Teo Cheng Leong
Teo Cheng Leong | |
|---|---|
 Police mugshot of Teo Cheng Leong, first taken in 1969 | |
| Born | Teo Cheng Leong c. 1933 |
| Died | c. May 1971 (aged 38) |
| Cause of death | Execution by hanging |
| Nationality | Singaporean |
| Occupation | Odd job worker |
| Criminal status | Executed |
| Conviction(s) | Armed robbery (1954) Burglary (1961) Failure to report to police (1963) Armed robbery (1965) Criminal breach of trust (1966) Failure to report to police (1966) Illegal discharge of a firearm with intent to cause harm (1970) Armed robbery (1970) |
| Criminal charge | Armed robbery (1954) Burglary (1961) Failure to report to police (1963) Armed robbery (1965) Criminal breach of trust (1966) Failure to report to police (1966) Illegal discharge of a firearm with intent to cause harm (1969) Armed robbery (1969) |
| Penalty | Seven years' imprisonment (1954) Three years' imprisonment (1961) One year of imprisonment (1963) Three years' imprisonment (1965) Ten months' imprisonment (1966) 18 months' imprisonment (1966) Death (1970) |
Teo Cheng Leong (张清良 Zhāng Qīngliáng) was a Singaporean gunman and armed robber. Teo was one of the four perpetrators of a firearm robbery at Geylang on 26 March 1969, in which he robbed a housewife of her valuables and S$1,000 in cash, and he later fired two rounds at a police inspector while being cornered by the police, who all arrested him at a hut he was hiding in. In Singapore's first capital trial without a jury, Teo was found guilty of discharging his firearm and sentenced to death in February 1970. Teo became the first person to be given the death penalty after the abolition of jury trials for capital crimes in Singapore. After losing his appeals against the conviction and sentence, Teo was hanged sometime in May 1971.
Background
[edit]Teo Cheng Leong was born in Singapore in 1933. Teo was neither married nor had children, and he worked as an odd job worker.
During his adulthood years, Teo was involved in several brushes with the law. On 27 September 1954, Teo was sentenced to jail for seven years on a charge of armed robbery. Later, on 7 January 1961, Teo was convicted of breaking and entering and thus jailed for three years. In a third case, Teo failed to report to the police while under supervision, and hence he spent one year in prison after his conviction for the offence on 23 April 1963. Teo was convicted a fourth time on 2 December 1965, when he committed armed robbery with several other people, and hence he was sentenced to three years' imprisonment. In his fifth case, Teo was found guilty of criminal breach of trust and on 3 September 1966, he was given a jail term of ten months. On the same date itself, Teo was charged in court for failing to report to the police while under supervision and hence received another sentence of 18 months.[1]
Sims Avenue robbery and gunfight (1969)
[edit]On 26 March 1969, Teo Cheng Leong, then 36 years old, teamed up with three men to commit armed robbery at Sims Avenue, Geylang.
On the afternoon of that day itself, Teo and his three accomplices – Ng Chwee Bock (黄水木 Huáng Shuǐmù), Khoo Meng Hwa (邱明华 Qiū Mínghuá) and a third person whose identity remains unknown – barged into the shophouse of 39-year-old cobbler Chew Sin Kok (赵善国 Zhào Shànguó), and out of the four, Teo and one of his accomplices each wielded a gun while the remaining two were armed with knives. While Chew was outside the shop and having lunch, the robbers held the other occupants of the shophouse hostage, and they robbed Chow Sow Lin (周秀莲 Zhōu Xiùlián), a housewife and mother of four (two sons and two daughters), of her valuables (worth about S$1,000) and S$1,000 in cash, as well as two wrist watches, a camera and radio. During the course of the holdup, Chew returned to open his shop but found the entrance to the shop locked from inside. Feeling peculiar, Chew went to the back of the shop and he noticed his 30-year-old colleague Cheok Yan Soo (石贤斯 Shí Xiánsī), who was one of the hostages of the holdup, looking down at him from the two-storey window and beckoning him to call the police to catch the robbers. Chew quickly went to call the police, but ten minutes after doing so, Chew sought the help of nearby residents and alerted them about the robbery holdup at his shop. After gathering about 40 people, Chew and the crowd returned to the shop, and they saw all the four robbers escaping. Upon sight of the robbers, the crowd gave chase.[2][3]
