Published: 25 May 2016
1. Several inaccurate points have been made in relation to the legal process in the case of Malaysian national Jabing Kho (“Jabing”).
2. Jabing brutally killed a person in 2008. Jabing continued to strike the victim multiple times even though the victim stopped retaliating after the first blow. The victim suffered 14 fractures to the skull with severe haemorrhage in three areas. Jabing was convicted of murder and sentenced to death in 2010.
3. Jabing was represented by counsel throughout. He was given every opportunity to file appeals, apply for re-sentencing consequent to amendments to the mandatory death penalty regime under the Penal Code, and petition the President for clemency.
4. Following the conclusion of the legal and clemency process in 2015, Jabing was initially scheduled to have his sentence carried out in November 2015. However, he instructed his lawyers at the last minute, after the date for the execution was set, to rush to Court to try and get a stay, based on ‘new’ arguments which he wanted to raise. This was a pattern which was to be repeated more than once subsequently. The Court of Appeal ordered a stay of execution, and agreed to hear the arguments. The Court of Appeal, after hearing the arguments, dismissed them, in April this year. It also observed that there were in reality no new arguments.
5. The date for execution was then set for 20 May 2016, and Jabing and his family were informed. New lawyers were then instructed to file a last-minute criminal motion to the Court of Appeal on Wednesday, 18 May 2016. Their applications were dismissed by the Court of Appeal. Then another two sets of new lawyers were instructed, to file yet another set of two applications at the last minute. The lawyers’ reasons were ostensibly that they were going to make new arguments. In fact there were no new arguments. It appeared that the sole purpose of the applications was to try and delay the execution which had been set for 20 May 2016.
6. The Court of Appeal dismissed all the applications. The Court of Appeal said that Jabing’s multiple court applications after the conclusion of his appeal were an abuse of court process. The Court of Appeal also noted that it had said in its judgment in April this year that the case was to come to an end.
7. After the Court of Appeal dismissed the applications, the sentence was carried out, on the date which had been fixed, 20 May 2016.
Annex (PDF, 205KB)