Cold Blooded Murders (30 page)

Another witness was asked: “What were they
supposed to do after killing Dutton?”

“Escape in boats.”

Goh Kheng Wah, another witness, was asked by
Mr Braga whether he had an old grudge against one of the accused.

Goh Kheng Wah: No.

Mr Braga: There was an incident at
Changi concerning a septic tank?

Goh Kheng Wah: At Changi I worked as a
man who swept the floor, served the people, served them with food.

Mr Braga: I suggest the accused asked
you to help him in the repair of a septic tank some months ago?

Goh Kheng Wah: No.

Mr Braga: And you nearly had a fight
over it?”

Goh Kheng Wah: No.

Interpreter: One of the accused is
vomitting, my Lord.

Judge: Have him moved and we will
adjourn for a moment. Is he unwell?

Interpreter: He is Chua Hai Imm.

Judge: Take the poor fellow below.

He was taken below.

Judge: Get someone to clean it up.

Interpreter: I have sent for the
sweeper to come.

Judge: And with speed.

The man had a pain in his chest. The Court
adjourned until the afternoon when a doctor’s chit was produced certifying that
he was fit to stand trial. The accused told the Judge that he did not feel so
bad, but ‘I’m afraid that when I get the wind the vomit will come out’.

Judge: Can you please let me know when
he feels it coming on again?

The following day another prisoner was taken
ill with stomach-ache. He went downstairs for two minutes to take pills.

Later Tan Kheng Ann said he felt ill and was
taken downstairs for five minutes.

Naturally defence counsel set out to
discredit prosecution witnesses if they could.

One witness complained he was confused when
counsel after counsel asked him the same questions or variations of them. How
many were in the mob which attacked? What time was that? Exactly where? What
was the time?

“I have no watch,” repeated the witness.
“You want me to answer yes, or no, some want me to make guess, to estimate. I
am confused.”

Mr Braga asked Low Ah Kow, a former detainee
turned settlement staff, whether he took part in the riot. Low had said he was
looking after the non-rioters and trying to see who were taking part in the
riot. “If I were to take part in the fight all the staff might have been killed,
in which case there would have been no witnesses at all.”

Judge: Entirely logical; we would not
be here either.

On Monday, 9 December, the Judge announced
that he had received a note from the prison hospital regarding Chua Hai Imm. He
was found to be in a state of hysteria. He was referred to a psychiatrist. The
Judge had no option but to adjourn. The Court met the next day when the Judge
said he had received a certificate to the effect that Chua would be unable to
appear for a week. The Court accordingly adjourned. They met the following
Monday. Chua returned, certified fit. But then another man went down, followed
by another.

The danger of which Mr Ball had warned,
(that a mass trial could collapse if but one single prisoner fell ill) now
seriously threatened the proceedings. What should be done?

Crown Counsel suggested that rather than
hold up the trial, the Judge should order a discharge not amounting to an
acquittal, of the two sick prisoners, and continue with the trial of the
others.

Judge: You have no authority you can
give me in support of that?

Mr Francis Seow: I have not been able
to find any authority.

Mr Ball (on behalf of the two sick
men): I cannot find anything in the Halsbury Criminal Law in England in regard
to the discharge of the jury partially. My submission is that if Your Lordship
pronounces the words, the jury is discharged then, and the jury is discharged
in respect of all.

Judge: This could go on and this trial
will become a farce, which I want to avoid.

Mr Ball: If there is an application for
an adjournment then Your Lordship ought to discharge the jury and the
prosecution should consider whether they should not then have separate trials
as we applied for in the first instance.

Judge:
The same position could arise, not with the same magnitude
as
this, with only one accused.

The Judge said that in this matter he
expected all the counsel to consider the matter carefully. “You are all
officers of the court. While you have a prime duty to your clients, you also
have a duty to see to the administration of the law. And what we have all got
to try to see is that this case shall be concluded in a proper and fair
manner.” He adjourned the Court until Wednesday, 18 December.

When the Court reassembled the Judge said he
had received two further certificates. They said that the two prisoners would
be absent for another week. The Judge said he had come to the very clear
conclusion that the Prosecutor’s suggestion was inappropriate. This could go on
week after week. An accused feels unwell. The prison doctor sends him to
Woodbridge Mental Hospital, and the Woodbridge doctor keeps him for a week’s
observation. “If this happened to every one of the accused we could sit here
for over a year while the accused go to and from Woodbridge. The position would
be a complete farce. What has been exercising my mind is how to plug the hole.
What do you suggest?”

Mr Francis Seow: My Lord, may I suggest
we send them all down to Woodbridge. My application is that the accused be
remanded in custody for observation by the psychiatrist.

Judge: That would take months.

Mr Francis Seow: The psychiatrist says
a year.

Judge: What do you suggest—that we sit
and simply go into cold storage for a year?

Mr Seow eventually asked for the jury to be
discharged in respect of all the accused because of the illness of some of
them.

Mr Ball opposed this. “It would be unfair
and improper for persons to have to stand 16 days’ trial and then, for a reason
which is quite beyond their control, to have their jury discharged and be
obliged to stand another trial at a later date.” He asked the Judge to direct
the jury to acquit some of them before the jury was discharged.

Judge: On what grounds do you suggest
that the jury should discharge some of the accused, and in which case, which
accused, Ball?

Mr Ball: Well, I should say all my
accused, naturally.

