Public Prosecutor v Lim Choon Hong and another
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Sundaresh Menon CJ |
Judgment Date | 15 September 2017 |
Neutral Citation | [2017] SGHC 237 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Sellakumaran s/o Sellamuthoo and Crystal Tan Yan Shi (Attorney-General's Chambers) |
Docket Number | Magistrates Appeals’ Nos 9103 and 9104 of 2017 |
Date | 15 September 2017 |
Hearing Date | 15 September 2017 |
Subject Matter | Appeals,Sentencing,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing |
Published date | 30 September 2017 |
Defendant Counsel | Suresh Damodara and Sukhmit Singh (Damodara Hazra LLP) |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Citation | [2017] SGHC 237 |
Year | 2017 |
As a country with a scarcity of human resources, we depend on foreigners who come here to undertake work. With rising levels of affluence and the opportunity for families to enjoy double incomes, very much of the menial work in our country is done by foreign workers. Foreign domestic workers are pervasive in many segments of Singapore’s society. In some senses, the work opportunities this presents provides economic incentives for nationals of other countries who seek to work their way out of their own difficult conditions.
It is imperative in this milieu of circumstances that we as a society ensure that these foreign workers are treated decently and accorded the sort of guarantees of human dignity that we would accord to any human being. This is important for several reasons but in my judgment, one consideration of special significance is what this says about ourselves as a society. We too have progressed as a nation from the direst of circumstances just 52 years ago. If we reach the point where we do not set our face firmly against the treatment of our fellow human beings in a way that reasonable people would regard as not being in keeping with the most basic standards of decency, then we have condemned ourselves.
I say this by way of prelude because I think it is critical that we not understate the deplorable nature of the conduct of the two respondents in this case.
I also observe that this is entirely in keeping with the settled jurisprudence of our courts on the sentencing approach we should take to cases where foreign domestic workers are ill-treated. In
In a case of domestic maid abuse, ordinarily, the principles of deterrence and retribution take precedence. A deterrent sentence signifies that there is a public interest to protect over and above the ordinary punishment of criminal behaviour.
The protection of domestic maids from abuse by their employers is always a matter of public interest, given their vulnerable status and the prevalence of such relationships in Singapore . No employer or household member has the right to engage in abusive behaviour against a domestic maid. All maids should be treated fairly, with dignity and respect.[emphasis in original]
More recently, in
In my judgment, these principles will be relevant in assessing the culpability of the respondents in this case. However, before I turn to the facts of this case, I wish to make some preliminary observations.
The circumstances in the present case were perhaps somewhat complicated by the fact that there appeared to have been a misstep in the prosecution that has led to this appeal. The case had evidently been initiated by the enforcement unit of the Ministry of Manpower. According to the learned Deputy Public Prosecutor Mr Sellakumaran, by the time the Public Prosecutor took carriage of the matter, some time had passed and in all the circumstances it was decided, in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, that the case would proceed under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (Cap 91A, 2009 Rev Ed) (“EFMA”) instead of bringing other possible charges under the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) for offences such as voluntarily causing hurt or voluntarily causing grievous hurt.
There are some consequences that flow from this....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
PP v Gaiyathiri d/o Murugayan
...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 Balak......
-
Tay Wee Kiat and another v Public Prosecutor and another appeal
...Chin [2001] 3 SLR(R) 851; [2002] 1 SLR 117 (refd) PP v Kwong Kok Hing [2008] 2 SLR(R) 684; [2008] 2 SLR 684 (refd) PP v Lim Choon Hong [2017] 5 SLR 989 (refd) PP v Rosman bin Anwar [2015] 5 SLR 937 (refd) PP v Singh Kalpanath [1995] 3 SLR(R) 158; [1995] 3 SLR 564 (folld) Soh Meiyun v PP [20......
-
Public Prosecutor v Bong Sim Swan Suzanna
...v Public Prosecutor [2010] 1 SLR 874, Janardana Jayasankarr v Public Prosecutor [2016] 4 SLR 1288, Public Prosecutor v Lim Choon Hong [2017] 5 SLR 989, to name a few. A sentencing framework for maid abuse cases was subsequently developed in Tay Wee Kiat and another v Public Prosecutor [2018......
-
Public Prosecutor v Chia Yun Ling and Tay Wee Kiat
...just plain rice and water. No compensation was offered to the victim. In line with the precedent cited in PP v Lim Choon Hong [2017] 5 SLR 989, I imposed a sentence of three months’ imprisonment. For C12A MAC-903407-2017, Chia had forced the victim to eat rice with sugar on two occasions, o......
-
Criminal Procedure, Evidence and Sentencing
...1291 at [39]–[40]. 129 Arun Kaliamurthy v Public Prosecutor [2014] 3 SLR 1023 at [19]. 130 ADF v Public Prosecutor [2010] 1 SLR 874. 131 [2017] 5 SLR 989. 132 Cap 91A, 2009 Rev Ed. 133 Public Prosecutor v Lim Choon Hong [2017] 5 SLR 989 at [8]. 134 Fu Foo Tong v Public Prosecutor [1995] 1 S......