The robbers fled to Lorong 35 and then to Geylang Road, and at that point, Teo split up with the three other men, who all fled towards Lorong 40 while Teo himself ran along the main road, with his gun and some of the loot. While Teo was still running to Lorong 39, several members of the crowd alerted a passing patrol car, which was driven by Inspector Desmond D'Oliveiro of Joo Chiat Police Station, and they alerted Inspector D'Oliveiro about Teo. Inspector D'Oliveiro, who allowed several men to enter his car, chased after Teo, who eventually reached an empty hut in the forest, which belonged to a furniture maker. Inspector D'Oliveiro, who was joined by two more officers, managed to reach the hut and cornered Teo. A brief gunfight occurred, beginning with Teo rushing out of the hut to fire two shots at Inspector D'Oliveiro, who evaded the bullets and was unharmed, while the police also returned fire twice at Teo, who was similarly unharmed and returned to the hut. Subsequently, police reinforcements arrived and tear gas was later fired into the hut. A few minutes after the tear gas was fired, Teo was forced to emerge from the hut and surrendered. Teo was therefore subdued by the police, and placed under arrest for both the firearm robbery and the shoot-out with the police. A stolen radio, a loaded revolver and a gold chain were recovered.[4][5]
A day after the robbery, one of Teo's three accomplices, 28-year-old Khoo Meng Hwa, was arrested as the second suspect behind the case.[6][7] Another of Teo's accomplices, 33-year-old Ng Chwee Bock, surrendered himself to the police two days after Khoo was captured, making him the third person to be apprehended for the robbery. The fourth man, however, was never found.[8]
Khoo and Ng were later charged with armed robbery, and this was not their first criminal offence; Khoo, an illegal taxi driver who was married with one child, was previously convicted of robbery once, while Ng had six previous convictions for various crimes, including two for being a secret society member. The two men pleaded guilty to armed robbery charges in February 1970,[9] and during the same month, both Ng and Khoo were each sentenced to ten years in prison.[10] As for Teo, he was charged with both armed robbery and illegal discharge of firearms, the latter offence which attracted the death penalty under Singaporean law.[11][12][13]
In June 1969, after a preliminary hearing, Teo's case was transferred to the High Court for trial hearing on a later date.[14][15]
Trial of Teo Cheng Leong
[edit]Court hearing
[edit]On 17 February 1970, 37-year-old Teo Cheng Leong officially stood trial at the High Court for one count of firing two shots at Inspector Desmond D'Oliveiro under the 1955 Arms Offences Ordinance, in addition to one count of armed robbery. By the time of Teo's trial, Singapore had fully abolished the jury trial procedure for capital cases on 5 January 1970, a month before the beginning of Teo's trial. Therefore, instead of a jury, Teo would be tried before two trial judges - Justice A V Winslow and Justice T. Kulasekaram - at the High Court. Teo pleaded guilty to the armed robbery charge, but he pleaded not guilty to the firearms charge, which carried either the death penalty or life imprisonment if found guilty. Although Teo pleaded guilty together with both Khoo Meng Hwa and Ng Chwee Bock in the same court, his trial for shooting at Inspector D'Oliveiro was to proceed with himself alone in court.[16][17][18]
Before the trial was to begin, opposition politician and prominent lawyer J B Jeyaretnam, who represented Teo, requested to the trial court that Two should be given a chance to undergo a jury trial, given that his crime took place in March 1969, about ten months before the complete abolition of capital jury trials on 5 January 1970, and that the case itself was a question of whether Teo's right to a jury trial was a substantive right or a procedural matter. In response, the trial prosecutor P R Isaac argued that not having a jury trial did not amount to a deprivation of Teo's substantive rights and given that the jury system was no longer valid in Singapore, Teo cannot request to have a jury trial to hear his case.[19][20][21] After a day of deliberation, the two judges agreed with the prosecution, stating that Teo had no right to a jury trial since the jury system under the old legislation had been abolished under the new legislation, which allowed two judges to preside death penalty trials, and this new procedure was to apply for all trials conducted after 5 January 1970, the official date of the jury system's abolition, irrespective to whether there were outstanding cases that happened before or after the abolition of jury trials.[22][23][24]
