PP v Vitria Depsi Wahyuni

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 07 November 2012
• Date: 07 November 2012
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 2 of 2012
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)

Public Prosecutor

Plaintiff

and

Vitria Depsi Wahyuni (alias Fitriah)

Defendant

[2012] SGCA 67

Chao Hick Tin JA

,

V K Rajah JA

and

Philip Pillai J

Criminal Appeal No 2 of 2012

Court of Appeal

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing—Sentencing—Aggravating factors—Premeditation—Elderly victim in accused person's charge—Concealment of crime

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing—Sentencing—Benchmark sentences—Increased sentencing range under s 304 (a) Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)—Section 304 (a) Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing—Sentencing—Mitigating factors—Youth—Plea of guilt

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing—Sentencing—Principles—Sentencing considerations—Physical violence in domestic worker-employer relationship

The respondent, a domestic worker, pleaded guilty to a charge under s 304 (a)of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (‘Penal Code’) for killing her 87-year-old employer. She was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment by the High Court judge (‘the Judge’). On the day of the fateful incident, the deceased chided the respondent for her lapses in the household chores. The thought of killing the deceased recurred in the respondent's mind. The respondent stuffed two bed sheets in her pillow that evening, and when the deceased had fallen asleep, the respondent placed the pillow over the deceased's face and tried to smother her. In the midst of the struggle, the respondent strangled the deceased. The respondent was 16 years and 11 months old at the time of the offence.

The Prosecution pressed for a 20-year imprisonment term before the Judge, pointing out that amendments were made to s 304 (a) of the Penal Code (with effect from 1 February 2008) to allow the court to sentence the respondent to an imprisonment term of up to 20 years or to life imprisonment (‘the current s 304 (a)’) as opposed to an imprisonment term of up to ten years or life imprisonment previously (‘the previous s 304 (a)’). The Judge held that this case did not merit a higher sentence than the ten-year imprisonment term imposed in PP v Juminem[2005] 4 SLR (R) 536 (‘Juminem’), even though Juminem was decided under the previous s 304 (a). The Judge also noted the psychiatrist's opinion that the respondent's youth, coupled with her poor impulse control and problem solving skills, and lower level of intelligence led to her offence.

The Prosecution appealed on the ground that the sentence was manifestly inadequate, and emphasised that: (a) the Judge failed to accord sufficient weight to the sentencing considerations of general deterrence and the protection of the public; (b) the Judge overlooked a very material difference in Juminem and the present case, in that the accused in Juminem suffered from an abnormality of mind which had substantially impaired her mental responsibility at the time of the offence, but the respondent did not; (c) the Judge failed on the one hand to give sufficient weight to the aggravating factors in this case, such as the fact that the respondent's acts were premeditated and committed on a vulnerable victim; and (d)the Judge placed undue weight on the respondent's personal circumstances.

Held, allowing the appeal and enhancing the sentence:

(1) The sentencing considerations of retribution and deterrence were particularly relevant in cases of physical violence committed within the domestic worker-employer relationship: at [20].

(2) The previous s 304 (a) left the courts with limited discretion to calibrate sentences according to the culpability of the offender. The huge disparity between a ten-year imprisonment term and life imprisonment under the previous s 304 (a)made it difficult for the court to apply the proportionality principle and deal with the culpability of the offender in a more nuanced fashion. Parliament enacted the current s 304 (a)of the Penal Code to accord to the courts a greater range of discretion in calibrating sentences according to the facts of each case: at [22] and [23].

(3) Under the previous s 304 (a), it appeared that the courts were inclined to impose a ten-year imprisonment term where the accused committed the act out of a loss of self-control, or in spontaneous response to the employer's provocation or abuse, or where the accused committed the offence while suffering from a mental abnormality that was transient and could be addressed with proper medical treatment. On the other hand, life imprisonment was meted out in cases where the accused's acts were premeditated, or where the accused was of unstable or of violent character and likely to re-offend. Courts also considered the extent of abuse suffered by the domestic worker and whether the domestic worker ‘tried to seek redress for his or her grievance through a proper and legitimate channel’: at [24].

