Lee Chez Kee v Public Prosecutor

Lee Chez Kee v Public Prosecutor [2008] 3 SLR(R) 447 is a Court of Appeal decision addressing the admissibility of statements made by co-accused persons and the proof of common intention under section 34 of the Penal Code. The case clarifies the hearsay rule's application in criminal proceedings and the standard for inferring shared criminal intent among co-offenders.

The appellant was convicted alongside co-accused persons in a criminal matter requiring proof of common intention under section 34 of the Penal Code. The prosecution sought to rely on statements made by co-accused persons to establish the requisite shared intent. The Defence challenged the admissibility and weight of such statements.

Whether statements made by co-accused persons are admissible to prove common intention under section 34 of the Penal Code, and what evidence suffices to establish common intention in joint criminal enterprise.

Statements made by co-accused persons are generally inadmissible hearsay and cannot be used to prove the accused's participation in a common intention. Common intention must be proved by reference to the accused's own conduct, the circumstances of the case, and direct evidence admissible against the accused.

Out-of-court statements by co-accused persons fall within the hearsay rule and are inadmissible to prove the truth of their contents, including the existence of common intention under section 34 of the Penal Code; common intention must be inferred from admissible evidence directly implicating the accused.

The Court of Appeal applied orthodox hearsay principles, holding that a co-accused's statement is an out-of-court assertion tendered for its truth and thus presumptively inadmissible unless an exception applies. Because co-accused statements were not made by the accused himself and were not tested by cross-examination, they could not satisfy the requisite standard of proof for establishing the accused's state of mind or participation in a common criminal purpose. The Court emphasized that common intention is an inference to be drawn from the totality of admissible evidence, including conduct before, during, and after the offence.

This case is foundational for teaching the hearsay rule's operation in multi-accused criminal trials and the evidentiary requirements for section 34 Penal Code liability. It underscores the distinction between direct evidence and inadmissible hearsay in proving joint criminal enterprise.

Lee Chez Kee v Public Prosecutor [2008] 3 SLR(R) 447 (CA)