Inspector Desmond D'Oliveiro, the policeman whom Teo attempted to harm by shooting, appeared as a prosecution witness. Inspector D'Oliveiro testified that while he was driving along Geylang Road that afternoon, he saw a large crowd and was approached by the crowd, who told him that a gang of four to five men were armed with guns had fled to Lorong 40 after committing a robbery, and therefore, Inspector D'Oliveiro allowed four men to enter his car and he reached Lorong 39, where another crowd gathered outside a small hut in the forest, which was the same hut where Teo went into hiding. By then, Inspector D'Oliveiro was also joined by three more policemen, one of whom went to call for reinforcements. According to Inspector D'Oliveiro, he brandished his service revolver and cautiously approached the hut, calling the gunman to come out, and all of a sudden, Teo came out of the hut and fired two shots at Inspector D'Oliveiro, who was taken by surprise but managed to evade the bullets and escaped unharmed. Inspector D'Oliveiro did not fire back afterwards. Several other bystanders similarly testified that Teo was aiming at Inspector D'Oliveiro when he fired the gun.[25]
Another witness was Police Constable (PC) Quek Chek Kwang (also spelt Quek Chek Kuan), who was one of the officers present at the scene. PC Quek testified that he saw Inspector D'Oliveiro calling the gunman that he should come out or he would be killed, and he later witnessed Teo coming out to aim the gun towards Inspector D'Oliveiro and fired two shots at him.[26] This would not be the first time PC Quek get involved in a shootout. 15 years later in 1984, PC Quek, who by then was promoted to Corporal, would engage in a gunfight with infamous gunman Khor Kok Soon, whom they caught trying to commit firearm robbery. Khor, who escaped after taking a lorry driver hostage before he allegedly murdered the driver, became one of Singapore's ten most wanted criminals for the next 19 years before his arrest in 2003, and he was sentenced to death in 2005 for shooting at Sergeant Lim Kiah Chin (Corporal Quek's partner) back in 1984.[27][28]
Detective-Corporal Ng Poh Kiang, a third police officer at the scene, also testified in court that after Teo fired the two missed shots, he covered Inspector D'Oliveiro by firing back at the gunman twice, although the shots missed and Teo was left unharmed. After this brief gunfight, tear gas was fired into the hut, which forced Teo to emerge from the hut and surrendered. Senior Inspector H L Miranda, another policeman and witness, was also inquired about the recovery of the bullets, and he replied that except for one bullet belonging to Corporal Ng's gun, no other bullets, including those belonging to Teo's firearm, could be recovered from the hut.[29] Both Justice Kulasekaram and Justice Winslow, together with the prosecution and defence counsel, headed to the crime scene during the course of Teo's trial to inspect the crime scene.[30][31]
Teo was called to the stand to give his defence. Teo, who agreed to do so, denied under oath that he actually aimed the gun at Inspector D'Oliveiro and fired the two shots, and he instead testified that he fired in the air twice to warn the bystanders from getting near and he never had the intent to harm anyone throughout, and he also claimed that when he surrendered to the police, he already threw his gun away in the vegetation outside the hut, and i was not on his hand as what was recounted by all the witnesses earlier in court. Jeyaretnam also argued on Teo's behalf that the firearms charge was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt due to the lack of injury on Inspector D'Oliveiro and the failure to recover any bullets linking Teo to the crime, which would have helped reconstruct how Teo actually fired his gun, whether towards the policeman or in the air.[32]
Verdict
[edit]On 24 February 1970, after a trial lasting four days, Justice Kulasekaram and Justice Winslow delivered their judgement. Justice Winslow, who pronounced the verdict in court, stated that both judges unanimously agreed that there was no doubt in their opinion that Teo had the intent to cause harm to Inspector D'Oliveiro when he discharged two rounds at the officer, and they agreed with the prosecution that despite the relatively close distance of 15 feet from where Teo fired the gun, Teo missed the shots twice and he was "inept" at wielding his gun with respect to the nature and condition of the gun. Justice Winslow also read that the police's failure to recover the spent ammunition from Teo's sidearm did not undermine the prosecution's case, and the absence of injuries on Inspector D'Oliveiro did not hold much weight against the prosecution's case either. They also accepted that Teo was still holding on to the gun at the time when the tear gas was fired and when he surrendered. On these grounds, Teo was found guilty of a single charge of firing two shots at Inspector D'Oliveiro with intent to injure him.[33]
