Public Prosecutor v Lee Beng Hian

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Tan Boon Gin
• Judgment Date: 31 May 2005
• Neutral Citation: [2005] SGDC 127
• Published date: 28 June 2005
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Christopher Ong (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Defendant Counsel: Julian Tay (Lee and Lee)

31 May 2005

District Judge Tan Boon Gin

The accused claimed trial to one charge of voluntarily causing hurt to her maid, Supatmi Binte Parmin (“the maid”), by burning her with a hot electrical iron.

2 At the close of trial, I acquitted the accused. The prosecution has appealed against the acquittal.

The prosecution’s case

3 The maid arrived in Singapore on 12 Mar 02. She was examined by one Dr Khoo Yong Hak. No injuries were recorded (see medical report P12). The maid was sent to the accused’s house on the same day. The household comprised the accused, her husband and their two children.

4 On 13 Mar 02, the accused taught the maid how to do the household chores. The accused only began scolding and shouting at the maid on 14 Mar 02. The assault took place on 16 Mar 02. The maid was ironing clothes in the maid’s room. The accused was checking on her work. The maid made a mistake and the accused scolded her. The maid tried to re-iron but the accused was still not satisfied. The accused took the iron and ironed the clothes herself. The accused then pulled on the collar of the maid’s t-shirt, exposing the right shoulder, and glanced the iron off the maid’s right shoulder, thereby inflicting the injury shown at P5. The accused and the maid were facing each other, at an angle, and the iron was in the accused’s right hand. The temperature setting of the iron was normally at “two dots”.

5 The accused ordered the maid to continue ironing. The maid did so slowly. The accused snatched the iron forcefully from the maid and in doing so accidentally inflicted the injuries on the maid’s left forearm shown at P7.

6 The accused scolded the maid and the maid knelt down at her feet and asked for forgiveness. The accused got even angrier and ordered the maid to take off her t-shirt. The maid complied and subsequently felt a hot object on her back causing her pain. These were the injuries shown in P8.

7 On 17 Mar 02, the maid’s injuries caused her pain and she started crying. The accused ordered her to her room. The accused’s husband came in to comfort her and the maid told him that she wanted to drink from the bottles stored in her room (the same sort of bottles as seen in D5) to “cool her nerves” and “ease her stress”.

8 The accused and her husband brought the maid back to Nation Employment Agency (“the agency”). The maid showed one Lee Choi Peng, an agency staff member, her injuries and complained that her employer had caused them. She stayed overnight at the agency’s hostel and the next day she showed her injuries to the accused in front of the agency owners. The accused denied that she had caused these injuries and the agency owners made a police report.

9 On 18 Mar 02, the maid was examined by Dr Simon Chong Shih Jian (“Dr Chong”). He found that the injuries were consistent with being burnt by a hot iron and put up the medical reports P3 and P4.

10 The prosecution also adduced letters written by the maid while she was at the employer’s house. In these letters, she spoke of being miserable and of thinking of killing herself. But it was only in her last letter, written after the assault that she wrote “even if the torment is painful, I will endure as I had promised. I am sure whoever is the female employee who resides here will not find it easy, I can vouch for it”.

11 At the close of the prosecution’s case, I found that a prima facie case had been made out and I called for the defence.

The defence

12 The accused denied assaulting the maid. On 17 Mar 02, the maid threatened to drink a bottle of dynamo (D9) and she and her husband returned her to the agency. The accused first learnt of the maid’s allegations the next day, on 18 Mar 02. The maid showed the accused the purported injuries, but the accused did not see any injuries resembling those shown in P5, P7 and P8. The managing director of the agency, Chin May Yong, confirmed that she had made the police report at the insistence of the accused.

13 The theory postulated by the defence was that the injuries were self-inflicted. In support of this, the defence called as a medical expert one Dr Ong Beng Beng, a forensic pathologist with the Queensland Health & Scientific Services in Brisbane (“Dr Ong”), Australia. He was of the view that the injuries were likely to have been self-inflicted for the following reasons:

(a) It was unlikely that the injuries were inflicted in the way described by the maid. Assuming the iron was at a temperature setting of “two dots” (100 to 160 °C), in respect of the injury on the shoulder shown in P5, the burn should have been more severe (at least a partial thickness burn) than the superficial burn actually observed. In respect of the injuries on the forearm shown in P7, the number and orientation of the injuries were irreconcilable with the maid’s account. In respect of the injuries on the back shown in P8, the burns should have been more severe and reflected a clearer outline of the sol plate of the iron.

(b) All the injuries were superficial and of similar severity.

(c) They were all clustered together.

(d) They were all within reach.

14 The prosecution’s own medical witness, Dr Chong, was unable to say whether they were self-inflicted or not. Indeed, he agreed with most of the points made by Dr Ong in his report, D10, save that he would not have concluded with the same degree of certainty as Dr Ong that the injuries were self-inflicted. He was unable to comment on the other points as he did not have the same forensic training as Dr Ong. He was however able to agree that it was unlikely for the injuries to the arm shown in P7 to have been caused in the manner described by the maid.

Assessment of the Evidence

15 I was conscious that the case turned on the word of the maid against that of the accused and that extreme caution must be taken in examining the maid’s evidence: see Choy Kok Meng v PP [2003] SGHC 150. I began by looking at whether a prompt complaint was made. The case law is clear: the evidential value of a prompt complaint is that failure to make one rendered the complainant’s evidence less credible (see Tang Kin Seng v PP [1997] 1 SLR 46). While evidence was led that the maid had accompanied the accused’s family out for lunch at Bukit Panjang Plaza after the incident, I could not accept the defence submission that the maid would have taken that opportunity to run away if she had in fact been assaulted. To paraphrase the learned Chief Justice’s response to a similar argument in Ong Ting Ting v PP [2004] 4 SLR 53, it would be wholly unrealistic and unfair to speculate, with the benefit of hindsight, what she should have done in such a situation. In this case, I found that it was not unreasonable for the maid to have made her first complaint only at the agency on 17 Mar 02 and proceeded on the basis that she made a prompt complaint. I also noted that she appeared to have made reference to it in her letters. All this was of course not independent of the maid and though technically qualifying as corroboration, the appropriate weight had to be to be given to them.

16 As to when the injuries were sustained, Lee Choi Peng confirmed she had already seen the injuries as of 17 Mar 02. Dr Khoo Yong Kah, who examined the maid when she first came to Singapore on 12 Mar 02, gave evidence that he had not recorded any burns (see P12) and that he would have recorded the burns if he had seen them. I was therefore satisfied that the burns were sustained after the medical examination on 12 Mar 02 and before the maid’s return to the...