by counsel on behalf of Peter Lim, Richard James, Stephen Francis and Konesekaram. The Court quoted Lord Goddard’s observations at an appeal in 1946, in which the Chief Justice of Britain had said: “The law is, and always has been, that this is a matter of discretion for the Judge at the trial ... the discretion, no doubt, must be exercised judicially, that is, not capriciously. The Judge must consider the interests of justice as well as the interests of the prisoners. It is too often nowadays thought or seems to be thought, that the ‘interests of justice’ means only the ‘interests of the prisoners’. If once it was taken as settled that every time it appears that one prisoner as part of his defence means to attack another, a separate trial must be ordered, it is obvious there is no room for discretion and a rule of law is substituted for it. There is no case in which this has ever been laid down, and in the opinion of the Court it would be most unfortunate and contrary to the true interests of justice, if it were.”

  Another common ground of appeal was that the trial Judges erred in law and in fact in finding that the common object of them all was to kill the victims. “If,” said the Court of Appeal, “the trial Judges’ assessment of Augustine Ang as a truthful witness is justified on all the evidence and the circumstances and they were convinced that his story was true and acted upon it after warning themsel
ves of the danger of convicting on his uncorroborated evidence, then, in our judgement, there was no such error in law or in fact on the part of the trial Judges. It mattered not, in our view, that on Augustine’s evidence there were other common objects shared by them all, or that some of them shared some other common object, such as robbery or the disposal of dead bodies or assault which was not shared by the others, so long as it was proved beyond a reasonable doubt against each of them that he shared with the rest the common object of killing the persons expected by them to arrive at Andrew’s house on the night of 29 December 1971.”

  It was also contended on behalf of Peter Lim that the trial Judges should not have admitted in evidence the cautioned statement made by him to a police officer after his arrest because he made the statement under duress. The question as to its admissibility had been fully considered, said the Court of Appeal, during a ‘trial within a trial’, and “we see no reason to doubt that the trial Judges’ discretion had not been judicially exercised”.

  A somewhat similar ground was raised by Alex Yau. He submitted that his cautioned statement was inadmissible because he himself had written it when the law required the statement to be taken down in writing by the officer to whom the statement is made. “There is no substance to this point,” declared the Court of Appeal. They said that the law expressly stated that a statement could be oral or in writing.

  The Court of Appeal summed up by saying that they had ‘scrutinised with care’ the transcript of the evidence of all nine ‘having regard to the arguments urged before us by all the counsel that the conviction of each of their respective clients was unreasonable, or was not supported by the evidence’. The Court said: “We have considered these arguments bearing in mind the observations of the trial Judges after a lengthy trial during which, as they said, Augustine Ang was subjected to a thorough and severe cross-examination for seven days out of the nine he spent in the witness box, and bearing in mind the trial Judges’ assessment of Augustine Ang as a truthful witness on whose evidence they had no hesitation in acting, well knowing the danger of acting on the evidence of a self-confessed accomplice to the crime of murder. We have come to the conclusion that there was sufficient evidence to warrant the conviction of each of the nine on all three charges of murder. Accordingly the appeals of all nine are dismissed.”