Mohamed Aliff Bin Mohamed Yusoff v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Facts

Mohamed Aliff bin Mohamed Yusoff was convicted after trial in the High Court of murder under s 300(c) of the Penal Code, punishable under s 302(2). The charge was that between 10.00pm on 7 November 2019 and 12.15 a.m. on 8 November 2019, at a multi-storey car park in Yishun, he caused the death of a 9-month-old boy. The trial judge did not impose the death penalty and sentenced him to life imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane.

The Prosecution's case was that he intentionally pushed the boy's head twice against the wooden floorboard in the rear cabin of his van, causing fatal brain injuries. It was accepted that death was caused by traumatic intracranial haemorrhage. His defence was that the boy fidgeted and fell while he carried him and tried to close the van door. He claimed his statements to the police were false and made because of threats by two officers, which the trial judge found never occurred. He appealed against conviction only in Criminal Appeal No 28 of 2022.

Issues

1. Whether the appellant's disputed statements to the police were made voluntarily and correctly admitted
2. Whether the evidence as a whole proved that the boy's head injuries were inflicted deliberately rather than caused by an accidental fall

Holding

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against conviction and affirmed the trial judge's decision. As the appellant confirmed he was not appealing against sentence, the sentence of life imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane was also affirmed.

Reasoning

The trial judge had given detailed reasons in the ancillary hearing for finding that the alleged threats did not happen. The Court of Appeal agreed and saw no finding against the weight of the evidence, so the statements were properly admitted as voluntary.

Once admitted, the statements showed the accident account could not be true and that the appellant intended the head injuries. Any adult pushing a small baby's head twice against a floorboard, even with mild force, would know serious injury would follow, and he did so out of frustration. His statements and re-enactment matched the Prosecution's expert evidence, and the forensic and medical evidence was consistent with non-accidental injury. His conduct afterwards also did not fit an accident: he showed no urgency in seeking medical help, wanted the boy's mother to tell the hospital the same story, parked in the basement rather than at the emergency department, and spent time looking for a place to throw away a spare mobile phone first. In his cautioned statement he did not mention an accidental fall, instead saying he acted in frustration after hearing the boy cry and expressing remorse. On the totality of the evidence the conviction was correct.

From the judgment