Public Prosecutor v Chua Siew Lin
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judge | Kow Keng Siong |
| Judgment Date | 19 June 2004 |
| Neutral Citation | [2004] SGDC 147 |
| Court | District Court (Singapore) |
| Year | 2004 |
| Published date | 10 September 2004 |
| Plaintiff Counsel | Mr Wayne Koh (Deputy Public Prosecutor) |
| Defendant Counsel | Mr G Raman (G Raman and Partners) |
| Citation | [2004] SGDC 147 |
| 19 June 2004
|
Judgment reserved. |
District Judge Kow Keng Siong:
The charges & the appeal
1. This Judgment arises from an appeal against conviction and sentence.
2. The Accused – Mdm Chua Siew Lin – claimed trial to the following three charges relating to one Nur Akbariyah (Nur), her Indonesian maid –
a. Causing hurt to Nur with a knife, an offence punishable under section 324 read with section 73 of the Penal Code (DAC 3549/2004);
b. Threatening Nur with injury by placing a knife at her neck, an offence punishable under section 506 of the Penal Code (DAC 3550/2004); and
c. Slapping Nur’s face and pushing her head against the wall, an offence punishable under section 323 read with section 73 of the Penal Code (DAC 3551/2004).
According to the charges, the Accused was alleged to have committed the following acts in the evening of 1 November 2001 at her residence.
3. At the end of the trial, I found the Accused guilty of all the charges and sentenced her to 4 months and 2 weeks’ imprisonment in total.
Background facts
4. At all material times, the Accused was a widowed homemaker residing at No. 36 Carrisbrooke Grove. The Accused's household consisted of herself and her three children, aged six years, four years and three months.[1]
5. Between 12 February to 2 November 2001, the Accused engaged Nur’s services as a domestic maid.[2]
Prosecution’s evidence
Nur Akbariyah
6. Preceding events– At the material time of the incident (1 November 2001 at about 6.40 pm), Chua was unhappy with Nur. The cause of this unhappiness is not very clear. It was either because (a) Nur had neglected to prepare dinner for the Accused’s two older children, or (b) Nur did not prepare a separate dinner dish for the eldest child who was then sick.[3]
7. The Accused took it upon herself to prepare porridge for the children. While preparing the porridge, the Accused asked whether Nur knew what she (the Accused) was doing at the material time. Nur mistakenly thought that she (the Accused) was making soup and replied accordingly. This reply angered the Accused.[4]
8. DAC 3551/2004 (causing hurt by slapping and hitting Nur's head)– Because of her reply, the Accused told Nur to slap herself. The latter complied, slapping herself many times. This however did not satisfy the Accused, who complained that Nur did not slap herself hard enough. The Accused remarked that since Nur did not know how to slap herself, she would demonstrate how it should be done. The Accused then gave one ‘very hard’ slap to Nur’s left cheek. Soon after this painful slap, Nur went to an area behind the kitchen and cried.[5]
9. The Accused did not leave Nur alone. Instead, she summoned her maid back into the kitchen.[6]
10. When Nur returned to the kitchen, the Accused questioned her reason for crying. When Nur replied that she was in pain, the Accused made a sarcastic remark before pushing her head against the kitchen wall.[7] As a result of this assault, Nur hurt her head and neck. According to Nur, she had already injured her neck when trying to dodge the Accused’s slap moments earlier.[8]
11. DAC 3550/2004 (using a knife to threaten) – After pushing Nur against the kitchen wall, the Accused placed a kitchen knife (P10) on her maid’s neck, middle torso, abdomen, and finally her left collarbone region. Each time the Accused placed the knife on Nur’s body, she told the latter to ‘wake up’ in a ‘strong tone’. According to Nur, the Accused was then ‘very, very angry’. Nur was scared and she thought that the Accused was about to kill her.[9]
12. DAC 3549/2004 (using a knife to cause hurt) – Nur felt some pain at her left collarbone region when the Accused placed the knife there. She later discovered a small cut on her collarbone region (where the Accused had placed the knife), and that blood from the cut had stained her T-shirt (P11).[10]
13. The aftermath– After threatening Nur with the knife, the Accused subsequently cooled down. She told Nur not to cry and to speak to her, as a friend. Nur responded to the conciliatory gestures by saying that if the Accused visited her house, she would bring her to Borobudor, which was nearby. The Accused felt that Nur’s suggestion was a good idea. According to Nur, she made the suggestion because she was trying to be nice, and it was a way of cheering herself up (talking of her hometown).[11]
14. Noticing that Nur was crying and appeared sad, the Accused asked her to ‘run around’ to lighten up, and to look happier. The latter complied. There was no further assault later thereafter.[12]
15. The escape– The next day (2 November 2001), Nur ran away in the morning when the Accused left the house to fetch her two older children from kindergarten. Nur went straight to a Police Post to lodge a report against the Accused. Later that day, Nur was referred for a medical examination.[13] On 3 November 2001, Nur returned to the Accusd’s residence, accompanied by the police. When she saw the Accused, she apologised for having left the house unattended when she ran away. On that visit, Nur assisted the police in seizing the knife that was used by the Accused to threaten and injure her on 1 November 2001.[14]
Dr Tan Bien Peng
16. Dr Tan Bien Peng examined Nur on 2 November 2001 at Tan Tock Seng Hospital and subsequently prepared a medical report (P12). During his examination, Dr Tan found the following injuries on Nur -
a. A 3-cm cephalohemotoma (bruise) over the right parietal region (top right side) of her head
b. A 1-cm linear scar over the left clavicular (collarbone) region. [15]
