[1] Talib bin Haji Hamzah was born in Malaya (present-day Malaysia) sometime in 1953, and his hometown was located in Batu Pahat within the Malaysian state of Johor.

Jamaluddin, who was previously jailed for seven years at Changi Prison, was wanted by the Singaporean authorities for the murder of a shopkeeper at a Geylang goldsmith shop on 23 January 1974.

[2] On 17 September 1974, Talib and his four gang members robbed a jewellery shop Nam Yick Jewellers at North Bridge Road and held the owner Poon Cheok Meng at gunpoint, and made off with over valuables worth S$30,000 on a hijacked taxi.

Each time after the robbery attempt, Talib and his accomplices escaped to Malaysia and went into hiding at Johor Bahru in spite of the extensive manhunts conducted by the Singaporean police, before they sneaked back into Singapore to commit another crime.

[5][6] After committing the second firearm robbery, Talib bin Haji Hamzah and the rest of the Botak gang evaded the Singaporean authorities and once again successfully fled to Malaysia.

On 11 December 1974, the Royal Malaysia Police managed to trace the Botak gang to their hiding place in the Lumba Kuda flats at Johor Bahru.

[14][15][16] On 20 August 1975, 22-year-old Talib bin Haji Hamzah claimed trial at the High Court for two counts of being an accomplice of firearm robbery under the Arms Offences Act.

[19][20] Two police inspectors, Quek Kah Pok and Joseph Lau Cher Thiam, also testified that they found spent catridges from a gun when inspecting both the crime scenes in September and December 1974 respectively.

Therefore, 22-year-old Talib bin Haji Hamzah was found guilty of two counts of being an accomplice of a firearm robbery under Section 5 of the Arms Offences Act, and sentenced to death by hanging.

[37] In April 1976, the appeal was heard before the Court of Appeal, with veteran lawyer and opposition politician David Saul Marshall arguing that Talib should not be held liable to the charges preferred against him under the Arms Offences Act due to the minor role he played and he was not responsible for the injuries caused or attempted during the shoot-out, and that the trial court did not make correct findings on whether Talib had reasonable knowledge that firearms would be used during the commission of robbery in both cases he was tried for.

This was rebutted by the prosecutor Loh Lin Kok, who said that Talib's association with the gunmen should also lead to the inference that he reasonably expected the potential use of firearms during the robbery bids pulled off by his gang.

[38] On 18 May 1976, after reserving judgement for about a month,[39][40] the appellate court's three judges - Chief Justice Wee Chong Jin and two Supreme Court judges Frederick Arthur Chua (F A Chua) and Choor Singh - dismissed Talib's appeal and upheld his two death sentences and double conviction under the Arms Offences Act, after they rejected the defence's submissions and found that there was premeditation and planning through the decision to bring firearms to commit robbery and it was reasonable to infer that Talib had the knowledge that the guns would be used during the robberies, and he thus should be held responsible for the role he played in these cases.

[41][42] In October 1976, Talib filed a motion to seek special leave to appeal to the Privy Council in London for a review of his conviction and sentence.