Brothel operator convicted of murdering pimp seeks to avoid death penalty
A brothel operator who was convicted of killing a pimp is seeking the court to impose life imprisonment instead of the death penalty on him.
On Wednesday (3 April), Chan Lie Sian sought to show that he had not intended to cause the death of his subordinate William Tiah Hung Wai during a Court of Appeal hearing. The three judges -Chief Justice (CJ) Sundaresh Menon and Judges of Appeal Andrew Phang and Judith Prakesh – have reserved judgement for the case.
Chan was convicted in May 2017 of murder under Section 300(a) of the Penal Code, which carries a mandatory death sentence. Under Section 300(a), an accused person intended to cause death.
The brutal assault arose after Chan suspected that Tiah had stolen $6,000 from him. On 14 January 2014, Chan summoned Tiah to see him as he wanted the pimp to confess but Tiah denied stealing the money.
The incident, which occurred in a brothel at Lorong 18 Geylang, resulted in Tiah’s death after Chan delivered four to six blows to his head with a dumbbell rod. Tiah was rendered unconscious and died in a hospital seven days later.
During the hearing, Chan’s lawyer Wendell Wong sought to reduce Chan’s murder charge to the lesser charge of voluntarily causing grievous hurt with a weapon on the grounds of sudden fight or provocation.
The punishment for causing grievous hurt with a weapon is a maximum jail term of 15 years, with fine or caning.
“(Chan) wanted to teach the deceased a lesson, albeit it was a mistaken lesson about honour amongst brothers not to steal from each other but it was not to teach a lesson in death,” Wong said.
The trial judge had erred in convicting Chan under 300(a) and in finding that the attack was vicious, Wong said.
He pointed out that expert forensic reports had agreed that only one of the numerous blows inflicted on the victim was fatal.
However, CJ Menon rejected the argument, noting that Tiah and Chan were not equals in the first place. “(Chan) established himself as the most powerful man in the room so I don’t think it is easy to persuade us that this was a fight between brothers,” said the CJ.
The defence lawyer also sought to argue for Chan to be convicted under Section 300(c). Under this limb, a person who is convicted of intending to cause bodily injury that is sufficient to cause death may be sentenced to either death or life imprisonment with caning.
The lawyer sought to establish that Chan’s attacks were not targetted at Tiah’s head by pointing out that there were injuries on Tiah’s limbs as well. His argument spurred Judge of Appeal Phang to point out that the additional blows also “enhanced the overall” savagery of the attack.
Chan’s conduct after the attack showed that he had no intention to kill, Wong further argued. He had allowed a band-aid to be applied on Tiah and asked for a pail of water to be splashed on the victim, hoping to revive him.
However, Deputy Public Prosecutor April Phang said that the pail of water was meant to clean up the scene, rather than to revive Tiah.
“This was a confrontation motivated by intimidation. It was extortion. There was no prospect of this ending well for Tiah if he did not say what (Chan) wanted to hear,” said DPP Phang.
Tiah did not admit to taking the money, which spurred the attack, said the prosecution. Chan disregarded Tiah’s life and even tried to cover up his offence, it added.
DPP Phang also pointed out that Chan had dissuaded others from calling for an ambulance, causing Tiah to only be sent to hospital at around 6pm, long after the assault took place around 11am.
CJ Menon replied that he “struggled” to accept that Chan had the specific intention to kill Tiah given his conduct after the incident, including Chan splashing water on Tiah.
The chief justice said, “If things had stopped at the attack and nothing else happened, you would be on much stronger grounds (to argue) 300(a), but you cannot ignore the totality of what happened. If you look at that, it just doesn’t stack up.”
Related story
