the offence. The bulk of the evidence was evidence that Ang had a hand in taking out various insurance policies on the life of Jenny. He argued that looking at that evidence from the worst possible point of view, no one for a moment suggested that the motive was to kill. He pointed out that the prosecution had relied upon circumstantial evidence to prove every single ingredient of the offence. There was no proof of death. All the evidence showed was that Jenny went diving and had not been heard of since. “It cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that Jenny is dead. One question that the jury will have to ask themselves over and over again, as indeed your Lordship must do yourself at this stage, is whether one can convict for murder in the absence of a body.”
His Lordship: Are you suggesting that can’t be done, because there is a wealth of authority against you-and when I say wealth, I mean copious authority both in England, Australia, New Zealand, and France, I think. Mr Coomaraswamy: I do not know about France, my Lord, but I do know of the existence of the other authorities. His Lordship: But are you suggesting that you cannot convict for murder in the absence of a body? Because if so I shall rule against you. Don’t waste time. Mr Coomaraswamy: No, what I am saying is that it is so unsafe to convict in the absence of a body, or even to call upon the defence in the absence of a body. And this particular case is one of those very unsafe ones.
Mr Coomaraswamy spoke about the flipper. If, he submitted, that flipper was in fact the flipper that Jenny was using that day, “it is strange that it should be there in spite of these fierce currents that the prosecution speak about.”
His Lordship: I hate to interrupt you, but Mr Henderson, if the jury believe him, and I do not suggest any reason why they shouldn’t, said it is because this was found hemmed in by rocks in a little cove. Because it was surrounded by rocks, that is the only reason why. He may be lying, but when we arrive at the summing-up stage, I shall address the jury that I can suggest no reason why they shouldn’t believe him. But it is entirely a matter for them. Mr Coomaraswamy: But, with respect, Henderson’s evidence, my Lord-I do not think there is any question of his stating that the flipper was hemmed in by rocks. His Lordship: It was found in a place that was surrounded by rocks. I can find it if you like, because I was reading it over myself yesterday. Mr Coomaraswamy: But I do not think he used the words ‘hemmed in’. His Lordship: No, ‘hemmed in’ is my own interpretation of his evidence-my gloss on his evidence.
Mr Coomaraswamy continued that his other point was that if the flipper was, in fact, Jenny’s flipper, the presence of the rocks could well account for the flipper having come off. He described the evidence of the discovery and subsequent location of the flipper as ‘totally unsatisfactory’.
Counsel dealt with the assumptions he had made. First, no proof of Jenny’s death. Second, no evidence that she died from drowning. What was the act? “I have yet to hear what the prosecution say was the act done by the accused and upon which they rely on this charge of murder.” Counsel said it was his submission that if that heel- strap was cut in any way it would not have survived the tension that would be applied to it in the process of putting it on. It would be a matter of law for the judge to indicate whether one can ‘in the state of our Penal Code’, commit a murder by inducement. “In any event, my Lord, it is my submission that there is absolutely no evidence of the accused having induced Jenny to do anything at all.” Defence counsel submitted, “most respectfully, my Lord, that one must not decide to call upon the defence purely out of curiosity as to what the accused would say.”
His Lordship: I shan’t do that, Mr Coomaraswamy. Mr Coomaraswamy: No, I have no doubt that your Lordship would not do that. But, nevertheless, I feel it necessary to state, if not for present purposes, at least for subsequent purposes, my Lord, that one does not call upon the accused to make his defence purely out of curiosity, or to know what it is he would say. His Lordship: Come, come! You are wasting time, Mr Coomaraswamy, please. We are not here out of curiosity. We are here to try and do justice in a case where a man is on trial for his life. No one is curious. We are trying to perform a very onerous and responsible duty to the best of our ability. Mr Coomaraswamy: The point I was making was this, my Lord: that the sense of ‘Let us find out what he has to say’ should not be a consideration in deciding whether or not to call upon the defence. His Lordship: It does not enter my mind, Mr Coomaraswamy. Mr Coomaraswamy: Now, as I said earlier, my Lord, we are going purely on assumptions, and I submit to your Lordship that there is no evidence that the accused committed this offence as to make it necessary for his defence to be called.
