Public Prosecutor v Azlin bte Arujunah and another
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Valerie Thean J |
Judgment Date | 13 August 2020 |
Neutral Citation | [2020] SGHC 168 |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Docket Number | Criminal Case No 47 of 2019 |
Published date | 18 August 2020 |
Year | 2020 |
Hearing Date | 19 June 2020,20 January 2020,20 November 2019,19 November 2019,26 November 2019,18 November 2019,15 November 2019,27 November 2019,12 November 2019,03 April 2020,13 November 2019,28 November 2019,29 November 2019,13 July 2020,14 November 2019 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Tan Wen Hsien, Daphne Lim and Li Yihong (Attorney-General's Chambers) |
Defendant Counsel | Thangavelu (Trident Law Corporation), Tan Li-Chern Terence (Robertson Chambers LLC) and Ng Huiling Cheryl (Intelleigen Legal LLC),Eugene Singarajah Thuraisingam and Syazana Yahya (Eugene Thuraisingam LLP) |
Citation | [2020] SGHC 168 |
Azlin binte Arujunah (“Azlin”) and Ridzuan bin Mega Abdul Rahman (“Ridzuan”) were jointly tried on multiple charges for various acts of abuse from July 2016 to October 2016 against their five-year-old son (“the Child”). In respect of a series of four scalding incidents which resulted in the Child’s death on 23 October 2016, they were charged with murder under s 300(
At the time of the offences, the accused persons, then 24 years of age, were the parents of six children. Azlin and Ridzuan lived together with four of their children at the material time: their oldest son, who was turning seven years old at the time, the Child, who was their second son, and two younger daughters, who were three and two years old respectively.1
The Child had lived with a friend of Azlin’s, [Z], since March 2011, when he was a few months old. In time, [Z] sought to make childcare and schooling arrangements for the Child near her home, but was unable to secure the parents’ consent.2 As a result, the Child was returned to Azlin and Ridzuan in May 2015.3 [Z] and her family also sought to see the Child from time to time, but were denied access after January 2016.4
The offences in this case came to light when the Child was admitted to the Emergency Department at KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital (“KK Hospital”) on 22 October 2016 at around 7.57pm.5 He received emergency intensive care, but was pronounced dead on 23 October 2016 at 9.13am.6 Subsequent investigation revealed a series of offences from July to 22 October 2016. At trial, the Prosecution proceeded on six charges against Azlin, and nine charges against Ridzuan. The charges against Azlin were as follows:
Ridzuan was tried on the following charges:
In these grounds of decision, I refer to charges C1A and D1A as “the Murder Charges”. The other charges are referred to as “the Abuse Charges”.
Joint trial of Abuse and Murder ChargesProsecution initially informed parties that they would stand down the Abuse Charges until after the trial of the Murder Charges. On 19 September 2019, however, they notified defence counsel of their decision to try all the charges together. Counsel for Ridzuan did not object. Counsel for Azlin objected, on the basis that the joinder would be prejudicial to Azlin’s defence; alternatively, counsel requested for a vacation of the first tranche of trial dates fixed for 15–17 and 22–25 October 2019.7 At the subsequent pre-trial conference on 7 October 2019, I vacated the October trial dates but allowed the joinder of the charges at a single trial. The trial then convened on the allocated dates in November 2019, with subsequent dates added in 2020.
The objection to the joining of the charges was renewed by counsel for Azlin in closing submissions and I deal with the objections here. It was not disputed that the grounds for joining of those offences under s 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) (“CPC”) were satisfied. Azlin objected to the trial of these offences together on the basis that the she would be prejudiced or embarrassed in her defence as the evidence amounted to similar fact evidence and argued for the need for separate trials by virtue of s 146 of the CPC.
In
The question then, was whether the joint trial of the offences would prejudice the accused or embarrass her in her defence such that the court should exercise its powers under s 146 of the CPC to order a separate trial: see
Counsel for Azlin raised a further argument in closing submissions that was not raised prior to trial. This is that Azlin would have testified in her defence for the Abuse Charges, but chose not to because of the Murder Charge. To the contrary, Azlin did not dispute three of the Abuse Charges, and the source for the evidence for the remaining charges was her own statements, which she had conceded were voluntary. In my view, the facts well show that Azlin was not prejudiced by her election not to give evidence on any of the charges.
I start, then, with the Abuse Charges, which inform the context for the Murder Charges.
The Abuse ChargesJuly and August CYPA chargesThe series of offences commenced in July, with CYPA offences committed by Ridzuan against the Child.
Section 5(1) of the CYPA reads:
A person shall be guilty of an offence if, being a person who has the custody, charge or care of a child or young person, he ill-treats the child or young person or causes, procures or knowingly permits the child or young person to be ill-treated by any other person.
Section 5(2) of the CYPA provides a list that defines the scope of “ill-treats” under the CYPA. For the present case, the relevant provisions are s 5(2)(
For the purposes of this Act, a person ill-treats a child or young person if that person, being a person who has the custody, charge or care of the child or young person —
- subjects the child or young person to physical or sexual abuse;
- wilfully or unreasonably does, or causes the child or young person to do, any act which endangers or is likely to endanger the safety of the child or young person or which causes or is likely to cause the child or young person —
- any unnecessary physical pain, suffering or injury;
- any emotional injury; or
- any injury to his health or development …
It was not disputed that the Child was a child in the “custody, charge or care” of the Azlin and Ridzuan.
Ridzuan’s offences in July 2016In July 2016, the Prosecution alleged that Ridzuan had used pliers to pinch the Child twice. These charges, D2 and D3, were similar. D2 read as follows:
That you,
RIDZUAN BIN MEGA ABDUL RAHMAN , … sometime in July 2016, at [xxx], Singapore, being a person who has care of a child, namely, [the Child] (male, 5 years...
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Public Prosecutor v Periam Rij s/o Mathyalakan
...offences: Section 326 of the Penal Code: Public Prosecutor v Miya Manik [2020] SGHC 164 at [117]; Public Prosecutor v Azlin bte Arujunah [2020] SGHC 168 at [196] and [197]; Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Syafiq bin Mohamed Abbas [2020] SGDC 114 at [28] – [30], and Repeat offence of drug traff......
-
Public Prosecutor v Zareena Begum d/o P A M Basheer Ahamed
...of Public Prosecutor v Miya Manik [2020] SGHC 164 (“Miya Manik”) at [119] and Public Prosecutor v Azlin bte Arujunah and another [2020] SGHC 168 (“Azlin”) at [196]. Justice Thean drew reference from Menon CJ’s decision in Ng Soon Kim v Public Prosecutor [2019] SGHC 247 at [12] which dealt w......
-
Public Prosecutor v Azlin bte Arujunah and other appeals
...Azlin. The Judge rejected the alternative s 300(c) charge for two broad reasons: see Public Prosecutor v Azlin bte Arujunah and another [2020] SGHC 168 (“GD”). The first main reason was her view that s 34 is not a “free-standing principle of attribution” that allows the court to attribute l......
-
Public Prosecutor v Noor Awwalludeen Bin Jamil
...The offender was also in addition sentenced to six strokes of the cane.34 The second case is PP v Azlin bte Arujunah and anor [2020] SGHC 168 (“Azlin”) which was also a case of child abuse.35 The accused persons were the biological parents of the victim, their 5-year old son. On multiple oc......