ADF v Public Prosecutor
Judge | Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA |
Judgment Date | 01 December 2009 |
Neutral Citation | [2009] SGCA 57 |
Published date | 11 December 2009 |
Subject Matter | Sentencing,Criminal Law,Hurt,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Offences |
Citation | [2009] SGCA 57 |
Year | 2009 |
Court | Court of Three Judges (Singapore) |
Defendant Counsel | Winston Cheng Howe Ming, Shahla Iqbal and Vala Muthupalaniappan (Attorney-General's Chambers) |
Plaintiff Counsel | Lee Teck Leng (Lee Associates) |
1 December 2009 |
Judgment reserved. |
V K Rajah JA:
Introduction
First Charge:[note: 2]
That you, [ADF]
on or about 29 January 2006, sometime in the morning, at [XXX] Singapore, being the husband of one [ADF’s wife], the employer of a domestic maid, namely one [the victim], did voluntarily cause hurt to the said [the victim], to wit, by knocking her head with your knuckles several times, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 323 read with section 73(2) of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.
Ninth Charge:
That you, [ADF]
on or about 21 April 2006, sometime at night, at [XXX] Singapore, being the husband of one [ADF’s wife], the employer of a domestic maid, namely one [the victim], did voluntarily cause hurt to the said [the victim], to wit, by hitting her head with your hands repeatedly, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 323 read with section 73(2) of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.
Tenth Charge:
That you, [ADF]
on or about 29 April 2006, sometime in the morning, at [XXX], Singapore, being the husband of one [ADF’s wife], the employer of a domestic maid, namely one [the victim], did voluntarily cause hurt to the said [the victim], to wit, by kicking her hips, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 323 read with section 73(2) of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.
12th charge:
That you, [ADF]
on or about 4 May 2006, sometime at night, at [XXX], Singapore, being the husband of one [ADF’s wife], the employer of a domestic maid, namely one [the victim], did voluntarily cause hurt to the said [the victim], to wit, by kicking her abdomen several times, by pushing her hard on her chest with your leg and slapping her cheeks several times and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 323 read with section 73(2) of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.
13th charge:
That you, [ADF]
on or about 5 May 2006, sometime in the morning, at [XXX] Singapore, being the husband of one [ADF’s wife], the employer of a domestic maid, namely one [the victim], did voluntarily cause hurt to the said [the victim], to wit, by kicking her abdomen several times, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 323 read with section 73(2) of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.
3 ADF made a qualified admission of guilt to the first charge. The first charge was for an incident that occurred on the night of 29 January 2006. ADF claimed that the incident happened in the morning of 29 January 2006 and not at night. The trial judge (the “Judge”) subsequently amended the first charge to the morning of 29 January 2006. ADF also pleaded guilty to the ninth charge. ADF pleaded not guilty to the tenth, 12th and 13th charges. The Judge sentenced ADF to three weeks’ imprisonment on the first charge, and to six months’ imprisonment for each of the ninth, tenth, 12th and 13th charges. The sentences for the ninth and 13th charges were ordered to run consecutively. The sentences in the first, 10th and 12th charges were ordered to run concurrently. As a result, the cumulative sentence imposed on ADF was a term of 12 months’ imprisonment. The Judge delivered separate grounds of decision for the convictions (
Background facts
stole and cooked ‘hotdogs’, egg, fish. …
The sixth entry read[note: 4]:
stole and ate chilli, Maggi Mee, white rice …
ADF apparently had instructed the victim that any food she consumed without their permission was tantamount to stealing. As I mentioned earlier, the victim was not paid regularly. She was therefore wholly dependent upon ADF and his wife for her dietary needs. In addition to controlling her meals, ADF, his counsel acknowledged, had affixed three padlocks on the gate to the flat “to control [her] movement”[note: 5].
8 Over time, ADF and his wife became increasingly unhappy with the victim’s work lapses. Counsel for ADF, in his written submissions, acknowledged “that [ADF] had indeed wanted to make the [victim’s] life miserable, but that was mainly through psychological warfare with her”. He, however, maintained that this was provoked and brought about by “numerous unhappy incidents”[note: 6]. The Judge found that the victim was afraid of ADF as he often mistreated her. She testified that on some occasions, when he was unhappy with her, he would threaten “to send her to Batam to be a prostitute” or to send her to prison if she disobeyed him (GD 1 at [13]). While ADF denied making the prostitution threats, he admitted making the imprisonment threats. I need only say, before I narrate the material facts, that these details offering a brief glimpse into her-day-to day life outline a disquieting narrative of an abusive relationship.
9 The offences unexpectedly came to light only on the morning of 5 May 2006. Jeanie Cacanando (“Jeanie”), a Filipino maid working for the occupiers of the flat next to ADF, noticed the victim crying. While conversing with the victim, Jeannie learnt of the abuse that the victim had been enduring. They were, however, unable to communicate effectively because the victim spoke little English, and Jeanie did not speak Bahasa Indonesia or Mandarin. Later, Jeanie persuaded Mdm Lau Eng Teng (“Mdm Lau”), an elderly lady residing in a neighbouring flat, to speak to the victim in Mandarin. As Mdm Lau spoke to the victim, she noticed that her right eye was blue black and the pupil had reddish specks. Upon being prompted, the victim showed her further injuries on her hips. According to Mdm Lau, the victim’s hips had a number of plainly visible blue-black marks. The victim tearfully informed Mdm Lau that she had been both physically and sexually abused by her employer and that her chest and abdomen hurt.[note: 7] Mdm Lau advised the victim to make a police report but the victim declined to do this as she was apprehensive about the consequences. She was fearful that if she did so “her male employer [who] was working in CID … would put her in jail”[note: 8]. Disturbed by what she had learnt, Mdm Lau, without consulting the victim, thereafter notified the police about the victim’s predicament, informing that, “the maid was hit by the owner and locked in the house”[note: 9].
To continue reading
Request your trial