You are on page 1of 6

Ain Amirah Aisyah binti Md Daud 1326266 INDIVIDUAL PRESENTATION

Wednesday 2.00-3.00

SUNNY APPELLANT V PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

(FEDERAL COUR OF SINGAPORE)

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

The Accused, Sunny Appellant (later known as Appellant) came from a


middle class family and was highly intelligent but had a history of reckless
and criminal behavior. On the other hand, the deceased, Jenny Cheok Cheng
Kid (later known as Jenny), a bar waitress was a widow, naive, simple and
uneducated person. They met in mid-1963 and shortly after the meeting,
Appellant began buying insurance policies for her where the payouts would
go either to his mother or to Jennys estate.

On the afternoon of 27 August 1963, Appellant hired a boat/sampan to


a place near the two islands (Pulau Dua/Sisters Islands). The boatman En
Yusof was told that they wanted to go there to collect corals. Jenny went
underwater on her own twice and never resurfaced on her second dive. All
that remained was a single flipper worn by her which had been previously
cut by a sharp instrument such as scissor.

The police reclassified Jennys disappearance as murder on 5


September 1963. Suspicion was cast on Appellant who conveniently stood to
gain from the insurance policies that he had bought. On 21 December 1964,
Appellant was arrested and was charged for murder the next day. Trial began
on April 1965 and finally he was found guilty and sentences to death.

The case was unusual in that the victims body was never found and
the prosecutions case was based solely on the circumstantial evidence and
the connection between the evidence. The prosecution had tendered 14
important facts and circumstance which were so compelling that the court
reached the irresistible conclusion that the appellant had murdered the
deceased.

1. Appellant had been made a bankrupt in October 1962and was still a


bankrupt at the day the offence took place.
2. On the 27th August 1963 Jenny was insured against accidents with
several insurance policies, the total sum being $450,000.
3. One of the insurance policies lapsed on 26 th August 1963 but Appellant
had renewed it in the morning of 27th August 1963. He however did not
renew/extend his own insurance policy.
4. Another one of these insurance policies, which was for the sum of $100,
00 was due to expire on the 28th August 1963.
5. The beneficiary named in some of the policies was Appellants mother.
6. Jenny made a will on the 7th August 1963 in which Appellants mother
was named as the sole beneficiary. She was accompanied by Appellant.
7. The fact that Jenny had little experience of scuba diving was known to
Appellant, although he claimed that she had made a good progress.
8. Appellant allowed Jenny to go down into the water alone. According to
the expert, it was not safe to do so.
9. Appellant had previously dived in these waters on previous occasion;
therefore he must have the knowledge that these waters were
dangerous and hazardous.
10. Appellant did not go down into the water even after Jenny had failed to
resurface.
11. Jenny did not wear gloves. The facts shown that two pairs of gloves
were found in Appellants swimming bag.
12. One of the flippers worn by Jenny was found on 3 rd September 1963 at
a place not very far from the place where she had gone into the water. It
was found that the strand had been previously cut and according to the
expert witness, the loss of a flipper would have resulted in a divers loss
of equilibrium and affected the persons mobility. As an inexperience
diver, Jenny would have panicked and inevitably drowned.
13. There was a lack of urgency in the conduct of the Appellant at the
relevant time.
14. Less than 24 hours, Appellant made formal claims on the three
insurance companies which had issued policies covering her against
accidents.

SECTION 6 OF EA 1950 - Relevancy of facts forming part of same


transaction (Illustration (b))
Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to
form part of the same transaction are relevant, whether they occurred at the
same time and place or at different times and places.

On the other words, it is not the evidence direct to the point of issue,
but evidence of various facts other than facts in issue which are so
connected with the facts in issue that taken together they form a chain of
circumstances leading to an inference or presumption of the principle fact.
In the case of Sunny Appellant, all the 14 grounds tendered by the
prosecutor are not facts in issue. However, those grounds are so connected
with the facts in issue thus rendered it relevant and admissible. If all the 14
ground are gathered together, it will lead to an inference that Appellant had
committed the offence of murder.

SECTION 7: FACTS WHICH ARE THE OCCASION, CAUSE OR EFFECT OF


FACTS IN ISSUE
Facts which are the occasion, cause or effect, immediate or otherwise, of
relevant facts or facts in issue, or which constitute the state of things under
which they happened or which afforded an opportunity of their occurrence or
transaction, are relevant.

Illustration B-marks
The discovery of the flipper which had been previously CUT can be
considered as relevant fact as it shows the effect of the action of
murder
Illustration C-opportunity
The facts that Appellant knew that Jenny has little experience in scuba
diving is relevant because it open opportunity to him to commit the
offence. It was also known to him that the waters were dangerous and
hazardous; yet, he still brought her to the island and let her to go down
alone.

SECTION 8: MOTIVE, PREPARATION AND PREVIOUS OR SUBSEQUENT


CONDUCT
(1) Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation
for any fact in issue or relevant fact.
(2) The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or
proceeding in reference to that suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact
in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an
offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant if the
conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and
whether it was previous or subsequent thereto.

MOTIVE
Motive is that which induces a person to do a particular act. In
this case, the appellant had been made a bankrupt in October 1962
and was still a bankrupt on 27 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. There are several
occasions to prove this contention.
1. On 27 August 1963, Jenny was insured against accidents with
several insurance companies, the total sum being $450,000.
2. Insurance policies, which was for the sum of $100, 00 was due to
expire on the 28th August 1963.
3. One of the insurance policies lapsed on 26 th August 1963 but
Appellant had renewed it in the morning of 27 th August 1963. He
however did not renew/extend his own insurance policy.
4. The beneficiary named in some of the policies was Appellants
mother.
5. Jenny made a will on the 7 th August 1963 in which Appellants
mother was named as the sole beneficiary. She was
accompanied by Appellant.

Thus, it shown that the appellant has the motive to murder Jenny in order
to get the money

PREPARATION
Preparation is a preliminary act which leads to the commission of the
offence. In this case, Appellant had hired a boat to take him and Jenny
to the Sisters island. He had brought all the equipment for the purpose
of diving (including the flippers) but only Jenny went down to the sea.
Furthermore, before the trip, he also ensure that all the insurance
policy belonging to Jenny were still ongoing and not expired. The fact
that he had been to the island previously can also been taken as a
form of preparation to ensure that the waters were unsafe and less
possibility of survival.

SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT
The subsequent conducts of the Appellants were also relevant as it
create suspicion. First, according to the boatman, the Appellant
behaved normally all through the diving trip, despite facing the loss of
his lover. Second, he did not go down into the water himself to look for
her. These indicate the lack of urgency in the conduct of the Appellant.
Last but not least, less than 24 hours after the disappearance, the
Appellant made formal claims to all the insurance companies.
These subsequent conducts are relevant to determine the fact in issue
in particular to determine whether he had murdered Jenny.