• Lim Hong Liang, 57, was said to have grown jealous that his mistress was seeing another married man
• He was found guilty of hiring hitmen to slash the other man’s face
• He appealed in the High Court against his conviction
• The court found that a re-trial was needed
• A witness statement given by Lim’s nephew could affect the credibility of the primary prosecution witness

SINGAPORE — In a new twist to the case of a businessman convicted of hiring hitmen to slash the face of his mistress’ boyfriend, the High Court on Tuesday (Feb 16) ordered a fresh trial to take place before another district judge.

Lim Hong Liang, 57, was sentenced to six years’ jail in 2019 after his first trial.

He then filed an appeal, with his lawyer arguing that the prosecution’s failure to disclose a witness statement meant it was unsafe to convict him and he should be acquitted.

The statement was given by one of Lim’s nephews, Mr Edwin Cheong, who was not called to testify in court.

In failing to disclose Mr Cheong's police statement to Lim’s defence, prosecutors had breached their disclosure obligations — known in legal circles as Kadar obligations.

In assessing the impact of this breach, Justice Aedit Abdullah noted that it raised questions about the strength of the primary prosecution witness’ testimony and inferences from it. 

Since Mr Cheong’s statement was not and should not be admitted as evidence in court, a retrial should be held to consider its effect on the conviction, Justice Aedit said.

Justice Aedit had said in August that the statement by Mr Cheong cannot be used as evidence unless Lim’s lawyers admit it as evidence.

BACKGROUND

Lim and another man, Ong Hock Chye, were earlier found guilty in a district court of conspiring to cause grievous hurt to Mr Joshua Koh Kian Yong, 35.

Ong was sentenced to five-and-a-half years’ jail and six strokes of the cane. He was previously found guilty of suggesting the slashing and recruiting the hitmen, and paying them with money from Lim.

Lim was said to have grown jealous that Ms Audrey Chen, a 29-year-old beauty queen who won the inaugural Miss Mermaid pageant in September 2016, was dating Mr Koh. 

Lim, who owned freight forwarding company SNL Logistics, was married at the time with three children. 

She moved into his apartment at The Parc Condominium near West Coast Road but soon began dating Mr Koh, who was also married at the time.

Lim then allegedly ordered his son and Ron Lim De Mai, who is his nephew and the primary prosecution witness, to attack Mr Koh on April 8, 2016.

When Mr Koh and Ms Chen went on the run from Lim afterwards, another three attackers caught them having supper at Little India and slashed Mr Koh’s face with a penknife.

REASONS FOR RETRIAL

In his brief oral judgment on Tuesday, Justice Aedit considered the effect of the prosecution’s breach of its disclosure obligations along with various factors, including the seriousness of Lim’s charge.

The Kadar disclosure obligations, named after the accused persons in a landmark 2015 Court of Appeal judgment, stipulate that prosecutors must divulge any unused material that can be reasonably regarded as credible and relevant to an accused person’s guilt or innocence.

The prosecution must also hand over such material that is likely to be inadmissible as evidence, but would give a real chance of pursuing a line of inquiry that leads to admissible and likely relevant evidence.

In Lim’s case, the prosecution conceded it should have disclosed Mr Cheong’s statement, but denied deliberately breaching its obligations.

Ron Lim had testified that Mr Cheong was there with him when the other suspect, Ong, contacted him regarding the plot to attack Mr Koh.

Mr Cheong was not a witness during the trial but the prosecution had offered him as a witness to the defence.

In ordering the retrial, Justice Aedit noted that Ron Lim was the “only clear link” between Lim and the conspiracy.

While prosecutors had pointed to other evidence to prove Lim’s guilt, many of their chains of inferences largely involved Ron Lim. His credibility and credit were also "the foundation of the evidence relied upon by the prosecution, as well as the district judge in his findings”, said Justice Aedit.

Aside from that, the judge found certain aspects of Ron Lim’s evidence concerning. This included the fact that some of his statements did not implicate his uncle.

“Edwin Cheong’s statement at least has the potential to undermine Ron Lim’s evidence as a whole. The statement and the evidence of Edwin Cheong should be considered and weighed against any response from Ron Lim,” the judge added.

Justice Aedit had also earlier ruled that Mr Cheong’s statement should not be used as evidence but only to assess the impact of the Kadar obligations breach.

Because of this, the judge found that it was not possible to conclude on the current evidence if Lim’s conviction was safe or not.

“What must be done is to have an assessment of Ron Lim’s credibility in light of the statement, and conclusions reached on whether there is sufficient evidence to convict,” he said.

A retrial was thus appropriate and it would not be “inordinately long” if properly managed, Justice Aedit ruled.

“As for the cost of continued proceedings. I appreciate that costs would already have been incurred through one round of the trial, but that cost consideration cannot override the other factors pointing to the desirability for a retrial, including the seriousness of the charge and the availability of evidence,” the judge added.

Lim’s lawyers and the prosecution can consider what evidence on Mr Cheong’s statement should be led at the retrial, Justice Aedit said.

He also noted that Lim’s medical condition, which he did not elaborate on, was not sufficient to bar a retrial.

Lim remains out on bail in the meantime.