1966 MarsdenLR 210
FEDERAL COURT (KUALA LUMPUR)
WEE CHONG JIN, CJ, TAN AH TAH, FJ, AMBROSE, J
OSMAN & ANOR
versus
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. Y5 OF 1965
Decided On : 10-05-66
For the appellants - AJ Braga (AJ Braga & Co.) For the respondent - Francis Seow (Attorney General s Chambers)
Wee Chong Jin CJ:
The appellants were tried before FA Chua J in the High Court of Singapore on three charges under s. 302 of the Penal Code for the murder of Susie Choo Kay Hoi, Juliet Goh Hwee Kuang and Yasin bin Kesit on 10 March 1965 at about 3.07pm at MacDonald House, Orchard Road, Singapore.
The trial was held under the Emergency (Criminal Trials) Regulations 1964 and at the conclusion of the trial FA Chua J found both appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them accordingly.
The facts are relatively simple. On 10 March 1965 at about 3pm some one or more persons placed on the landing of the mezzanine floor of MacDonald House, a non-military building housing a bank and the offices of several commercial firms, about 20 to 25 lbs of explosives of the nitro-glycerine group, which shortly thereafter exploded resulting in the death of the three persons mentioned in the charges. Thirty other persons who were in the building and outside it at the time of the explosion were also injured, and the lifts and the mezzanine floor of the building were badly damaged.
Two of the deceased, Susie Choo and Juliet Goh, were secretaries working in an office on the mezzanine floor, and the third deceased, Yasin, was a driver who was found seriously injured on the road outside MacDonald House. He died two days later from intracranial and blast injuries.
Three days later, on the morning of 13 March at about 8am the appellants, who are Indonesians, were found hanging on to a floating plank in the sea off Pulau Sebarok in Malaysian waters and rescued by two men in a bumboat.
At the time of their rescue, the first appellant was bare-bodied and wearing a pair of civilian trousers, while the second appellant was wearing a sports shirt and a pair of civilian trousers. On rescue they told the boatmen they were fishermen whose boat had capsized. Soon after they were handed over to the marine police who were in a passing marine police boat and brought ashore to Singapore.
They were then taken to the Marine Police Station. They arrived there at about 11.05am as also did their two rescuers, Lee Ah Paw and Tay Woon Lim. Inspector Mahmud of the marine police took charge of the appellants and had them placed in the passageway of the lockup. The inspector, after recording a statement from Tay Woon Lim, the taikong of the bumboat, formally charged the first appellant with having entered a controlled area, an offence under the Internal Security Act. At that time there was a state of 'confrontation' by Indonesia against Malaysia.
Immediately thereafter it occurred to the inspector that the appellants might be able to throw some light on the MacDonald House explosion. As a result of questions put to the first appellant and his replies thereto, the inspector contacted the Special Investigation Section of the Criminal Investigation Department. After he had dealt with the first appellant, inspector Mahmud next charged the second appellant with having entered a controlled area.
At about 1.15pm the same day Senior I nspector Hill of the Special Investigation Section of the Criminal Investigation Department arrived at the Marine Police Station and took over the investigations from inspector Mahmud.
At 1.25pm Mr. Hill commenced interrogating the first appellant with the assistance of Saruan, a Malay translator attached to the criminal investigation department, as interpreter. The interrogation, which took place in a room in the marine police station in which no one else was present, began with a caution administered by Mr. Hill through the interpreter Saruan to the first appellant in the following terms: 'You are not obliged to say, but anything you say may be given in evidence'. Thereafter, the interrogation took the form of questions and answers which were duly recorded by Mr. Hill and subsequently read back to the first appellant, who signed the recorded questions and answers without making any corrections thereto, although he was expressly info