PP v Gaiyathiri d/o Murugayan

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeSee Kee Oon J
Judgment Date04 August 2021
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Docket NumberCriminal Case No 47 of 2018
Public Prosecutor
and
Gaiyathiri d/o Murugayan

[2021] SGHC 187

See Kee Oon J

Criminal Case No 47 of 2018

General Division of the High Court

Criminal Law — Offences — Culpable homicide not amounting to murder — Diminished responsibility — Accused abusing deceased until she died — Accused suffering from mental disorder at time of offences — Sentencing considerations applicable to mentally disordered offenders where manner of committing offence was particularly heinous

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing — Mentally disordered offenders — Accused pleading guilty to culpable homicide not amounting to murder — Accused responding to treatment and at low risk of reoffending — Whether life imprisonment could be imposed where manner of committing offence was particularly heinous — Principles governing sentencing of mentally disordered offenders

Held, sentencing the accused to 30 years' imprisonment:

(1) While the principles of deterrence and retribution took precedence in a case of domestic maid abuse, this had to be balanced against the principle of rehabilitation in sentencing a mentally disordered offender. However, depending on the circumstances of the case, the element of deterrence could be accorded its full weight, such as where the mentally disordered offender was able to appreciate the gravity and significance of his criminal conduct: at [44] to [46].

(2) Where it could be shown cumulatively that the criteria in R v Rowland Jack Forster Hodgson(1968) 52 Cr App R 113 (“Hodgson”) were met, viz, that: (a) the offence committed was grave enough to require a very long sentence; (b) the offender was a person of unstable character likely to commit such offences again in future; and (c) if such future offences might result in specially injurious consequences to others, a sentence of life imprisonment would be justified in order to protect society. If any of the Hodgson criteria were not met, the court should then turn to consider the established sentencing principles in relation to mentally disordered offenders. Having examined the nature of the crime and the circumstances of the offender, a sentence of life imprisonment could still be justified if the court considered the case to be one of worst cases of culpable homicide: at [49], [53] and [54].

(3) In the present case, only the second Hodgson criterion was not met. The accused did not appear to have been a pathologically violent person prior to the material events. As Dr Yeo had found, the onset of her mental disorder at or around the time of the offences had materially contributed to her offending conduct. She had been responsive to psychiatric treatment, and did not appear to be of unstable character or to have a propensity to reoffend or to pose a danger to the public: at [61].

(4) The CCTV footage and statement of facts told a shocking story of how the deceased was abused, humiliated, tortured, starved, and eventually made to suffer death at the hands of the accused. Apart from the accused's psychiatric conditions, there were few material mitigating factors. The accused's attempts to downplay her culpability suggested that she was not genuinely remorseful. The present case could be considered among the worst cases of culpable homicide imaginable: at [62] to [69].

(5) The accused's culpability was somewhat attenuated by her mental disorder. Her psychiatric conditions had substantially contributed to the commission of the offences. As such, life imprisonment was not a fair and appropriate sentence: at [74].

(6) While the accused's mental responsibility was partially impaired, she had been able to exercise conscious deliberation and volitional control throughout the commission of the offences. The cruel and inhumane methods the accused had used to punish the deceased for her perceived lapses were conscious and deliberate. Her culpability, while attenuated by her mental disorder, remained high and retribution and general deterrence were the primary sentencing considerations. In such circumstances, a sentence of 20 years' imprisonment was appropriate in respect of the s 304(a) charge: at [75] to [83].

(7) Sentences ranging between 18 months and two years' imprisonment were imposed in respect of the 22 charges under s 323 of the Penal Code, depending on the varying degrees of harm and culpability: at [85] and [86].

(8) For the offences under ss 324 and 325 of the Penal Code, sentences of three years' imprisonment were imposed. In respect of the s 352, s 341 and s 506 charges, sentences of one month's, one month's and three months' imprisonment for each of these respective charges were imposed: at [87] and [88].

(9) Even though the deceased was the sole victim, each of the proceeded offences apart from the s 304(a) offence was separate and distinct. It would not make sense to consider that the various offences might somehow be said to have been unified by the same purpose or design. However, bearing in mind the totality principle, it would not be appropriate to order all or a substantial number of the sentences to run consecutively. In view of the accused's overall criminality, five of the sentences were ordered to run consecutively. The accused was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 30 years' imprisonment: at [84], [89] and [90].

[Observation: The court determined the appropriate sentence based on the charge that was before the court. The reasons the Prosecution might have considered in exercising its prosecutorial discretion to reduce the charge were not relevant considerations in sentencing. There was no question of double-counting if the accused's psychiatric conditions were taken into account in determining the sentence. The fact that the accused's mental disorder had resulted in a reduced charge did not negate its mitigating effect, although it could not be invoked as an excuse for every aspect of the offender's conduct: at [57] to [59].]