Aside from finding Teo guilty of the firearm charge, the two judges also weighed in on sentence, and in deciding between the sentence of either death by hanging or life in prison, the judges decided that no leniency was warranted in Teo's case in light of the aggravating circumstances and opted for the higher tier of sentence, and hence, 37-year-old Teo Cheng Leong was sentenced to death by hanging. On that same day, Teo was also sentenced to ten years' imprisonment for committing firearm robbery on the same date of the shooting.[34] Before concluding their judgement, the judges praised Inspector D'Oliveiro for his courage and as the most senior police officer at the scene itself, Inspector D'Oliveiro was described to have acted in the "best traditions of the force".[35][36]
By January 1971, the courts of Singapore had heard 18 high-profile death penalty cases over the past year of 1970, and out of these cases, Teo was one of the ten people given the death penalty, although one of these ten people, Ong Kiang Kek, who was sentenced to death for murdering Mohamed Salleh Haji Hassan, would successfully had his death sentence overturned on appeal and jailed for four years on a reduced charge of firearm possession.[37]
Appeal processes
[edit]In September 1970, Teo Cheng Leong, who was then incarcerated on death row at Changi Prison, engaged veteran lawyer and opposition politician David Saul Marshall (assisted by J B Jeyaretnam) to represent him in his appeal. Marshall argued before the Court of Appeal that Teo had a substantive accrued right to a jury trial, given that his crime was committed before the abolition of the jury trial, and having a trial without a jury in Teo's case was substantially a miscarriage of justice. Marshall, having described Teo as the first person sentenced to the gallows for a case where "no one was even hurt", stated that Teo never had the premeditation to cause injury to the police officer Desmond D'Oliveriro, and he only fired the shots out of desperation and anxiety to evade capture, and thus argued against Teo's conviction and death sentence.[38] As for the prosecution, then Attorney-General Tan Boon Teik made a special appearance to assist the prosecutor S Rajendran,[39] and Tan argued that the appeal should be dismissed as the jury system was completely abolished on 5 January 1970, which meant that Teo did not have a vested right to a jury trial and he could only be entitled to a trial by two judges at the High Court.[40] Judgement was reserved after the prosecution completed their submissions.[41]
On 21 October 1970, the Court of Appeal's three judges - Supreme Court judges Tan Ah Tah and Frederick Arthur Chua (F A Chua), and Chief Justice Wee Chong Jin - opted to reject Teo's appeal. They ruled that with regards to Marshall's arguments for a jury trial, they agreed with the prosecution that Teo's trial procedure issue was a procedural matter and a non-jury trial was not a miscarriage of justice in his case, since it was made clear that the jury trial system was fully abolished on 5 January 1970 and they cannot be revived under any circumstances. The appellate judges also found that Teo was indeed guilty of the charge and his death sentence was also upheld, after the appellate court agreed with the trial court's findings.[42][43]
After losing his appeal against the sentence, Teo later petitioned for special leave to appeal to the Privy Council in London to review his case.[44] On 8 February 1971, Teo's plea was denied by the Privy Council.[45][46] After losing his Privy Council appeal, Teo had a final recourse to appeal to then President of Singapore Benjamin Sheares for clemency. However, it was rejected.[47]
Execution
[edit]After losing his final death row plea, 38-year-old Teo Cheng Leong was hanged at Changi Prison on one Friday morning in May 1971, but the exact date was unknown. At the time of his sentencing, Teo was the first person to be sentenced to death by two judges in the High Court after the abolition of jury trials in Singapore.[48]
Two years after Teo was put to death, in November 1973, the Arms Offences Act was passed as a replacement of the previous firearm law to prescribe the mandatory death penalty for unlawful use of firearms (including the offence Teo was convicted for), which made life imprisonment no longer allowed as a penalty for such crimes.[49]
36 years after Teo was executed, Singaporean crime show True Files re-enacted the Sims Avenue shooting case and the trial of Teo in 1970. The re-enactment first aired on 21 January 2007 as the third episode of the show's fifth and final season.[50]
As for Teo's three accomplices, both Khoo Meng Hwa and Ng Chwee Bock were released from prison since 1979, while the fourth robber remains on the run as of today.
