The appellant was charged and convicted on 13 November 1987 before a district court on the following charge:

You, Sim Ah Ngoh, F/43 years, NRIC No 2145572/I are charged that you, on or about 18 February 1987, at about 12.30 am at Block 8 Pacific Mansion #02-12, River Valley Road, Singapore, together with Lim Ting Khat and Ong Seng Kim in furtherance of the common intention of you all, committed robbery of:

a a Rolex wrist watch valued $2,500

b cash $1,000

c NRIC 1082651-I and Tat Lee gold card in the name of Goh Joo Whatt (total vld: $3,500)

in the possession of one, Goh Joo Whatt, m/53 and at the time of committing the said robbery, you were armed with deadly weapons, to wit, 2 knives, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under ss 392 and 397 read with s 34 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.

She was sentenced by the learned district judge to a term of imprisonment of three years. She is now appealing against both conviction and sentence.

In essence, counsel for the appellant raised two main grounds of appeal:

(i) The conviction is wrong in law: the evidence of the prosecution, even if accepted in toto, does not prove the charge.

(ii) The learned district judge failed to scrutinize carefully the evidence of the two accomplices, upon whose evidence the conviction rests; and the conviction is against the weight of the evidence and is obviously wrong.

Prosecution's case

The evidence led by the prosecution showed that the appellant, who is married to the victim Goh Joo Whatt, learned sometime in early 1987 that her husband, who had a mistress, intended to seek a divorce from her. She had refused to give him a divorce. They had been living apart since 1984. In order to hit back at her husband, she asked two persons, one Lim Ting Khai ('Lim') and one Ong Seng Kim ('Ong'), to rob and to teach her husband and his mistress a lesson.

On 18 February 1987, at about 9.30 pm, the appellant and the two accomplices were waiting at the carpark of the Pacific Mansion building for the return of their victim. At about 12.30 am, the victim returned and went up to his apartment. The two accomplices followed the victim and as soon as he unlocked the apartment door, they rushed at him and pushed him into the apartment. They used glue to cover his eyes and tied his hands and legs with cloth strips. Also present in the apartment was one Wong Ng Mui (PW2), who was also tied up by the two accomplices and her eyes were glued. Lim and Ong were carrying knives. The victim testified that Wong Ng Mui was his live-in servant. But in cross-examination, Wong Ng Mui eventually admitted that she was the victim's mistress.

The fact that a robbery occurred at the early hours of 18/19 February 1987 as just described was not in dispute. The dispute related to the role of the appellant in it. According to Lim, who was formerly an employee of the appellant for six months, the latter wanted Lim to teach an enemy of the appellant (and the wife) a lesson by robbing and beating them. She even bought a knife for him for that purpose. At the request of the appellant, Lim roped in Ong to help out in the task.

On that fateful evening at about 7.30 pm, Lim, as pre-arranged, picked up the appellant at a petrol kiosk. She gave him some super glue and some cloth strips. Together they went to fetch Ong. All three arrived at Pacific Mansion at about 10.00 pm. As they did not see the car of the victim at the carpark, they waited until he returned well past midnight. Lim and Ong followed the victim up the apartment and the subsequent events were as described above. Throughout the robbery, it would appear that the appellant remained downstairs at the car park. She was waiting for Lim to call her through the pager to go up to the apartment. Lim and Ong were supposed to tie up and blindfold the victim first. At one point in cross-examination, Lim said the appellant was downstairs at the staircase. Lim said he gave the appellant $200 as her share of the procee