The judge did not trouble Mr Seow to rebut defence counsel’s submission. He said, “In my judgment there is evidence that the accused committed this offence. Whether the evidence in the eyes of the jury is acceptable or satisfactory and sufficient is entirely a matter for them, and I shall therefore call upon the accused to enter upon his defence.”
The judge addressed the accused, “Ang, now is the time for you to make your defence to this charge of murder. You can do it in any one of three ways. You can go into the witness-box and make it on oath, in which event you are liable to be cross-examined by the prosecution, asked questions by myself and members of the jury. You can remain in the dock and make an unsworn statement, in which event you are not liable and cannot be asked any questions at all. You can remain silent. Which of these three courses do you wish to adopt?”
“I elect to give my evidence on oath,” said the accused.
“Let him be sworn.”
Calm and confident, aware that all eyes in the court were upon him, knowing that he was making headlines in all the newspapers, Sunny Ang, who the prosecution said murdered a bar girl for the money to go to England to become a barrister, stepped into the witness-box to defend himself. He was asked by crown counsel to speak louder.
“Ang, try to keep your voice up,” said his Lordship. “It must carry right across to the jury. They are very interested to hear what you have to say.”
Ang said he could not remember exactly when he first met Jenny, but it was at the beginning of 1963. “We were on very friendly terms. I took her home frequently from her bar.”
To questions by his counsel on how the question of insurance cropped up, Ang said that Jenny had of her own accord asked him to describe the various types of policies available from the Great Eastern Life Assurance Company Limited. This led to her submitting a proposal form.
Ang said he first went out skin-diving with her a few days after meeting her early in 1963. “She could float around and that was about all. Subsequently she learnt to swim. She became a reasonably good swimmer,” he said, before they went scuba-diving. “She made amazing progress.”
On the second day of the defence (the ninth day of the trial), Mr Coomaraswamy asked Ang how his mother, Madam Yeo Bee Neo, came to be named beneficiary in the policies. Sunny Ang: Jenny had wanted to make me the beneficiary, but I suggested my mother instead. His Lordship: Why? Sunny Ang: For a few reasons. His Lordship: Let’s have them. Sunny Ang: One of them is that this form would have to pass through Mr Sidney Kong (divisional manager of the Great Eastern and a friend of Ang), and I was afraid he would tease me about it if my name were on the form as a beneficiary. I was in the habit of having my other properties in my mother’s name. His Lordship: What do your other properties consist of? Sunny Ang: I have a car. His Lordship: In your mother’s name? Sunny Ang: Yes, and the financial aspect of the poultry farm is also in my mother’s name. Also a few shares. His Lordship: Also shares? Sunny Ang: Yes. His Lordship: Is that because you are a bankrupt? Sunny Ang: Yes, my Lord.
After giving his version of how Jenny came to take out the insurance policies, Sunny Ang told defence counsel about the car accident. He then went on to give evidence about scuba-diving with Jenny. He said that before 27 August 1963, he had definitely been out ‘at least’ once with her on a scuba-diving expedition in the Pulau Dua Straits. This was on a Sunday-two days before her disappearance. He said the boatman was Yusuf. (Yusuf on oath denied this.) Sunny Ang: Both Jenny and I dived. We saw some good coral specimens. We went down two or three times, a total of an hour. I took the trouble of roughly marking up that spot with the aid of the visual eye in relation to trees and other points of the two islands.
He said that on the morning of 27 August, he went to the offices of the American International Underwriters to extend a policy, a personal accident policy on Jenny.
Mr Coomaraswamy: Why did you extend Jenny’s policy? Sunny Ang: Because we might have to drive back the car from Seremban, if it was ready, and the prospect of having to do that made her insist upon extending the policy. His Lordship: Why not leave her behind? Sunny Ang: Well, if the car was ready, we would look around. We would go to Malacca and then back to Singapore. I just wanted to take her along with me-that’s all. His Lordship: I want to be fair: I thought you told us she disliked to be driven at all after the accident at Seremban? Sunny Ang: I insisted on taking her along.
He told Mr Coomaraswamy that “we intended that afternoon to collect the coral we had seen the previous Sunday at Pulau Dua. We intended to go diving at high tide.” Mr Coomaraswamy: Why did you fix high tide? Sunny
