GFS v GFT

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Kevin Ho
• Judgment Date: 27 June 2023
• Neutral Citation: [2023] SGFC 21
• Court: Family Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: SS No. 606 of 2022
• Hearing Date: 18 August 2022,05 October 2022,06 October 2022,16 December 2022
• Citation: [2023] SGFC 21
• Year: 2023
• Plaintiff Counsel: The Complainant-in-person
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Thio Guan Yee, Russell (Emerald Law LLC)
• Subject Matter: Family law,Family Violence,Orders for protection,Standard of Proof
• Published date: 05 July 2023

District Judge Kevin Ho: Introduction

In the present case, the Complainant, [N], filed an application, vide. SS 606/2022 (“SS 606”), for personal protection orders (“PPO”) to be issued to protect his children, [L] and [M], and himself from family violence being caused by his wife, [S] (“Respondent”).

At the time when the trial commenced, the Respondent and the Complainant were in the midst of Syariah Court proceedings and were awaiting the relevant orders and/or decree to be made confirming that their marriage has been dissolved. By then, the parties and their children were not residing together, and had been living apart for some time. The Complainant lived with [L] and the Respondent lived with [M], at separate residences.

The trial of SS 606 took place over several tranches between August and October 2022. A total of 5 witnesses were called to testify during the trial. The Complainant and the Respondent each testified, with the Complainant calling three (3) additional witnesses. After the evidential phase of the trial had concluded, I gave directions for both parties to file written closing submissions.

I next saw the parties and counsel on 16 December 2022 whereupon I delivered my brief oral grounds of my decision. Having considered the evidence adduced by both parties and their respective written submissions, I dismissed SS 606 in its entirety and ordered the Complainant to pay costs to the Respondent.

I now provide my full written grounds of my decision.

The Complainant’s Application

In his Complaint Form made on 14 April 2022, the Complainant initially referred to 5 incidents of alleged family violence (“FV”) committed by the Respondent against himself, [L] and/or [M].

However, the total number of alleged FV incidents increased significantly in his written statements filed for the purposes trial, as well as in his written closing submissions. In total, the Complainant made references to 33 incidents of alleged FV. I will address these alleged incidents later on in these written grounds.

Before I do so, I first set out my observations apropos the Complainant’s application for a PPO to protect [M].

Preliminary Issue : PPO application on [M]’s behalf

At the outset, I found the Complainant’s PPO application (made on [M]’s behalf) to be rather unusual.

The Complainant sought a PPO against the Respondent to protect [M] even though [M] was living with the Respondent, and [M] herself was satisfied with the said arrangement.

In fact, [M] (who will be turning 16 years old in 2023) was compelled to attend trial as the Complainant had applied for, and obtained, the issuance of a Summons to Witness against [M]. In other words, [M] came before the Court as a subpoena-ed witness, as she was not willing to do so voluntarily.

In the interest of fairness, during the trial, I allowed both the Complainant and the Respondent’s counsel to elicit oral evidence from [M] as she did not prepare any written statements or affidavits ahead of time.

Having heard her testimony, I found her to be a bright and mature teenager who was able to clearly articulate her views and opinions.

During her testimony, [M] expressed her concern as to why a PPO was being sought on her behalf by one parent (whom she was estranged with) against the other parent with whom she was voluntarily residing with. She was clear in her testimony that she found a PPO to be unnecessary as she was neither in fear of the Respondent nor did the Respondent commit FV on her.

To be clear, there may be situations where a parent in the Complainant’s position can apply for a PPO to protect a child not living with him or her. However, in the present case, [M]’s testimony made it amply clear that her safety was not compromised, and a PPO was not required.

In his written submissions,¹ the Complainant claimed that [M] was a “manipulated hostile witness” and that she was siding with the Respondent.

While I did find some parts of [M]’s testimony – for example, in relation to the nature and contents of some of her social media postings – were at times unclear or strained, these inconsistencies were not sufficient to justify a complete disregard of all of [M]’s testimony. Even if a witness had not been truthful on one matter, it does not necessarily affect her credibility as a whole and the court may accept one part of the witness’ testimony and reject another.²

As the Complainant had not shown any clear reasons and/or basis why I should disregard all of [M]’s testimony, I thus accepted her evidence and found that a PPO was not necessary for her protection.

