GDD v GDE

• Judge: Patrick Tay Wei Sheng
• Judgment Date: 03 March 2021
• Neutral Citation: [2021] SGFC 24
• Citation: [2021] SGFC 24
• Court: Family Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 23 March 2021
• Docket Number: SS No 1847 of 2020
• Plaintiff Counsel: The complainant in person
• Defendant Counsel: The respondent in person.
• Subject Matter: Family law,Family violence,Orders for protection,Orders for counselling,Making of order for counselling without making of order for protection under s 26(9) Family Justice Act 2014 (No 27 of 2014),Family procedure,Gag orders
• Hearing Date: 03 March 2021

Magistrate Patrick Tay Wei Sheng:

A 23-year-old sister (“P”) seeks a personal protection order (“PPO”) against her 21-year-old brother (“D”) based on an act of family violence allegedly committed in the family home, which was a yacht (the “Incident”). P claims that D had, at the material time, grabbed her by the throat and thrown her down. She adds that she has since moved out of the yacht and into an apartment owned by the family. She states that she wishes to return to live with the family but fears for her safety around D because of the Incident and a history of physical violence by D against her.

D denies grabbing P by the neck and throwing her down but admits to pushing her at the material time. D maintains that he had simply been reacting after P had provoked him. D also complains that P has been harassing him by publishing details about these PPO proceedings on her social media accounts and encouraging their mutual friends to dissociate themselves from him.

P calls her boyfriend (“H”) as a witness in support of her claims. D calls as his witnesses his parents (respectively the “Father” and the “Mother” and collectively the “Parents”) and his other sister (“A”).

As Debbie Ong J observed in UNQ v UNR [2020] SGHCF 21 (“UNQ”) at [22]–[24], family violence is unacceptable, and the court will take a firm stand against it. Family violence may be found in a variety of circumstances, as set out in s 64 of the Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) (the “Charter”). Acts of physical abuse of a family member are family violence if they were intended or known or ought to have been known to produce hurt (see s 64(b) of the Charter). Acts short of physical abuse that place or attempt to place a family member in fear of hurt are also family violence if they were committed wilfully or knowingly (see s 64(a) of the Charter). But not every instance of family violence will warrant a PPO. Only if a PPO is necessary to protect the family member will it be granted (see s 65(1) of the Charter).

Family violence

I find that the Incident discloses family violence by D against P, even if there is some disagreement as to how it unfolded. Nevertheless, because parties canvassed the events of the Incident in detail in their written statements and oral evidence, I will examine it briefly.

P testifies that D had grabbed her by the neck and had thrown her into a chair. D insists that he had simply pushed P away from himself without grabbing P by the neck. But D accepts that he may have, due to his significant height advantage over P, touched her neck. D adds that he had been reacting to provocation by D, who had deliberately knocked over his snacks. Contemporaneous video footage from a CCTV on the yacht shows P knocking over the snacks but is inconclusive as to any contact between P and D thereafter.

The Parents, who had been at the scene of the Incident and who had moved to separate P and D in its wake, both testify that D had not grabbed P by the neck but had pushed P between her chest and her head. The Mother adds that any force used by D had been minimal, and that P had fallen only because P had been taken by surprise by the push. The Mother also appears to suggest that the deck of the yacht on which P had been standing had not been completely stable because the yacht had been bobbing in the sea.

H and A were not at the scene of the Incident. They simply repeat what P and D respectively had told each of them about it. But oral evidence must in all cases whatever be direct: “if it refers to a fact which could be seen [or perceived], it must be the evidence of a witness who says he saw [or perceived] that fact (s 62(1) of the Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) (the “EA”)). This constrains me to reject their evidence.

P exhibits an electronic message from D from five days after the Incident in which D “apologise[d] for grabbing you by the throat”. D responds that he had been directed by his Parents to apologise based on how P had perceived the Incident. D explains that he had in a subsequent message, after P had complained to the Parents that this apology was insufficiently sincere, added a further “apolog[y] for pushing you and causing you to fall”, because that was how he had perceived the Incident. The Mother confirms that she had told D to apologise for what P had perceived during the Incident and adds that “if anyone is to be blamed for the [confusion], it is me” because she had simply been trying to get P and D to move on from the Incident.

Ultimately, it is immaterial whether D had grabbed or pushed P. Even if P had not grabbed D by the neck, he had pushed her in or around the neck with some force. Given his significant height advantage over her, he must have appreciated that a push in the neck, which is a vulnerable part of the body, could cause her bodily pain. Even if P had provoked D by knocking over his snacks, such a push is hardly a proportionate response. I thus find family violence within s 64(a) of the Charter established. In reaching this conclusion, I do not accept the evidence of the Mother that P had been taken by surprise by the push. D did not take any such position in his testimony. Nor did the Father corroborate this evidence.

Thankfully, any pain suffered by P from the push and the ensuing...