Chua Siew Peng v Public Prosecutor and another appeal
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Chan Seng Onn J |
Judgment Date | 26 May 2017 |
Neutral Citation | [2017] SGHC 128 |
Date | 26 May 2017 |
Docket Number | Magistrate’s Appeal No. 9091 of 2016/01-02 |
Published date | 14 October 2017 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Quek Mong Hua and Jonathan Cho (Lee & Lee) |
Defendant Counsel | Zhuo Wenzhao and Siti Adrianni Marhain (Attorney-General's Chambers) |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Hearing Date | 13 April 2017,24 February 2017 |
Subject Matter | Sentencing,Adducing fresh evidence,Sentencing guidelines and aggravating factors,Relevance of uncharged offences,Aggravating factors,Offence of Wrongful confinement under s 342 Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed),Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Appeal |
Muegue Jonna Memje is a Filipino national who came to Singapore in December 2011 to work as a domestic helper (“the Victim”). This case concerns the serious abuse she endured at the hands of her employers. The abuse was so intolerable that she eventually decided to escape her employers’ residence by jumping out of a window from the sixth floor to the rooftop of an adjacent building.
The three members of the household are Chua Siew Peng (“Chua”), her elderly mother, Lum Wai Lui (“Popo”, meaning grandmother in Chinese) and her elder sister, Kathleen Chua Siew Wei (“Kathleen”). They have been separately tried for abusing the Victim at their residence in Maplewoods Condominium (“the residence”). The appeals before me concern only the convictions and sentences in respect of Chua’s prosecution.
Chua was convicted in the State Courts on one charge for voluntarily causing hurt under s 323 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“the Penal Code”) (“the VCH Charge”), and one charge for wrongful confinement under s 342 of the Penal Code (“the Wrongful Confinement Charge”). Both charges are read with s 73(2) of the Penal Code and provide as follows:
VCH Charge are charged that you on the 29th day of October 2012, between 9.00pm and midnight, at [xxx] Maplewoods Condominium, Singapore, as an employer of a foreign domestic maid, one Muegue Jonna Memeje (FIN No: [xxx]), did voluntarily caused [
sic ] hurt to her, to wit, by slapping the face of the said Muegue Jonna Memeje, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 73(2) of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.
Wrongful Confinement Charge are charged that you on the 30th day of October 2012, sometime in the morning before 11.00am, at [xxx] Maplewoods Condominium, Singapore, as an employer of a foreign domestic maid, one Muegue Jonna Memeje (FIN No: [xxx]), did wrongfully confine one Muegue Jonna Memeje, in a condominium unit, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 342 read with Section 73(2) of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.
Chua was sentenced to three weeks’ imprisonment on the VCH Charge and two months’ imprisonment on the Wrongful Confinement Charge. Both sentences were ordered to run concurrently such that the aggregate term of imprisonment was two months’ imprisonment. The grounds of decision of the District Judge (“District Judge”) is reported at
Having considered the GD, the parties’ submissions, and the evidence, I dismiss Chua’s appeals and allow the Prosecution’s appeal against sentence. I order the sentence in respect of the Wrongful Confinement Charge to be increased from two months’ imprisonment to 21 weeks’ imprisonment. I also order this sentence to run consecutively with the imprisonment term of the VCH Charge, rendering an aggregate imprisonment term of 24 weeks.
Background facts and evidenceI begin with a summary of the facts which are material to these appeals. A more detailed account of them can be found in the GD.
Undisputed factsThe Victim was 24-years-old at the time of Chua’s offences. During the period of her employment as a domestic helper from 20 December 2011 to 30 October 2012, she lived with Chua, Popo, Kathleen, Kathleen’s husband and Kathleen’s daughter at the residence.
The charges which Chua faces in the present case arise from the events taking place on 29 and 30 October 2012. In relation to the VCH Charge, only Chua, Popo and the Victim were at the residence on 29 October 2012 as Kathleen’s immediate family were on holiday overseas.1
In relation to the Wrongful Confinement Charge, after Chua and Popo left the residence in the morning of 30 October 2012, the Victim packed her bags and climbed out of a bedroom window onto a narrow ledge and then jumped onto the rooftop of an adjacent building. Shortly after the Victim exited the residence in this manner, she was spotted by two domestic helpers, who came to her aid. One of them telephoned for help from Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics (“HOME”), an independent charity organisation which looks after the welfare of migrant workers in Singapore. Volunteers from HOME arrived and brought the Victim back to their offices, where they called the ambulance and police.