17. According to Dr Tan, Nur’s head injury was consistent with her head having been pushed against a hard object.[16]
Defence’s case
18. The Accused’s case was essentially one of denial.
19. The Accused testified that in the evening of 1 November 2001, she found to her dismay that Nur had neglected to prepare dinner. The Accused immediately prepared porridge for her two older children.[17]
20. After grumbling about Nur’s oversight, the Accused confronted her maid over the matter and told the latter to ‘quietly slap herself’ for her carelessness. Nur complied and slapped herself a few times.[18]
21. According to the Accused, the rest of the evening proceeded uneventfully.
22. The next morning at about 10 am, the Accused left her house to fetch her two older children from kindergarten. When she returned at about 11 am, the Accused discovered that Nur was missing. She soon learnt that (a) a neighbour’s maid had seen Nur bleeding that morning, and (b) Nur had gone to the police station to lodge a report.[19]
23. The Accused was shocked at this revelation. She immediately contacted a nearby police post about her missing maid and was told that Nur was indeed there and that an ambulance had been called for. The Accused was informed to wait at home and she complied.[20]
24. The next day, Nur returned to the Accused’s house with some police officers. During this meeting, Nur said to her, ‘Sorry ma’am.’ The Accused was not sure why Nur had apologised.[21]
Assessment of evidence
Approach to Nur’s evidence
22. I am mindful that the primary piece of evidence directly proving the Prosecution’s case came from Nur. Under the circumstances, a Court must take extreme caution in examining the complainant’s evidence: Choy Kok Meng v PP
Discrepancies in Nur’s evidence with regards to the injuries
23. The discrepancies– Given the significance of Nur’s testimony, it is not surprisingly that Mr Raman devoted a substantial portion of his arguments towards challenging the credibility of her evidence.
24. Mr Raman firstly contended that there were discrepancies in Nur’s evidence and the Prosecution’s case, and that this rendered her evidence unreliable. Counsel highlighted the following –
a. Nur had given contradictory evidence as to whether she did prepare dinner for the Accused’s two older children at the material time.[22]
b. Nur did not inform Dr Tan about the cut on her collarbone region or that the Accused had threatened her with a knife.[23]
c. Instead, what Nur apparently told Dr Tan was that the Accused had used ‘her palms’ to hit her ‘over both cheeks’. Nur had also complained of pain over the ‘back of the neck’: medical report (P12). It was submitted that these claims were inconsistent with Nur’s evidence that the Accused had only slapped her once using her right hand. Mr Raman further argued that since Nur had complained of pain over the back of her neck, the Accused must have hit the back of her head as well. However, Nur did not testify to this at the trial.[24]
d. According to Dr Tan, the cut on Nur’s collarbone region was not a fresh wound but an old scar. Under the circumstances, it was submitted that the Accused could not have caused this particular injury.[25]
e. Nur had testified that apart from her collarbone region, she also felt the knife coming into contact with her neck, middle torso and abdomen.[26] Based on such evidence, Mr Raman submitted that there should have been cuts on the other parts of her body as well, not just the collarbone region. It was further submitted that the Accused could not have so carefully calibrated her placing of the knife on Nur’s body so as not to cause other injury on the latter’s body.[27]
f. Mr Raman also submitted that if Nur did inform the police during investigations that the Accused had placed a knife against her abdomen and middle torso, these acts would have been particularised in the criminal intimidation charge (DAC 3550/2004) as well.[28]
g. Finally, it was contended that Nur’s evidence that the Accused pushed her against a kitchen wall between a refrigerator and the door should be rejected because a photo of the kitchen (P7) does not disclose the existence of such a wall.[29]
25. After careful consideration, I found that these are in fact inconsequential in nature, and do not in anyway tarnish the credibility of Nur’s account of the incident.
26. Whether Nur had prepared dinner at...
To continue reading
Request your trial