20 July 2009 - Two Malaysian men face death penalty

[Watchman]

Two Malaysian men face death penalty for allegedly causing death
By Jessica Yeo, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 20 July 2009 2342 hrs


SINGAPORE: Two Malaysian men face the death penalty for allegedly causing the death of a 40-year-old Chinese national in February last year.

Galing Kujat and Jabing Kho, both aged 25 and hail from Sawarak, have denied the charge. They said they had no intention of killing Cao Ruyin, but did not deny robbing him.

Cao, a foreign worker, was walking to Kallang MRT station with his friend Wu Jun, when they were attacked at the open space at Geylang Drive in the evening.

Wu, who was also hurt in the attack, managed to flee and called the police. He got back to find Cao lying at the roadside, with his face covered in blood.

Cao suffered severe head injuries and died in Tan Tock Seng Hospital six days later.

Cao's stolen phone was passed to a third accomplice, who later sold it to a second-hand dealer for S$200.

The prosecution said it was through the second-hand dealer that police managed to track down Galing and Jabing.

They both face three charges each but the prosecution will only proceed with the murder charge.

The trial continues, with Wu expected to take the stand on Tuesday

 

[Cao Pi]

2 Sarawakians get death


Jul 31, 2010
2 Sarawakians get death

<!-- by line --> By Selina Lum
<!-- end by line -->
<!-- end left side bar -->

Galing Kujat (left) and Jabing Kho robbed and murdered a Chinese national in Geylang. -- PHOTO: SINGAPORE POLICE FORCE

TWO Sarawakian men who bashed to death a Chinese national while robbing him were on Friday convicted of murder and sentenced to the mandatory death penalty. Jabing Kho had struck Mr Cao Ruyin, a construction worker, on the head with a tree branch with such force that his accomplice, Galing Kujat, saw their 40-year-old victim's head crack open.

An autopsy found that Mr Cao suffered 14 fractures to his skull. Justice Kan Ting Chiu, in convicting the two 26-year-olds, found that the duo had a common intention to commit robbery, and while carrying out that crime, Jabing intentionally inflicted head injuries on Mr Cao, which were sufficient to cause death.

On the night of Feb 17, 2008, Mr Cao and another Chinese worker, Mr Wu Jun, were walking along Geylang Drive when they were set upon by Galing and Jabing. Mr Cao, who was robbed of his mobile phone, died from serious injuries to his brain six days later, while Mr Wu escaped with minor injuries.

Read the full story in Saturday's edition of The Straits Times.
<!-- story content : end -->

 

[wahlaneh]

Re: 2 Sarawakians get death

wahlaneh...
早知今日何必当初呢？
earlier know today why that time leh?

 

[Snowman]

Convicted murderer Jabing Kho to hang after failing in bid to commute death sentence

Sarawakian Jabing Kho in a 2010 photograph. PHOTO: SINGAPORE POLICE FORCE

Published Apr 5, 2016, 9:46 am SGT
Selina Lum

SINGAPORE - Convicted murderer Jabing Kho's eleventh-hour bid to quash his death sentence, which he made last year less than 24 hours before he was due to be hanged, has failed.

A five-judge Court of Appeal - the same panel that gave a 3-2 split decision last year in favour of sending him to the gallows - on Tuesday (April 5) unanimously threw out the Malaysian’s attempt to escape the hangman's noose.

Kho was calm on hearing the decision but his mother and sister, who came to Singapore from Sarawak for the judgment, sobbed uncontrollably as they talked to him before he was led away by guards.

In 2008, Kho, 31, who is from Sarawak, bludgeoned Chinese national Cao Ruyin, 40, with a tree branch while robbing him, together with an accomplice. Mr Cao died of head injuries six days later.

Kho has gone through many twists and turns since he and his accomplice were given the death penalty - then mandatory for murder - in 2010.

The accomplice, who used his belt buckle as a weapon, escaped the gallows after successfully appealing for his charge to be reduced to robbery with hurt.

Kho's appeal failed. But he was re-sentenced to life imprisonment by the High Court in 2013, after the law was changed to give judges the discretion to opt for a life term for murder with no intention to cause death.

A five-judge Court of Appeal is mulling over whether to quash Jabing Kho's death sentence after hearing his lawyer's arguments.

But the prosecution appealed, arguing that Kho's vicious crime warranted the death penalty.

In January last year, the five-judge appeal court gave a 3-2 decision to send Kho to the gallows. The case was landmark as it laid down the legal principle for judges to apply when deciding when the death penalty was warranted in murder cases where it is discretionary.

Kho's case attracted the attention of human rights groups, including local outfit We Believe in Second Chances.

He was due to go to the gallows on Nov 6 last year, after his appeal for clemency was rejected by the President the month before.

Less than 24 hours before he was to be hanged, lawyer Chandra Mohan K. Nair got a temporary stay of execution to prepare his case and later argued for the appeal court to reopen the case.

Dismissing the bid on Tuesday (April 5), Judge of Appeal Chao Hick Tin noted that the number of applications to the court to revisit its decisions - which are supposed to be final - have “increased dramatically in recent years”. Of the 24 criminal motions filed to the Court of Appeal last year, 11 were applications to reopen concluded criminal appeals, such as Kho’s.

Justice Chao said that finality is an integral part of justice as the legal system cannot function if all decisions were subject to “constant and unceasing challenge”. Also, the filing of unmeritorious applications to revisit concluded cases take up scarce judicial resources, which could be used to hear fresh appeals.

The power of the appeal court to reopen a concluded criminal appeal is to be exercised sparingly, and only in "exceptional" circumstances, he said. The applicant must put forward new material, which is reliable and substiantial, and must also show that a decision has been tainted by fraud or a breach of natural justice.

But in Kho’s case, “there is very little in the way of new material, let alone material which is compelling and which justifies the exceptional recourse of a review".

Justice Chao said Kho's application was just "an attempt to re-litigate a matter which had already been fully argued and thoroughly considered".