Judge: Are you making this application
seriously, Mr Ball?

Mr Ball: I think it is my duty to do
so.

Judge: I should like some authority on
this. On what grounds do you suggest I should discharge your clients, or the
jury should acquit them?

Mr Ball: On the grounds that serious
injustice would be done if the jury is discharged at this stage, after 16 days
of trial and for no reason of their own.

The Judge thought the application completely
without merit. The rest of the defence counsel addressed the Judge. They all
opposed the discharge of the jury except Mr Suppiah, who did not object.

Mr Francis Seow: You have discretion
under section 191 of the Criminal Procedure Code to discharge the jury ...

Judge: Section 191 applies only to
where one accused or two or three accused went sick and cannot stand trial;
then of course the jury will be discharged. But here we have, say, 57 accused
perfectly fit and they want their fates decided. Two have fallen by the
wayside. We can either wait, adjourn, or we can go on without them. What you
are asking me to do is to discharge the jury from this case though there are 57
accused ready and willing to be tried. I don’t think I can do it … If it
happens again, the accused must be brought here with the doctor. I shall have
the doctor put in the witness box and I shall question him myself. I am not
going to accept his certificates any further. I shall require the doctor’s
personal presence. As I say, I am not going to have this trial jettisoned or
sabotaged. It is going on if we sit for a year. I hope I have made that clear
to everybody—to the accused and their counsel? Mr Seow your application is
overruled. The case will proceed. You must decide what you are going to do with
the two absent accused.

Mr Seow asked for a week’s adjournment. Mr
Ball opposed the adjournment. Before making his decision, the Judge ordered the
prison doctor and the director of Woodbridge Hospital to be brought before him
immediately after the lunch break.

Dr S.K. Leong said he examined Lim Thiam
Huat. “I was told at the hospital that he had suddenly turned mad.” The doctor
said he examined him and found that his general condition was satisfactory. He
was shouting and yelling and his whole body was covered with excreta. He had
poured a pot of his own excreta over himself. “I gave him an injection to calm
him down and advised a transfer to Woodbridge for observation.” Questioned by
the Judge as to whether it was a genuine case or not, the doctor said he was
not prepared to say. For one reason, he was not qualified to judge. As for Khoo
Geok San, he was found lying on the floor in his cell—same symptoms. He was very
excited and he was mumbling.

Judge: Can you tell me if this was done
deliberately or whether it was as a result of something he was suffering from?
You cannot help me?

Dr Leong: I do not think so.

Judge: Doctor, I must impress upon you.
You must look upon this with the greatest care. You see we are trying here a
number of accused persons. And if this trial is being held up—it may be
perfectly proper—but I have to be satisfied that it is being properly held up.
The only people who can help me are people like you, and presumably Dr Wong. I
must try to get to the root of this matter. If it is held up through illness,
perfectly proper. And if it is feigned it has got to be stopped and I am going
to stop it.

Judge (to Dr Wong): Now doctor, we are
engaged on a very serious and arduous trial and my duty is to see that it is
conducted fairly, according to law, without let or hindrance and I am
determined to see that it shall be.

Dr Wong: Lim Thian Huat was
malingering. It was feigned insanity. He will be sent back tomorrow. I can let
you know about Khoo Geok San by Friday.

The Court adjourned until Monday.

All the accused were in the dock again on 23
December, Dr Wong having sent back Khoo with a certificate that he feigned
insanity and was fit to stand trial. The Judge addressed the Court and told the
accused again that they might be able to delay the trial, but tried they would
be, and according to law. He also warned counsel that it was not their duty to
sit back with a complacent smile while this sort of conduct was undertaken by
clients. It was their duty to advise their clients. If by their silence they
sat back and allowed this conduct to continue, they would have to take the
consequences.

Mr Ball: Your Lordship seems to have
said something gravely reflecting on the conduct of counsel in this case, and I
for my part, if I may, respectfully protest to that, especially as to any
manner of demeanour. If there has been anything improper in my demeanour I
apologise, of course, but I really must protest because I have not.

Judge: Mr Ball, you said last week,
when we were arguing on the question of what had to be done, that it was
through no fault of the accused here that we were in this position. Now nothing
in my view could be more misleading or incorrect. It was entirely due to the
conduct of your two clients that we are in the position we are today. I don’t
propose to argue any further. Will you please resume your seat.

When the trial re-started again on 23
December suddenly it was noticed that Khoo (alias Stonehead) had fallen asleep.

Judge: Sit up properly.

Official: He doesn’t want to.

Judge: Well, make him. If necessary,
tie him. I am not going to have the administration of justice flouted in this
fashion.

‘Stonehead’ was duly strapped to the
bench on which he sat.

Judge: If others feel so tempted they
will be treated similarly. If necessary I will have a guard to each prisoner.

‘
Stonehead’ again interrupted the proceedings in the afternoon when
Ball said his client felt unwell having had a ‘lumbar puncture’. He was given a
chair and told to make himself as comfortable as possible.

Interpreter: Accused has vomitted on
the floor.

Judge: Now I wonder if he could be
asked why he waited until he came up here to do so instead of doing it in the
cell below? Please get
the amah to have it
cleaned up so that we can proceed.

***

Wong Loke Hai, another witness for the
prosecution, said he was a settlement attendant. He admitted that he had been
sentenced to eight years in Changi for armed robbery before he became an
attendant at Pulau Senang.