Blood Lust (3 page)

In their
Grounds of
Judgement
, published later, the Judges said: ‘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
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. 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 Andrew’s errand boy and was all the time acting under
his orders. David Chou was in charge of operations, while Peter Lim Swee Guan
was the person who recruited the ‘boys’.”

Together with Augustine Ang, Andrew Chou,
his brother and Peter Lim were the principal conspirators to kill the gold
dealer and his two assistants for their gold. The Judges said they had no
difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the common object of all nine accused
was to kill the three men.

The only witness whose evidence implicated
all the accused was Augustine Ang, Andrew Chou’s long-time friend. He was a
self-confessed murderer and was undoubtedly an accomplice. “We looked to see if
there was corroborative evidence which confirmed in some material particular
not only the evidence of Augustine Ang that the crime or crimes were in fact
committed, but also his evidence that each of the accused committed the three
offences charged. There was clearly no corroboration of Augustine Ang’s
evidence,” said the Judges. “We therefore warned ourselves of the danger of
acting on the uncorroborated evidence of Augustine Ang. Augustine Ang was in
the witness box for nine days, out of which seven were spent in his
cross-examination. The cross-examination was not only long but also severe and
very thorough as he was repeatedly questioned by five different counsels on all
the essential facts of the prosecution’s case. His answers were consistent
throughout. Furthermore, we observed his demeanour very closely while he was
giving evidence in the witness box. It did not appear from his manner and
conduct that he was inclined either to shuffle, to prevaricate, or to speak
that which was false. He appeared to us to have all the marks of sincere
contrition and we were well satisfied that, however iniquitous or obnoxious his
former conduct had been, he was determined to speak the truth to the Court. We
also studied his evidence in the light of the other evidence adduced by the
prosecution and he struck us as a truthful witness notwithstanding the role he
played in the whole affair. We had no hesitation in acting upon his evidence.”

Augustine Ang was visibly moved when the
Judges pronounced the death sentences on the two Chou brothers and the other
five accused. All seven appealed. At the appeal, in November 1973, a British
Queen’s Counsel, Mr Basil T. Wigoder, on behalf of the Chou brothers, submitted
that the observation of the trial Judges that Ang was a truthful witness was
‘wholly unwarranted and unsupported by the evidence’.

Mr Wigoder argued that Augustine Ang was not
only a self-confessed murderer but was also a self-confessed liar with the
strongest possible motive of implicating all the other accused in order to
exculpate himself.

Mr Wigoder’s first ground of appeal was that
the Judges erred in law and in fact in refusing the application of defence
counsel for separate trials and had thereby unfairly prejudiced the trial of
the two brothers.

Referring to the Judges’
Grounds of
Decision
, Mr Wigoder said that the Judges had erred in law and in
fact in finding that Augustine Ang was a truthful witness and that his
uncorroborated evidence could be accepted. Although the Judges found Ang to be
a self-confessed murderer and an accomplice they had described him in terms of
a ‘glowing testimonial for an applicant for high office’. Queen’s Counsel
continued: “The Judges had to come to that conclusion, that Ang was speaking
the truth, if they were to uphold their finding of guilty against Andrew and
David because once an element of doubt was allowed to creep in, one would be
left with no corroboration. Their observations are wholly unwarranted and
unsupported by the evidence at the trial. I submit that when one looks at the
way Ang’s evidence went, the trial Judges must have been wrong by taking the
view that they did.”

Mr Wigoder went on to point out that Ang at
the time was under detention and did not know whether these charges would be
preferred against him again. In other words, he was in a position of
excruciating difficulty, so much so that in English law, such a position would
not be allowed to arise at all.

Mr Wigoder also submitted that the finding
that Ang was merely the errand boy taking instructions from Andrew was
untenable. He said it was Ang who took the decision to exceed the bounds of the
plot and turn it into a killing. He submitted that in order to make out a case
on the charges, the prosecution had to prove that murder was in fact the common
object; that the common object was by members of an unlawful assembly and each
accused was a member of such an assembly at the time of the murder. The trial
court did not take any heed, counsel said, of the possibility that the accused
had other defences in mind and did not know that murder was likely to be
committed. It was clear from the evidence that three men had been attacked at
the brothers’ home and that having been attacked, they either died there or
shortly afterwards. “It was also not disputed that at the time of the attack
all nine accused were either in or around the house, and that there was a tenth
man, Augustine Ang, who was called by the prosecution as their principal
witness. The real issue was to which, if any, of the ten men should the charges
be brought home by the prosecution. It is clear that the motive of the attack
was one of robbery.” This, he said, had arisen from the fact that the gold
dealer was engaged in illicit dealings of gold bars. Added Mr Wigoder: “It
would be tempting to regard all the explanations as untrue because of nine
varying explanations, but the Court must rather take each explanation on its
individual merit.”

Mr Wigoder conceded that Andrew’s defence,
that he did not conspire to kill but had only conspired to rob the dealer of
the gold, stipulating that no violence should be used, if accepted, clearly
involved him in other offences of some gravity. But it was equally clear that
Andrew’s account was a defence against the three charges, and that he was not
at any time a member of an unlawful assembly whose common object was to kill.
The same could be said of David whose defence was that he turned down Andrew’s
invitation to assist in the robbery but had been persuaded to help overpower a
man that night.

