Public Prosecutor v Chua Siew Peng

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Kamala Ponnampalam
• Judgment Date: 01 September 2016
• Neutral Citation: [2016] SGMC 44
• Court: Magistrates' Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: MAC 800473-4/2013
• Year: 2016
• Published date: 06 September 2016
• Hearing Date: 20 April 2015,21 March 2016,05 May 2016,30 March 2016,01 October 2015,06 October 2015,29 October 2015,11 October 2015,18 April 2016,10 October 2015,09 October 2015,21 April 2015
• Plaintiff Counsel: Yang Ziliang and Siti Adrianni Binte Marhain (partway) (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Defendant Counsel: accused in person
• Citation: [2016] SGMC 44

District Judge Kamala Ponnampalam:

Ms Chua Siew Peng was tried for two offences before me. The first was for wrongfully confining her foreign domestic helper at her residence in Maplewoods Condominium, an offence under section 342 read with section 73(2) of the Penal Code, Chapter 224. The second was for voluntarily causing hurt to the domestic helper by slapping her face, an offence under section 323 read with section 73(2) of the Penal Code. At the conclusion of the trial, I found Ms Chua guilty of the two offences and convicted her. She was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment for the first offence and three weeks’ imprisonment for the second offence. I ordered both terms of imprisonment to run concurrently making a total term of two months’ imprisonment. Ms Chua has filed an appeal against the conviction and the sentence and the prosecution has appealed against the sentence. I now set out my reasons for the decision.

BACKGROUND FACTS

These offences were committed in October 2012. At that time, Ms Chua was residing in her sister’s apartment on the 6th floor at Maplewoods Condominium. The other occupants of the apartment then were Ms Chua’s mother, her sister, her sister’s husband and her sister’s daughter. The foreign domestic helper, Muegue Jonna Memeje (Jonna), a Filipino national, who was employed by Ms Chua in December 2011, resided in the same unit right up to 30 October 2012.

On 30 October 2012, at around 11.00 am, Jonna decided to run away from the apartment unit. She said that she could no longer tolerate the physical abuse from Popo (meaning grandmother in Chinese and referring to Ms Chua’s mother), Mdm Kat (referring to Ms Chua’s sister) and Ms Chua. Jonna climbed out of Mdm Kat’s bedroom window, walked on the narrow ledge below the window towards the corner of the building, rounded the corner and jumped onto the rooftop of an adjoining building, about one storey below. Celina, who worked as a domestic helper in the unit below Jonna’s unit, heard someone calling out. Celina went out onto the balcony of her unit to have a look and she found Jonna on the rooftop of the adjacent building. Celina helped Jonna climb up onto the balcony of her unit. Celina brought Jonna into her apartment and made her sit on a chair. Celina saw that Jonna had difficulty walking and her arms and legs looked burnt. Another Filipino domestic helper from the neighbouring block who had seen Jonna jump, telephoned HOME. HOME is short for Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics. It is an independent charity organisation which looks after the welfare of migrant workers in Singapore. The volunteer workers from HOME came to Maplewoods Condominium to pick Jonna up. She was taken back to their office. The case worker at HOME interviewed Jonna before calling the police and the ambulance.

Jonna was admitted to the Singapore General Hospital (SGH) on 30 October 2012. Her medical report states that amongst other injuries, Jonna had sustained a bilateral calcaneal fracture (ie a fracture of both heel bones), bruising and swelling of her left eye and burns on her hands and forearms. Dr Tan Shera, the doctor who had first examined Jonna at SGH, had also noted that Jonna had cephalohematoma which is a small collection of blood over the right parietal region which is the area around the back of the ear. Jonna underwent surgery for the reduction and the internal fixation of her fractures. She was treated for her other injuries as well and discharged from hospital 12 days later on 11 November 2012.

Ms Chua’s mother and sister were charged as well for voluntarily causing hurt to Jonna. Their cases have been dealt with by the other courts. I raise this matter in these grounds as Ms Chua, in her written submissions, had made references to Jonna’s evidence in her mother’s and her sister’s trials. The DPP had pointed out in his reply submissions that Ms Chua had selectively quoted from Jonna’s testimony in those trials without giving the full context in which Jonna’s evidence was given. After perusing the excerpts of Jonna’s evidence cited by the DPP in his submissions, I agreed that Jonna’s evidence in the other trials were quoted out of context and I therefore disregarded all of it in my deliberations at this trial. In any event, the prosecution has called Jonna as a witness at this trial and led evidence from her. Ms Chua has also had the opportunity to cross-examine her. Therefore Ms Chua has not been prejudiced in any way.