The Victim suffered multiple fractures in her feet and ankles when she landed on the rooftop and was rendered wheelchair-bound for four to six weeks. The doctor who examined the Victim also noted injuries to her face, left eye, hands, and forearms. In particular, the doctor noted that her left eye was swollen and bruised.2
Chua was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia in 2008.3 However, Chua does not dispute that at the time of the alleged offences, and the period prior thereto, she was not in any major relapse.4
Victim’s evidence At the trial below, the Victim testified to the following:
Chua’s case at the trial below was one of bare denial to both the VCH and the Wrongful Confinement Charges. In particular, Chua testified as follows:
Apart from a suggestion that the Victim had been paid or threatened to lie in court,21 the Victim’s testimony was unchallenged during cross examination by Chua (who was unrepresented at the trial below). Neither did Chua allege any internal or external inconsistencies in the Victim’s evidence. All Chua did was to assert that the Victim was fabricating allegations of abuse as a ploy to break her bond without incurring the facilitation fee (comprising flight costs and agent fees) and to get monetary compensation from her family.22 She also made unsubstantiated allegations that the Victim had “exhibited strange behaviour” for about two to three weeks before the incident and thus might not have been in the right frame of mind before jumping out of the window.23
District Judge’s determination The District Judge had to decide two main factual questions (GD at [29]):
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Public Prosecutor v Tan Kok Ming Michael and other appeals
...of the Independent Commission Against Corruption [2010] HKCFA 4 (refd) Chew Soo Chun v PP [2016] 2 SLR 78 (folld) Chua Siew Peng v PP [2017] 4 SLR 1247 (folld) Chua Tiong Tiong v PP [2001] 2 SLR(R) 515; [2001] 3 SLR 425 (folld) Ding Si Yang v PP [2015] 2 SLR 229 (folld) GBR v PP [2018] 3 SL......
-
Public Prosecutor v GEA
...bte Ahmad Khir v Public Prosecutor and another appeal [2014] 1 SLR 756 at [42]-[44] (see also Chua Siew Peng v Public Prosecutor [2017] SGHC 128 at [103]). I was mindful of the Accused’s age.699 Advanced age The advanced age of an offender700 was discussed by the High Court in M Raveendran ......
-
Teo Seng Tiong v Public Prosecutor
...to this answer, the court approved the principles stated by the High Court in Chua Siew Peng v Public Prosecutor and another appeal [2017] 4 SLR 1247 (“Chua Siew Peng”). The Court of Appeal stated at [65] and [66] as follows: 65 In Chua Siew Peng …, the High Court observed that while a sent......
-
Public Prosecutor v Tan Kok Ming Michael and other appeals
...in law and fact to rely on the facts of the 1st TIC charge.42 In reliance on the doctrine in Chua Siew Peng v Public Prosecutor [2017] 4 SLR 1247 (at [84]) (“Chua Siew Peng”), the legal challenge was that uncharged offences cannot be considered in sentencing unless they bore a sufficient ne......
-
EMPIRICAL STUDY ON APPELLATE INTERVENTION IN MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE SENTENCES IN SINGAPORE
...that this was on the basis that the sentencing judge had erred and that the sentence could not be said to be manifestly excessive. 73 [2017] 4 SLR 1247 at [137]: The court held that the difference between 21 and 24 weeks' imprisonment cannot be considered substantially higher than the norma......
-
Criminal Procedure, Evidence and Sentencing
...[2021] 2 SLR 642 at [92], affirming Public Prosecutor v Bong Sim Swan Suzanna [2020] 2 SLR 1001 and Chua Siew Peng v Public Prosecutor [2017] 4 SLR 1247. 82 Teo Seng Tiong v Public Prosecutor [2021] 2 SLR 642 at [94]–[95], affirming Re Salwant Singh s/o Amer Singh [2019] 5 SLR 1037. 83 Teo ......
-
Criminal Procedure, Evidence and Sentencing
...92 Public Prosecutor v Tan Thian Earn [2016] 3 SLR 269 at [58]–[66]; Chong Yee Ka v Public Prosecutor [2017] 4 SLR 309 at [45]. 93 [2017] 4 SLR 1247. 94 Chua Siew Peng v Public Prosecutor [2017] 4 SLR 1247 at [81]–[84]. 95 ADF v Public Prosecutor [2010] 1 SLR 874 at [92]. 96 [2017] 2 SLR 68......