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ "开槍射击警長案昨判决 被吿確曾槍擊警長 罪大難饒判處絞刑". 星洲日报 (Sin Chew Jit Poh) (in Chinese). 25 February 1970.
- ^ "芽籠卅九巷昨發生 警匪駁火驚險案件 四盗闖進製鞋工塲搶刧 警長與工友窮追 一嫌犯束手就擒". 星洲日报 (Sin Chew Jit Poh) (in Chinese). 27 March 1969.
- ^ "芽籠卅九巷驚險之一幕警匪劇烈駁火四盜械刧逃逸中遭追擊當場一賊高舉雙手就擒警方搜獲手槍並起回一部份物品". 南洋商报 (Nanyang Siang Pau) (in Chinese). 27 March 1969.
- ^ "Siege drama—then surrender". The Straits Times. 27 March 1969.
- ^ "沈氏大道械刼•芽籠警匪駁火案 警長供述槍戰經過 追捕強盜險象環生". 新明日报 (Xin Ming Ri Bao) (in Chinese). 22 June 1969.
- ^ "警匪駁火案又一嫌犯落網". 南洋商报 (Nanyang Siang Pau) (in Chinese). 28 March 1969.
- ^ "芽籠卅三巷口搶刼案 又一嫌匪落網". 星洲日报 (Sin Chew Jit Poh) (in Chinese). 28 March 1969.
- ^ "在沈氏大道械刧歹徒與警方人員駁火三嫌犯遭控初步審訊警長供駁火擒拿經過". 南洋商报 (Nanyang Siang Pau) (in Chinese). 22 June 1969.
- ^ "沈氏大道械刼曁芽籠警匪駁火案提訊 辯方律師提出疑點 要求闡明司法權限". 新明日报 (Xin Ming Ri Bao) (in Chinese). 18 February 1970.
- ^ "事前計劃週密胆大包天 刼製鞋工㘯三强盗 一律遭判十年徒刑". 星洲日报 (Sin Chew Jit Poh) (in Chinese). 25 February 1970.
- ^ "Two shots fired at inspector: Man charged". The Straits Times. 28 March 1969.
- ^ "芽籠白晝刧案嫌犯不准具保首罪指其使用左輪手槍次罪搶掠婦女現款首飾". 南洋商报 (Nanyang Siang Pau) (in Chinese). 28 March 1969.
- ^ "芽籠警匪駁火驚人案件 一嫌犯被控警庭 面對兩嚴重罪嫌". 星洲日报 (Sin Chew Jit Poh) (in Chinese). 28 March 1969.
- ^ "芽籠警匪駁火案 三名嫌犯表面証供成立 推事諭令移交高庭發落". 新明日报 (Xin Ming Ri Bao) (in Chinese). 27 June 1969.
- ^ "四匪攜械刼掠製鞋工塲 初審階段經結束 表面証供吿成立". 星洲日报 (Sin Chew Jit Poh) (in Chinese). 27 June 1969.
- ^ "沈氏大道械刼 及警匪駁火案 高等法庭訂明日提出審訊". 新明日报 (Xin Ming Ri Bao) (in Chinese). 16 February 1970.
- ^ "沈氏大道去年三月白晝械刧案三名强盜罪狀成立法庭宣佈展期判刑其中首被告遭控另一嚴重罪案須慎重考慮今日决定是否審理". 南洋商报 (Nanyang Siang Pau) (in Chinese). 18 February 1970.
- ^ "廢除陪審制已開始實施 舊刑事案由新法制支配 沈氏大道械刼案 三被吿罪狀待判 其一涉嫌與警駁火案今續審". 新明日报 (Xin Ming Ri Bao) (in Chinese). 19 February 1970.
- ^ "Trial by jury still valid for capital charge, says counsel". The Straits Times. 18 February 1970.
