Ng Chai Imm Evelyn v Public Prosecutor

• Judge: Eric Tin Keng Seng
• Judgment Date: 20 October 2001
• Neutral Citation: [2001] SGMC 37
• Citation: [2001] SGMC 37
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Court: Magistrates' Court (Singapore)

Judgment

GROUNDS OF DECISION

This is an appeal against sentence by Ng Chai Imm Evelyn ("Evelyn").

2. On the first day of a two-day trial, Evelyn pleaded guilty before me to two counts of voluntarily causing hurt to a domestic maid Darti Wiryadi ("victim") who was under her employ, contrary to s 323 read with s 73(1)(a) of the Penal Code. The first charge alleged that on 30 November 2000, at or around 9.30 am at No. 6 Pinewood Grove, Singapore, she grabbed the victims neck from behind with her hand and pushed her to the floor (PS 1984/2001 marked P1A). The second charge alleged that on 27 November 2000, at or around 6 pm at the above address, she kicked the victim on her buttocks (PS 1985/2001 marked P2A).

Statement of Facts

3. Evelyn understood the nature and consequences of the plea. She also admitted without any qualification to the amended Statement of Facts (marked A), the relevant portions of which are reproduced at paragraphs 4 to 6 below.

4. On 30 November 2000, at about 10.22 am, the victim called the police and informed that she was assaulted by her employer at No. 6 Pinewood Grove. Investigations revealed that on 30 November 2000, at about 8 am, the victim washed her employers car outside the house. When she finished at about 9.30 am, she went back into the house and placed the detergent she had used into the cupboard. While the victim was going out to bring the pail which she had used earlier, Evelyn told her that she did not place the detergent properly. When the victim went to place the detergent properly, Evelyn grabbed the victims neck from behind with her hand and pushed her onto the floor.

5. Further investigations revealed that on 27 November 2000, at about 6 pm, Evelyn instructed the victim to cut some chicken in the kitchen. However the victim could not do it well. Evelyn then kicked the buttocks of the victim. At that time, she was wearing wooden Japanese slippers.

6. The victim was sent to Alexandra Hospital for medical examination on 30 November 2000 and was examined by Dr Karina Kho Soo Ee. On examination, there were multiple scratch marks and bruising over the posterior part of the neck. The estimate age of the injury was one to two days and was consistent with a blow from a blunt object. The victim also complained of left inner thigh pain from previous injury inflicted by the employer. There was no visible injury. No other injuries were noted.

7. A photograph (marked B) taken of the victim at Alexandra Hospital was tendered to show the nature and extent of the victims neck injuries. This was undisputed and unchallenged by the defence.

Antecedent and mitigation

8. Evelyn was a first offender. The written mitigation with authorities (marked C) essentially provided her brief personal background, an explanation of what apparently happened during the two incidents of causing hurt, and a brief history of her good treatment of the victim prior to the incidents. Before concluding with a plea for a non-custodial sentence, the plea stated that "This is not a typical maid abuse case where serious injuries were caused." Evelyn supplemented the written mitigation with an oral address. First, she admitted her "mistake" and said she was very sorry. She proceeded to inform the court of her relationship with the victim, and the personal stresses she faced prior to the two incidents. She then almost qualified her plea by saying that she did not intend to hurt the victim. When asked if she stood by what she said, she apologised and withdrew those words that would qualify her plea.

Prosecutions address on sentence

9. DPP Mr Tan Jen Tse tendered a written submission with authorities (marked D) to argue for a custodial sentence. He first stated that Parliament (through enacting s 73(1)(a) of the Penal Code) and the Judiciary (through Kee Leong Bee & Anor v PP [1999] 3 SLR 190) both recognised the public interest in protecting domestic maids. He then used two recent unreported Magistrates Appeal decisions of PP v Quah Kim Li (MA 321/2000/01) and PP v Faridah Bte Abdul Fatah (MA 225/2000/01) to compare the severity of the present case. The DPP also highlighted the aggravating factors in the present case. First, the accused had assaulted the victim twice in four days. Secondly, the act of the accused in kicking the victim was calculated to humiliate the latter. Thirdly, by kicking the victim while wearing wooden Japanese slippers, this was not unlike using a weapon. Fourthly, the accused had attacked, cowardly from behind, the victims neck which is a vulnerable and sensitive part of the anatomy. This must have caused the victim tremendous pain. In pushing the victim onto the floor thereafter, it was calculated to inflict maximum humiliation.

10. Mr Anthony Lim, on the other hand, urged me to impose the maximum fine for the offences. He submitted that whilst Parliament came down hard on maid abuse cases, it did not enact mandatory imprisonment and each case must be decided on its own facts. He distinguished the cases of Quah Kim Li and Faridah Bte Abdul Fatah on the basis that the injuries suffered there were more serious than those in the present case. He said Evelyn was not vicious in the attack as there was no continuous action of kicking and punching.

Sentencing framework

11. This was yet another unfortunate case of an employer causing hurt to a domestic maid.

12. Parliament regarded maids as a vulnerable...