Public Prosecutor v Lim Hwang Ngin Lawrence

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Kan Ting Chiu J
• Judgment Date: 08 October 2008
• Neutral Citation: [2008] SGHC 171
• Plaintiff Counsel: Winston Cheng Howe Ming, Shahla Iqbal and Lee Ti-Ting (Deputy Public Prosecutors)
• Published date: 13 October 2008
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Defendant Counsel: Lee Teck Leng (Lee Associates)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law

8 October 2008

Kan Ting Chiu J:

Introduction

1 The accused, Lawrence Lim Hwang Ngin, stood trial on 13 charges for offences under ss 323, 354, 376, 377 and 509 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) against Tri Utami, (“Tri”), a maid employed by him and his wife over the period from 29 January 2006 to 5 May 2006.

2 He was convicted on five charges for offences under s 323, i.e. the 1^st, 9^th, 10^th, 12^th and 13^th charges and was acquitted of the other charges. He had made a qualified admission of guilt to the 1^st charge and pleaded guilty to the 9^th charge. He had pleaded not guilty to the 10^th, 12^th and 13^th charges. He now appeals against his conviction on those three charges. The Public Prosecutor has not appealed against the acquittals.

3 These grounds will be directed at the three convictions under appeal, and will not touch on the convictions and acquittals not under appeal.

4 The three charges are:

10th Charge:	on or about 29 April 2006, sometime in the morning, at Block 521 Woodlands Drive 14 #10-355, Singapore, being the husband of one Chua Hwee Hwa, the employer of a domestic maid, namely one Tri Utami, did voluntarily cause hurt to the said Tri Utami, to wit, by kicking her hips, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 323 read with section 73(2) of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.
12th Charge:	on or about 4 May 2006, sometime at night, at Block 521 Woodlands Drive 14 #10-355, Singapore, being the husband of one Chua Hwee Hwa, the employer of a domestic maid, namely one Tri Utami, did voluntarily cause hurt to the said Tri Utami, to wit, by kicking her abdomen several times, by pushing her hard on her chest with your leg and slapping her cheeks several times and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 323 read with section 73(2) of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.
13th Charge:	on or about 5 May 2006, sometime in the morning, at Block 521 Woodlands Drive 14 #10-355, Singapore, being the husband of one Chua Hwee Hwa, the employer of a domestic maid, namely one Tri Utami, did voluntarily cause hurt to the said Tri Utami, to wit, by kicking her abdomen several times, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 323 read with section 73(2) of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.

5 The accused was accused of committing rape, carnal intercourse and outraging the modesty of Tri, as well as causing hurt to her. The hearing spanned 28 days, with Tri being on the witness box for more than eight days.

6 Much of the time was spent on Tri’s working conditions such as the diary schedules and records she had to maintain, and whether she had the means to leave the flat. She was also cross-examined extensively on her conduct during the police investigations, e.g., her statements to the police officers who dealt with her, as well as the doctors who had examined her.

7 It came as no surprise that inconsistencies and omissions surfaced. There were inconsistencies over dates, places and events, and they led to the acquittals that followed, where the deficiencies and flaws created reasonable doubts in the prosecution’s case.

8 For the charges on which the accused was convicted, and in particular the convictions which are under appeal, I was mindful that the evidence was not beyond criticism. There were inconsistencies and omissions in the narratives to the different police officers and the doctors, and variations in the narratives. However, I was satisfied that they were not critical, and they did not detract from the basis on which I have found the accused to be guilty on the charges.

Background

9 Tri had started work with the accused and his wife Chua Hwee Hwa (who is also known as Joanne) in December 2004. Her duties were to look after her employers’ infant daughter Hazel, and to perform household duties.

10 Tri had worked for a Chinese family in Malaysia previously; she was conversant in Mandarin, and communicated with the accused and his wife in Mandarin. Technically, she was registered as the employee of the accused’s wife, though the parties regarded her at all times as the employee of the couple.

11 Tri is a submissive and timid person. Throughout the trial, her evidence was that she would comply with the orders of the accused and his wife, and there was no suggestion that she would ‘talk back’ or show any disagreement. Her meekness was also confirmed by Jeanie Cacanando, a Filipino maid from a neighbouring flat, who testified that Tri did not act on her advice to report to the police, her embassy or maid agent that her employer had assaulted her.[note: 1] Another witness, Lau Eng Teng, had also advised Tri to make a police report, but Tri also did not want to do that.[note: 2] The police were eventually alerted because Lau Eng Teng was so disturbed by Tri’s plight that she called the police without consulting her.