Reviewing the 10-day testimony of Ang at the
trial, counsel submitted that it was quite clear from Ang’s evidence that
Andrew and David were parties to premeditated murder and robbery, ‘and this
cannot be disputed’. The question then was whether it was safe to accept Ang’s
evidence or regard him as a reliable witness. “One must recognise that Ang’s
position in the witness box was obviously very difficult. He was giving
evidence in November 1972 about events that took place in December 1971. He was
also subjected to the cross-examination of various counsel for five days. The
Court might well consider that Ang must be a superhuman person if some error
did not emerge in those circumstances. But it is not merely such errors that we
are referring to. What in fact transpired was one instance after another in
which he changed his story in circumstances which are impossible to attribute
to a mistake. Ang was deliberately lying. There were cumulative occasions when
he contradicted himself as well as other evidence. This is consistent with our
submission that he was relying heavily on his imagination in his endeavour to
spread the blame on as many people as possible.”

Mr Wigoder submitted that the trial Judges
erred in finding that there was no evidence that Ang had tried to exculpate
himself at the expense of the others. He asked: “In view of all these facts, is
it reasonable to come to the conclusion that this man was a witness of truth, a
reliable witness?” The case against the Chou brothers, counsel added, turned on
the wholly uncorroborated evidence of Ang who was an accomplice. Mr Wigoder
cited authorities on the dangers of convicting accused on such unconfirmed
evidence and argued that the Court of Criminal Appeal should regard such
convictions with caution.

Mr Wigoder addressed Chief Justice Wee,
sitting with Justice Winslow and Justice Kulasekaram, for three days. In his
concluding remarks, he argued that the undisputed facts in the case were
consistent with a variety of common objects other than murder. He added that
the trial Judges had erred in finding that David was in charge of operations of
a plot he knew hardly anything about. The trial Judges, whose findings fell
squarely on the evidence of the prosecution’s key witness, Augustine Ang, also
did not consider the question of whether there were common objects other than
murder. There was also, counsel contended, no supporting evidence for that part
of Ang’s testimony which incriminated the Chou brothers, so that once Ang was
shown to be untruthful and unreliable one would only be left with the
undisputed facts in the case. Even the implements that were chosen to carry out
the attack on the victims—that is, rope and cloth—were far more consistent with
robbery and abduction than with murder.

Mr Wigoder continued: “When the bodies were
found, there was a piece of cloth wound around the neck of one victim and a
piece of nylon cord on top of another victim’s body. These are curious facts
which perhaps indicate that something happened of which we know very little
about … something that happened after some of the accused left Chepstow Close
with the victims.” The undisputed facts were consistent with a variety of
common objects, such as robbery and abduction of the victims, a mere disposal
of the bodies or even assault with the knowledge of robbery, believing it to be
business revenge. “All these common objects are possible and it is difficult to
distinguish between them. It is not sufficient for the prosecution to say that
since it is clear that there was an unlawful assembly and there was murder,
therefore the common object was murder. It is essential to prove that each
member of the unlawful assembly had intended to kill. The Court had powers to
convict the accused of any offence which was disclosed by the evidence even if
that offence was different from the one for which the accused was charged. In
this case it would be difficult to contend that on Andrew’s own evidence a case
for robbery and abduction could not be made out against him and that a case for
robbery and assault could not be proved against David.”

Three Singapore counsel followed Mr Wigoder,
representing the rest of the accused. They were Mr G. Gopalan, who made no
reference to Augustine Ang’s testimony; Mr Leo Fernando, who described Ang as a
‘diabolical bar with the Sword of Damocles hanging over his head’; and Mr J.B.
Jeyaretnam, who said that his main ground of appeal was that Ang’s evidence was
insufficient in law and in fact to find his clients guilty. There must be a
doubt for the evidence was ‘too unsatisfactory, nebulous, and vague’.

Answering all the points submitted by
defence counsel, the Solicitor-General, Mr Ghows, submitted that the trial
Judges were right in law in allowing a joint trial of all the accused: there
was no reason for the Court of Appeal to interfere with their decision. As for
the evidence of Augustine Ang, the prosecution had to rely on the evidence of
self-confessed cheats and self-confessed murderers because ‘obviously, simple,
God-fearing people don’t get themselves involved in things like these’. Mr
Ghows said that most of the discrepancies in Ang’s evidence were due to his
poor knowledge of English. At the preliminary inquiry, his evidence was quite
slipshod and careless. His explanation was that his mind was disturbed then.
“He had made so many contradictions and discrepancies, but an honest mistake is
poles apart from dishonesty which was alleged by defence counsel. The trial
Judges have discovered him to be a truthful witness.” As for Mr Wigoder’s point
about other common objects, the Solicitor-General sought to demolish that with
the argument that although all the accused may have had other objects, ‘the
point is that it is clear as daylight that murder was an object common to them
all’.

After an eight-day hearing, the Court of
Criminal Appeal reserved judgement. Four months later, the Chief Justice and
his two colleagues announced their decision to dismiss all the appeals. The
Appeal Court rejected the submissions of counsel that the trial Judges were
wrong in their finding that all nine accused had the common object to kill the
victims. The Appeal Court also upheld the trial Judges’ finding that Augustine
Ang, although an accomplice, was a truthful witness, and that there was
sufficient evidence to warrant the conviction of all the accused.

“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 ... We are of the opinion that the trial Judges
were correct in refusing the application for separate trials.”

The seven condemned men petitioned for
special leave to appeal to the Privy Council against the decisions of the
Singapore Court of Criminal Appeal. Once again, the two Chou brothers were
represented by the same British QC, now elevated to the English peerage. Lord
Wigoder was opposed by Mr Christopher French, QC, representing the Singapore
Public Prosecutor. On 4 December 1974, the Privy Council’s Judicial Committee
turned down the petitions. Only one hope for the seven condemned men then
remained. This was a plea for mercy to the President. On 22 February 1975, it
was reported that President Sheares had rejected the clemency petitions. Six
days later, at 6:00
am
. All seven
were hanged.