Ironically, if I had accepted the Complainant’s characterisation of [M] and that [M]’s evidence had been tainted (although I made no such findings), that would not have actually helped the Complainant’s case.

If the Court disregarded all of [M]’s testimony, there would still have been no clear evidence (except the Complainant’s own assertions or inadmissible hearsay evidence) that a PPO was necessary to protect [M] at the time of the hearing of SS 606.

For the reasons set out above, I dismissed the Complainant’s application for a PPO on [M]’s behalf as he was unable to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that FV was committed against [M]. I was also not persuaded that a PPO was necessary for [M]’s protection.

With this issue dealt with, I now return to the Complainant’s application for a PPO to protect himself and [L].

The Alleged Incidents of FV

At the first tranche of the trial, the Complainant was asked to state clearly the specific incidents of alleged FV he was relying on to support his PPO application. This was important because, as mentioned above, the Complainant’s affidavit referred to numerous incidents which were not previously stated in his Complaint Form.

In this regard, although an applicant for a PPO ought to be held to the allegations made in his or her complaint form and should not generally be allowed to include new allegations in written statements filed thereafter, I found - on the facts of this case - that there was no prejudice to the Respondent as she had been given an opportunity to address the contents of the Complainant’s affidavit in the present case.

In total, the Complainant referred to 33 incidents of alleged FV spanning a period of 16 years, with some of the earliest alleged incidents occurring in 2006. In his written submissions, the Complainant again referred to 33 instances of FV committed by the Respondent,³ although some of the dates and time of the incidents identified in his written submissions were different from what he had testified at trial.

Be that as it may, I will address these other incidents below, but I will exclude from my discussion the alleged incidents or events which :- involved only [M] since I had found that no PPO should be issued to protect her; incidents which the Complainant referred to the Respondent as the “victim” of her own FV; and alleged acts of FV committed by persons other than the Respondent (including her relatives).

As regards [26(b)] above, the Complainant indicated that these “incidents” show that the Respondent’s behaviour endangered herself.

However, the law focuses only on whether FV was committed, or is likely to be committed, by one family member against another family member; not whether a person caused violence to himself or herself. The Women’s Charter 1961 (“WC”) specifically defines FV as acts targeted by one family member against another.

For example, simply being a nuisance or carrying out annoying or harassing acts themselves do not constitute FV. Continual harassment becomes FV when it is done with the intent or knowledge that it is likely to cause anguish to another family member.⁴

As regards [26(c)] above, the law’s focus is on the Respondent’s actions, and not the actions of other persons. If other people (or family members) had committed FV against the Complainant or [L], then the Complainant should commence the relevant legal proceedings against those involved, but he cannot use a PPO application against the Respondent as a means to ventilate grievances against third parties.

It bears emphasising that a family violence trial is not a forum for an open-ended discussion and assessment of one’s family life or marriage, or for judgment to be passed as to who is good or bad person, or whether there was bad behaviour by different family members.

A PPO application is specifically focused on whether FV (as defined in the WC) had been committed by the respondent family member, and whether a PPO is necessary as against that specific respondent.

After excluding the “incidents” set out above, the Complainant’s list of alleged FV incidents reduced to approximately 22, the brief details of which are set out as follows :

S/No.	Date	Alleged Victim	Summary of Allegation
1.	August 2006	Complainant	Mental anguish.
2.	2007 – 2021	Complainant	In Australia - many occasions where Complainant was allegedly punched/scratched / physical harm caused.
3.	2011	Children	Respondent allegedly abandoned her children, putting them in harm’s way / wanted to commit suicide. Caused Complainant mental anguish
4.	30 April 2015	Complainant	Respondent put Complainant in harm’s way. Made police report resulting in Complainant being restrained. Respondent away Complainant’s money. Mental distress. Complainant was allegedly confined by the police unless Respondent’s orders. Respondent set Complainant up and she told the police that the Complainant was bipolar and the police handcuffed him.
5.	7 May 2015	Complainant	Complainant was subjected to physical harm by Respondent through a medical professional who injected Complainant with tranquiliser. She told lies to psychiatrist. Complainant was in pain for 1 month. Emotional harm, mental

...