12 The accused is a police officer holding the rank of staff sergeant, and he was attached to the Intellectual Property Rights Branch, Criminal Investigation Division, as an investigator. He admitted to bearing an active dislike for Tri after he witnessed her shouting at Hazel and shaking her violently. He wanted to dismiss Tri, but his wife wanted to give her a second chance, so they kept her on,[note: 3] but he was hostile and domineering towards Tri. He stated that “I did admit that I want to make her life miserable … I’m just having psychological warfare to her only.”[note: 4]

13 Tri was afraid of him. She said that he would threaten to send her to Batam to be a prostitute, or to send her to prison if she disobeyed him. The accused denied making prostitution threats, but admitted making the imprisonment threats.[note: 5]

14 He was ready to inflict corporal punishment on Tri over minor incidents. The two convictions that are not under appeal show that the physical maltreatment started on 29 January 2006 and was repeated on 21 April 2006. Both assaults were for minor reasons. For the offence of 29 January 2006, which was Chinese New Year day, the accused knocked Tri with his knuckles several times. Tri’s evidence was that he hit her for forgetting to pack the baby’s hat and napkins when they went out that day. The accused could not recall the reason for the beating. For the other charge which took place on 21 April 2006, the accused admitted that he hit Tri for not holding onto the baby during a bath, and the baby tripped and fell, without suffering any injuries. For this carelessness, the accused hit her head with his fist repeatedly.

15 The allegations of the offences and the investigations came to light on 5 May 2006. On that day, Jeanie Cacanando spoke to Tri and learnt of the mistreatment she had endured. They were unable to communicate effectively because Tri spoke little English, and Jeanie Cacanando did not speak Bahasa Indonesia or Mandarin. Jeanie Cacanando then got Lau Eng Teng, a mature lady residing in a neighbouring flat, to speak to Tri in Mandarin. After seeing Tri’s state and speaking to her, Lau Eng Teng was so distressed that she made a telephone call to the police. Following this call, investigations commenced, and Tri was taken away from the accused’s flat by the police.

The 10^th charge

16 The charge was that on 29 April 2006, the accused kicked Tri’s hips while they were at his residence. Tri’s evidence was that the accused was annoyed because he could not find Hazel’s toys which she had placed at a different place. He kicked her on both hips, and left blue-black marks.[note: 6]

17 When she was sent for medical examination by the police on 5 May 2006 at the National University Hospital, the examining doctor, Dr Chan Kim Poh, found an area of ecchymoses over her left hip greater trochanteric region and an area of ecchymoses over her right hip greater trochanteric region.[note: 7] Dr Chan was of the opinion that the age of the injuries was between one to 14 days which would cover injuries inflicted on 29 April 2006. His findings corroborated Tri’s evidence that she was kicked on both hips. Tri’s evidence was also that she was kicked on the hips on only one occasion, 29 April 2006.

18 In a statement recorded on 9 May 2006 in the course of police investigations, Tri recounted that on Saturday, 29 April 2006, the accused:

had kicked me on the both thighs because I did not place the toys in the right place. He kicked my right thigh and when I turned because it was painful and he then kicked me on the left. After that he kicked me near the hip on the left.[note: 8]

19 The accused was questioned about the incident and a statement was recorded from him on 26 May 2006.[note: 9] It was recorded:

Q According to your maid, Tri, on one Saturday in the month of April, you scolded her as you could not find a particular toy for your daughter and you had also kicked on her thighs many times. What have you got to say?

A I did not kick her. I have never kicked her! But I ever scolded her if she did anything to my daughter.[note: 10]

20 In court, he said:

I will not assault her for this kind of minor … minor, minor things. If I were to ever hit her, I belief [sic] it must have caused my daughter to cry or injured.[note: 11]

overlooking the events of 29 January 2006 referred to in [14].

21 His counsel in the closing submissions contended that:

the accused had admitted that he kicked Tri’s hips on 4 May 2006 night. The bruises on Tri’s hips could have been caused by the accused on 4 May 2006 instead of 29 April 2006.[note: 12]

22 However, the accused had also denied in his statement of 26 May 2006 that he kicked Tri on 4 May,[note: 13] although he changed his position when he gave his defence, and said that he kicked Tri’s hips on 4 May 2006.[note: 14]

23 The other matter raised by the defence was that Tri did not refer to the assault in her first statement to the police given on 5 May 2006. That statement was taken on the very day of her abrupt removal from the flat, and was recorded from 10.15pm to 2am...