THE PROCECUTION’S CASE The Medical Evidence

The medical report on Jonna which was tendered in court was prepared by Dr Julie Liana Bte Hamzah¹, the Resident doctor at SGH’s orthopaedic department. Dr Julie told the court that she had not personally examined Jonna. She prepared the report based on the clinic notes made by the orthopaedic surgeon. She explained that the medical report had also captured the entries in the clerking sheet made by the house officer in the orthopaedics department at the point of Jonna’s admission into the orthopaedics ward. The house officer had observed that Jonna’s eyes were bruised and swollen and her hands and forearms were erythematous (meaning red) with scars and raw areas of skin cracks.² Jonna was referred to the eye specialist and the dermatologist. Dr Julie had also documented that x-rays of Jonna’s feet, ankles and calcaneum (heel bone) revealed minimally displaced fractures at both calcanea. Jonna underwent surgery for her fractures and was treated for her burns. The eye specialist did not recommend any intervention in the treatment of her eyes. Jonna was discharged stable and well on 11 November 2012. In cross-examination, Dr Julie said that she was unable to comment on what caused the bruising on Jonna’s left cheek as shown in the photographs P20 and P21. Dr Julie said that she can’t address the mechanism of the fall either or what injuries could have resulted from the fall.³

Dr Tan Shera was the medical officer at the Singapore General Hospital’s Emergency Department who examined Jonna upon her arrival at the hospital on 30 October 2012. She agreed with the contents of the medical report prepared by Dr Julie. She added that her records showed that she had noted a cephalohematoma which is a small collection of blood over the right parietal region (an area behind the ear region).⁴ She had also observed erythematous areas with skin cracks over both the lower limbs and the left groin crease.⁵ Dr Tan had jotted down Jonna’s account of how she had sustained her injuries. Jonna told Dr Tan that she had fallen from the sixth to the fifth storey when she was trying to escape from her employer. She had jumped out of the master bedroom window and landed on her two feet. She did not topple over. She felt pain in both her feet after her fall. She was unable to walk after her fall but she experienced no giddiness, headache or weakness. Jonna said that her employer was a woman who punished her for breaking household items and for stealing food and gloves. She needed the gloves to protect herself from the bleach. She added that her employers had starved her. Her employer would slap and punch her and hit her head against the wall. The employer would also soak her hands in the toilet bowl.⁶

During cross-examination, Dr Tan was asked if Jonna could have sustained the injury to her left eye by falling to the left after jumping down. Dr Tan pointed out that Jonna said that after the jump, she stood on her own two feet and did not topple over. Nonetheless, Dr Tan said that she was unable to comment on how that particular injury could have been caused.⁷ Dr Tan was referred to photographs P20 and P21 and asked about the marks on Jonna’s left cheek. She was asked if they were bruises or pigmentation. Dr Tan’s view was that they were bruises because pigmentation marks do not look like that.⁸

The Photographic Evidence

A total of 24 photographs were tendered in evidence. 21 of the photographs were taken by the police officers, SI Seah Chee Wei and Staff Sergeant Henry Chua Wee Sian. SI Seah Chee Wei is a police photographer who took 19 photographs on 30 October 2012. The first 9 photographs were of Jonna taken at the Singapore General Hospital. They were photographs of the upper half of Jonna’s body and close-up photographs of her face, hands and forearms. SI Seah Chee Wei had placed white arrows on Jonna’s face before taking the photographs. He had done this on the instructions of the initial investigation officer for this case, Staff Sergeant Lau Kah Wai. These white arrows pointed to bruises on Jonna’s chin area and on her left cheek.

The next set of 10 photographs taken by SI Seah Chee Wei on 30 October 2012 showed the exterior as well as the interior of Ms Chua’s sister’s apartment in Maplewoods Condominium. Specifically, P4 and P5 showed the intercom device mounted on the wall at the entryway into the living room.

Staff Sergeant Henry Chua Wee Sian took two photographs on 8 October 2014. They showed the external façade of Ms Chua’s sister’s apartment and the unit below.

Ms Anandavalli d/o Givinda Pillai, the case worker at HOME, had also taken 3 photographs of Jonna when she was brought to their office on 30 October 2012. These photographs showed bruising on Jonna’s left cheek and red scarring on Jonna’s hands and forearms.

Jonna’s Testimony

Jonna told the court that she is 26 years old and a Filipino national who came to Singapore in December 2011 to work as a domestic helper. It was the first time that she had come to Singapore to work. She was employed by Ms Chua and she worked at the apartment unit at Maplewoods Condominium. Jonna identified the unit through the photographs. She added that although Ms Chua was her employer, it was Ms Chua’s sister who paid her salary. She did not know why this was so. Her salary was $450 but she was only given a monthly allowance of $30 for the first 7 months. She had a hand phone but had no...