Janardana Jayasankarr v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Sundaresh Menon CJ
• Judgment Date: 04 August 2016
• Neutral Citation: [2016] SGHC 161
• Plaintiff Counsel: Rajan s/o Sankaran Nair (Rajan Nair & Partners)
• Docket Number: Magistrate’s Appeal No 9037 of 2016
• Date: 04 August 2016
• Hearing Date: 04 August 2016
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Hurt,Offences,Causing hurt to domestic helper
• Published date: 17 August 2016
• Citation: [2016] SGHC 161
• Defendant Counsel: Zhuo Wenzhao and Li Yihong (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Year: 2016

Sundaresh Menon CJ (delivering the judgment of the court ex tempore):

This is an appeal brought by the appellant, Janardana Jayasankarr (“the Appellant”), against a sentence of 14 weeks’ imprisonment that the learned District Judge Jasvender Kaur (“the District Judge”) imposed on him for two counts of voluntarily causing hurt to his domestic helper (“the victim”) under s 323 read with s 73(2) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed). Two other similar charges involving the same victim were taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing. The district judge imposed a sentence of seven weeks’ imprisonment for each of the two proceeded charges, and ordered both sentences to run consecutively.

Before going into the specifics of this case, I reiterate the observation of the Court of Appeal in ADF v Public Prosecutor and another appeal [2010] 1 SLR 874 (“ADF”) that the abuse of a domestic helper is a very serious offence. It attracted the attention of Parliament in 1998, resulting in amendments to the sentencing regime that were geared towards enhancing the gravity of the punishment to be imposed for such offences. Specifically, s 73(2) of the Penal Code was enacted and it provides that the court may sentence an employer or a member of the employer’s household who commits certain offences against a domestic helper to one and a half times the punishment that the offender would otherwise have been liable for if the victim had not been a domestic helper.

The special provision enacted for the abuse of this class of victim stems from the recognition that domestic helpers are particularly vulnerable to abuse by their employers and their immediate family members (see Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (20 April 1998) vol 68 at col 1923 (Mr Wong Kan Seng, Minister for Home Affairs)). This is so for several reasons, of which I will mention just three: First, domestic helpers are in a foreign land and will often not have the time or opportunity to develop familiarity or a support network. Domestic helpers who have just arrived in Singapore or have only been working here for a few months, such as the victim in this case, are especially vulnerable. Second, they are in an inherently unequal position of subordination in relation to their employers. Third, the abuse will usually take place in the privacy of the employer’s home and without the presence of any independent witnesses. This not only makes the offence very difficult to detect, but also invariably increases the difficulty of prosecuting such offences because it will usually be a case of one’s word against that of the other. This, coupled with the fear of jeopardising their prospects of employment as well as the general fear of the employer engendered by the situation they find themselves in, is likely to discourage victims from making a complaint.

The upshot of this is that domestic helpers usually do not have a voice and, in many senses, are dependent on the good faith of their employers. It is critical that the law steps in to protect domestic helpers from being abused by their employers, who are the very people who should be taking care of them. Deterrence therefore takes centre stage where such abuse has taken place and offenders can expect a stiff sentence.

The evidence before me reveals that the Appellant had assaulted the 31-year-old Filipino victim on four occasions. The first assault, which was the subject of the first of two charges that were taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing, occurred in late November 2014. This was less than two months after the victim started working as a domestic helper in the Appellant’s household. The Appellant slapped the victim on her face on that occasion. The remaining assaults, which were the subject-matter of the three other charges, took place two months later in January 2015, and occurred within a short span of less than two days between the night of 20 January 2015 and the morning of 22 January 2015. Two of these charges were proceeded with.

At or about 10pm on 20 January 2015, the Appellant grabbed the victim by her shirt and dragged her into the master bedroom as he was unhappy with her. His displeasure was apparently prompted by an incident earlier in the day when he saw her open the fridge and microwave. He had assumed that she was stealing food even though she had only been checking whether there was enough food for the next day. After dragging her into the master bedroom, the Appellant and his wife took turns to scold and hit the victim for all her previous ostensible wrongdoings. The assault started with the Appellant slapping her face, and then punching her on her stomach and chest. His wife then slapped the victim and grabbed the victim’s neck with her hands, causing the latter to fall to the ground in pain. The Appellant asked her to stand up but the victim was not able to do so. He then stamped on her back while she was on the floor. After the attack, the couple continued scolding the victim for some time before allowing her to return to her room. That assault was the subject of the first proceeded charge against the Appellant. For completeness, I note that the Appellant’s wife has been convicted of a single charge of voluntarily causing hurt to a domestic helper for that assault, and was sentenced to a term of one week's imprisonment. Neither party has brought an appeal against that sentence.

A little more than a day later, at 4am on 22 January 2015, the Appellant again slapped the victim. This was the subject of the second charge that was taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing. The fourth assault, which was the subject of the second proceeded charge, occurred five hours later at 9am. The Appellant confronted the victim when she returned to the home after sending his children to school, and questioned her about some items that she had placed in a bucket under the sink. He then punched her in the chest and kicked her stomach. Even after she fell to the ground after the initial assault, the Appellant did not cease the attack but continued to kick her on the back.

As a result of the assaults by the Appellant, the victim sustained bruises on her scalp, cheeks, anterior upper chest, back, sacral area and left hip, tenderness over her anterior chest, as well as swelling of her left ear.

The offences committed by the Appellant came to light somewhat fortuitously when a concerned stranger, Ms Phua Merlyn Mapolo (“Ms Mapolo”), noticed that the victim had numerous bruises on various parts of her body. That occurred when the victim was on her way to send the Appellant’s children to school at 8.15am on 22 January 2015 (which was between the time that the third and fourth assaults took place). Ms Mapolo approached the victim and was informed by her, and subsequently by another domestic helper who was acquainted with the victim, that the victim had been abused a number of times by her employers. The latter also told Ms Mapolo that the victim had previously sought help from her on a few occasions. According to what is set out in the agreed statement of facts, the victim was fearful and worried that the Appellant would see her talking to other persons and thus hurried off after exchanging a few words with Ms Mapolo. Ms Mapolo then decided to report the matter to the Police. The injuries that were spotted by Ms Mapolo must have been the result of the second and third assaults that took place more than a day before and on that very morning. The fact that the bruising on the victim was so visible as to be spotted and as to warrant the concern of a stranger illustrates how forceful the assaults by the Appellant (and his wife) must have been.

In the proceedings below, the Prosecution submitted that an aggregate sentence of six to eight weeks’ imprisonment would be appropriate, while the Appellant submitted that a term of six weeks’ imprisonment would suffice. The District Judge was unimpressed by the submissions of both the Prosecution and the Appellant. She disagreed that an aggregate sentence of six to eight weeks’ imprisonment was commensurate with the overall criminality of the offences; and instead imposed a sentence of seven weeks’ imprisonment for each of the two proceeded charges and ordered that both were to run consecutively. The aggregate sentence was therefore 14 weeks’ imprisonment. The District Judge also ordered that the Appellant pay the victim $500 as compensation, in addition to the $500 that he had earlier paid the victim on his own accord. The relatively low amount of compensation appears to be explained by the...