- ^ "JUDGES TO DECIDE TODAY IN GUN CASE". The Straits Times. 18 February 1970.
- ^ "有關取消陪審員制度法令 是否可以追算". 星洲日报 (Sin Chew Jit Poh) (in Chinese). 18 February 1970.
- ^ "No right to jury trial anymore". The Straits Times. 19 February 1970.
- ^ "廢除陪審、實行新制度後可能被判極刑案件應依照新程序審理兩位法官裁定開槍射擊警長案被告未享有受舊程序審訊權利". 南洋商报 (Nanyang Siang Pau) (in Chinese). 19 February 1970.
- ^ "陪审員制度一去不復返 高院以新令旣生効 須依照新法令行事". 星洲日报 (Sin Chew Jit Poh) (in Chinese). 19 February 1970.
- ^ "Gunman fired twice at me: Officer". The Straits Times. 20 February 1970.
- ^ "I shouted 'come out or well kill you' PC tells court". The Straits Times. 24 February 1970.
- ^ "True Files S5E8 The Shenton Way Shootout". meWATCH. Retrieved 20 February 2024.
- ^ "Public Prosecutor v Khor Kok Soon" (PDF). Singapore Law Watch. Retrieved 20 February 2024.
- ^ "芽籠卅九巷槍擊案審訉第四天兩法官偕副檢察司齊至肇事地點勘察探曹供述目擊被告向警長開槍". 南洋商报 (Nanyang Siang Pau) (in Chinese). 24 February 1970.
- ^ "开槍射击警長案 法官赴現㘯視察 全案今天可审結". 星洲日报 (Sin Chew Jit Poh) (in Chinese). 24 February 1970.
- ^ "警匪駁火案高庭昨續審 兩聯審法官偕律師 到現塲視察一小時". 新明日报 (Xin Ming Ri Bao) (in Chinese). 24 February 1970.
- ^ "廢除陪審制後首宗判處極刑刑事案 向警長開槍▪匪判死刑 「沈氏大道械劫案」三歹各判監十年". 新明日报 (Xin Ming Ri Bao) (in Chinese). 25 February 1970.
- ^ "Gangster who fired twice at police gets death penalty". The Straits Times. 25 February 1970.
- ^ "困在木屋內開槍射擊警長積犯被判處極刑廢除陪審員制度後第一宗其餘兩强盗各須入獄十年". 南洋商报 (Nanyang Siang Pau) (in Chinese). 25 February 1970.
- ^ "Two judges laud 'considerable courage' of Insp. D'Oliveiro". The Straits Times. 25 February 1970.
- ^ "警長英勇法官稱讚". 星洲日报 (Sin Chew Jit Poh) (in Chinese). 25 February 1970.
- ^ "去年十八宗大命案 審訊情形及其結果". 星洲日报 (Sin Chew Jit Poh) (in Chinese). 4 January 1971.
- ^ "Lawyer queries validity of a no-jury S'pore trial". The Straits Times. 1 September 1970.
- ^ "NO-JURY TRIAL APPEAL: THREE JUDGES SEEK A'G's VIEWS". The Straits Times. 2 September 1970.
- ^ "Trial by jury: No grounds for appeal: AG". The Straits Times. 8 September 1970.
- ^ "Judgment reserved". The Straits Times. 9 September 1970.
- ^ "Judges rule trial by jury fully abolished by Act on Jan. 5". The Straits Times. 22 October 1970.
- ^ "'Accrued right of accused' claim rejected". The Straits Times. 22 October 1970.
- ^ "Death sentence man will appeal to Privy Council". The Straits Times. 24 October 1970.
- ^ "Death row man will now appeal to Sheares". The Straits Times. 10 February 1971.
- ^ "槍撃警長判处死刑 被吿張淸良上訴案 由倫敦枢密院駁囘". 星洲日报 (Sin Chew Jit Poh) (in Chinese). 10 February 1971.
- ^ "Plea to President on death sentence lane". New Nation. 10 February 1971.
- ^ "T.F. Hwang takes you down memory lane". The Straits Times. 25 August 1973.
- ^ "'Death gunmen' law in force". The Straits Times. 11 February 1974.
- ^ "True Files S5". meWATCH. Retrieved 20 February 2024.