victims had been ruthlessly stabbed with the intention of causing death, regardless of whoever took part in the stabbing. Justice Abdul Wahab also stated that the judges considered Beh as a truthful witness and accepted his testimony that Lee had been restrained and stabbed by both Sim and the third accomplice Chng Meng Joo, and it was clear that the murder of Lee was wtihin the trio's calculations when they conspired to commit armed robbery. Justice Abdul Wahab also stated that the trio had killed 16-year-old Teo to facilitate their escape after the robbery, and that the young boy's murder was also conceived out of the trio's common intention to flee. Based on the above evidence, the judges disbelieved Sim's claim that he never expected the murders to happen in the course of robbery. As such, the trial judges found 23-year-old Sim Min Teck guilty of the two original charges of murder for the deaths of 31-year-old Lee Cheng Tiong and 16-year-old Teo Keng Siang, and they sentenced Sim to death. Lee's brother and father, as well as Teo's family, were all present in court to hear the verdict and they applauded the verdict of death issued against Sim. A group of Chinese politicians, including members of the Chinese Ministry of Justice, also came to the courtroom to observe the trial proceedings of the courts of Singapore. Aftermath Sim's appeal and execution After the end of his trial and sentencing, Sim filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal against his sentence. He also argued that his right to equal treatment under the law had been breached, on account that he alone faced the original charges of murder in the same case as Beh, who faced lower charges of manslaughter. However, the three judges - Justice A. P. Rajah, Justice Lai Kew Chai (the former trial judge of Beh's case), and Chief Justice Wee Chong Jin - were aligned with the prosection's arguments, stating that the prosecution clearly summarized that the perpetrators of the Jurong fishing port murders shared the common intention to rob the victims and that murder, not manslaughter, was committed by one or more than one of them in furtherance of the same common intention itself, and they brought weapons to facilitate the commission of armed robbery and use of violence of necessary. On this finding of fact, all three of them could have been liable for