Case(s) referred to

ADF v PP [2010] 1 SLR 874 (folld)

Chen Weixiong Jerriek v PP [2003] 2 SLR(R) 334; [2003] 2 SLR 334 (refd)

Lai Oei Mui Jenny v PP [1993] 2 SLR(R) 406; [1993] 3 SLR 305 (refd)

Leaw Siat Chong v PP [2001] 3 SLR(R) 646; [2002] 1 SLR 63 (refd)

Lim Choon Kang v PP [1993] 3 SLR(R) 254; [1993] 3 SLR 927 (refd)

Lim Ghim Peow v PP [2014] 4 SLR 1287 (folld)

Mohamed Shouffee bin Adam v PP [2014] 2 SLR 998 (folld)

Neo Man Lee v PP [1991] 1 SLR(R) 918; [1991] SLR 146 (refd)

PP v Aniza bte Essa [2008] 3 SLR(R) 832; [2008] 3 SLR 832, HC (refd)

PP v Aniza bte Essa [2009] 3 SLR(R) 327; [2009] 3 SLR 327, CA (refd)

PP v Kong Peng Yee [2018] 2 SLR 295 (refd)

PP v Lim Choon Hong [2017] 5 SLR 989 (refd)

PP v Loqmanul Hakim bin Buang [2007] 4 SLR(R) 753; [2007] 4 SLR 753 (refd)

PP v P Mageswaran [2019] 1 SLR 1253 (refd)

PP v Raveen Balakrishnan [2018] 5 SLR 799 (folld)

Purwanti Parji v PP [2005] 2 SLR(R) 220; [2005] 2 SLR 220 (refd)

Quek Hock Lye v PP [2012] 2 SLR 1012 (refd)

R v Rowland Jack Forster Hodgson (1968) 52 Cr App R 113 (refd)

Tay Wee Kiat v PP [2018] 4 SLR 1315 (refd)

Facts

The accused, Gaiyathiri d/o Murugayan, pleaded guilty to, and was convicted of 28 offences under the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“Penal Code”). The most serious of these offences was a charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under s 304(a) of the Penal Code, for having caused the death of her foreign domestic worker (“the deceased”). The s 304(a) charge was reduced from her initial charge of murder. Another 87 charges were taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing.

The deceased was first employed in the accused's household on 28 May 2015. The accused started physically abusing the deceased from October 2015 until the deceased's eventual demise on 26 July 2016. Video footage from closed-circuit television cameras (“the CCTV footage”) installed within the accused's household documented the abuse and ill-treatment inflicted upon the deceased for the 35 days leading up to her death. The charges preferred against the accused involved instances of abuse captured on the CCTV footage.

Among other acts, the accused had on various occasions punched, slapped and kicked the deceased and hit her with her bare hands or with various household implements. The deceased was assaulted on vulnerable parts of her body such as her head, neck and groin. On numerous occasions, the accused had grabbed the deceased by her hair and shaken her back and forth or from side to side and spun her head around, followed by hitting or kicking the deceased as well as stamping on her body after she had fallen to the floor. She had also dragged the deceased by her hair across the floor. In addition, the accused had starved the deceased for at least the 35 days preceding her death. The deceased weighed 39kg when she was first employed, but lost 14kg during the 14 months of her employment, weighing only 24kg at the time of her demise.

The accused was subsequently assessed by several psychiatrists to have suffered from major depressive disorder (“MDD”) with peripartum onset of moderate severity, and obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (“OCPD”). It was agreed by the Prosecution and the Defence that the findings of Dr Derrick Yeo (“Dr Yeo”), a psychiatrist from the Institute of Mental Health, were reflective of the accused's mental state. Both her conditions of MDD and OCPD were deemed to have had a substantial contribution to the commission of the offences. Dr Yeo opined that the accused's mental responsibility was partially impaired, but she was able to exercise conscious deliberation and volitional control throughout the commission of her offences. In Dr Yeo's view, the defence of diminished responsibility under Exception 7 to s 300 of the Penal Code was applicable to the accused. Dr Yeo further opined that she was not deemed to be at risk of reoffending or to pose a danger to the public and she had been responsive to psychiatric treatment.

The Prosecution submitted that general deterrence and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Public Prosecutor v Pay Wee Meng
    • Singapore
    • Magistrates' Court (Singapore)
    • 5 May 2022
    ...for a light sentence, saying he did not earn much and needed to support his family. In Public Prosecutor v Gaiyathiri d/o Murugayan [2021] SGHC 187, the High Court stated: It is well-established in law that personal or family hardship are not mitigating factors unless there are clearly exce......
  • Gaiyathiri d/o Murugayan v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 29 June 2022
    ...relating to the offences have been set out by the Judge in his grounds of decision (see Public Prosecutor v Gaiyathiri d/o Murugayan [2021] SGHC 187 (“the GD”)) and we will not rehearse the same save to set out the essential factual background relevant to the present appeal. The Victim star......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT