The Court of Appeal today ordered a 54-year-old man, who was earlier acquitted by the High Court on the basis he was of unsound mind, to enter his defence over his father’s murder.
A three-judge panel ruled that the High Court had erred in acquitting Phang Kar Foong at the close of the prosecution’s case on the grounds that he was insane, without first requiring him to enter his defence.
“Therefore, the order of acquittal is set aside, and the case is remitted back to the Ipoh High Court for the respondent to enter his defence before the same judge,” Bernama reported Justice Azman Abdullah as saying.
The court also ordered that Phang be remanded in a suitable facility pending the continuation of the trial.
Phang is accused of murdering Pang Ket Tai, 75, at a house on Jalan Besar, Kampung Baru Gunung Rapat in Ipoh, Perak. The alleged offence occurred between 10.30am and 6.30pm on Sept 12, 2020.
According to a psychiatric report by a consultant forensic psychiatrist from Hospital Bahagia Ulu Kinta, Phang had bipolar disorder with psychotic features.
The report also noted that while warded, he inflicted injuries on his own eyes and underwent eye surgery. As a result of those injuries, his vision in both eyes had been impaired.
On Sept 30 last year, the High Court acquitted Phang without ordering him to enter his defence on the murder charge.
It subsequently ordered him to be detained at Hospital Bahagia Ulu Kinta, Tanjung Rambutan, Perak, at the discretion of His Royal Highness the Sultan of Perak under Section 348(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
During the appeal before the appellate court, lawyer Gurbachan Singh, representing Phang, defended the High Court’s decision, maintaining that the prosecution had established both medical and legal insanity under Section 84 of the Penal Code through the psychiatric report.
However, deputy public prosecutor Solehah Noratikah Ismail submitted that the High Court’s decision was premature and inconsistent with the provisions and established legal principles regarding the defence of insanity under Section 84 of the Penal Code.
She said the High Court had wrongly relied on a Court of Appeal ruling in PP v Mohd Rozani Yahaya, which was later overturned by the Federal Court.
Solehah said the Federal Court had held that acquitting the accused before the defence was called amounted to acquitting the accused before insanity was proven, constituting a serious error of law.