(4) The question of appropriate sentence was fact sensitive. Other than the fact that the respondent was of a young age at the time of the offence, there were no circumstances which could mitigate her crime. This was a case of a premeditated killing. The respondent caught the deceased defenceless and at her most vulnerable moment. There was no evidence that the deceased subjected the respondent to any serious physical abuse. The respondent had the presence of mind to consider how to conceal her crime. The respondent also did not suffer from any mental illness or abnormality of the mind. Her plea of guilt was of limited mitigating value. The respondent in furtherance of attempting to conceal her crime gave a number of untruthful accounts of the incident to the police and the psychiatrists that examined her. While the respondent could have sought help from the deceased granddaughter, she chose not to do so. Instead, she took matters into her own hands and chose a wholly inappropriate and disproportionate response to her difficulties with the deceased: at [31] to [34].

(5) While we agreed with the Judge that the increase in sentencing range under the current s 304 (a) should not per se warrant the imposition of a higher sentence, and that the punishment imposed had to still reflect the gravity of the offence, the Judge had failed to give sufficient weight to the culpability of the offender, and particularly, the aggravating circumstances. It was absolutely essential that employers and their family members, as well as the domestic workers themselves, were able to enjoy peace of mind being served and serving in the safe confines of a domestic setting. An appropriately stiff sentence had to be imposed on any party in such a relationship who resorted to deliberate, disproportionate and not immediately provoked violence. A loud and clear message had to be sent out that the courts would not tolerate any such domestic violence: at [35].

Abdul Nasir bin Amer Hamsah v PP [1997] 2 SLR (R) 842; [1997] 3 SLR 643 (refd)

Angliss Singapore Pte Ltd v PP [2006] 4 SLR (R) 653; [2006] 4 SLR 653 (refd)

Dinesh Singh Bhatia s/o Amarjeet Singh v PP [2005] 3 SLR (R) 1; [2005] 3 SLR 1 (refd)

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

PP v Barokah [2008] SGHC 22 (refd)

PP v Chee Cheong Hin Constance [2006] 2 SLR (R) 707; [2006] 2 SLR 707 (refd)

PP v Juminem [2005] 4 SLR (R) 536; [2005] 4 SLR 536 (refd)

PP v Mohammed Liton Mohammed Syeed Mallik [2008] 1 SLR (R) 601; [2008] 1 SLR 601 (refd)

PP v Purwanti Parji [2004] SGHC 224 (folld)

PP v Rohana [2006] SGHC 52 (refd)

PP v Siew Boon Loong [2005] 1 SLR (R) 611; [2005] 1 SLR 611 (refd)

PP v Sundarti Supriyanto [2004] 4 SLR (R) 622; [2004] 4 SLR 622 (refd)

PP v Sundarti Supriyanto (No 2) [2004] SGHC 244 (refd)

PP v Tan Kei Loon Allan [1998] 3 SLR (R) 679; [1999] 2 SLR 288 (refd)

PP v Tri Lestari Criminal Case No 14 of 2008 (refd)

PP v UI [2008] 4 SLR (R) 500; [2008] 4 SLR 500 (refd)

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

R v Hodgson (1968) 52 Cr App R 113 (refd)

Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 304 (a) (consd)

Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2007 (Act 51 of 2007)

Lau Wing Yum and Christina Koh (Attorney-General's Chambers) for the appellant

Mohd Muzammil bin Mohd (Muzammil & Co) for the respondent.

Chao Hick Tin JA

(delivering the grounds of decision of the court):

1 This was an appeal by the Prosecution against a ten-year imprisonment term imposed by the High Court judge (‘the Judge’) on the respondent, Vitria Depsi Wahyuni @ Fitriah (‘Vitria’), for a charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under s 304 (a) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (‘Penal Code’). The charge to which Vitria pleaded guilty was as follows:

... sometime between 8.00 p.m. on the 25^th day of November 2009 and 3.15 a.m. on the 26^th day of November of 2009, at No. 21 Farleigh Avenue, Singapore, did cause the death of one Sng Gek Wah (female / 87 years old), to wit, by strangling her to death, which act was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause her death, and you thereby committed an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under section 304 (a) of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.

2 On 16 August 2012, we allowed the appeal and enhanced Vitria's sentence to 20 years' imprisonment with effect from 28 November 2009 (being the date of her remand). We now give our reasons.

Factual background

3 The salient facts were set out in the statement of facts to which Vitria admitted without qualification. Vitria, who was from Indonesia, came to Singapore on 19 November 2009. She started working for the deceased as a domestic worker on 21 November 2009. The deceased was 87 years of age at the time of her death and was living alone at 21 Farleigh Avenue (‘the residence’). Vitria was tasked to take care of the deceased and attend to the housework at the residence.

Events leading to the deceased's death

4 The fateful incident occurred a mere five days into Vitria's employment with the deceased...