Public Prosecutor v Lim Hwang Ngin Lawrence

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeKan Ting Chiu J
Judgment Date05 February 2009
Neutral Citation[2009] SGHC 27
Plaintiff CounselShahla Iqbal and Jeyendran Jeyapal (Deputy Public Prosecutors)
Published date13 February 2009
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Defendant CounselLee Teck Leng (Lee Associates)
Subject MatterCriminal Law,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing

5 February 2009

Kan Ting Chiu J:

1 The accused, Lawrence Lim Hwang Ngin, was charged with 13 charges of physical and sexual abuse of a domestic maid. He was convicted for five charges of causing simple hurt to the maid, Tri Utami (“Tri”), an Indonesian aged 23 at the time of the offences. She was registered as being employed by the accused’s wife, but was for all intents and purposes his employee.

2 The five offences were committed over a period of three months and a week, between 29 January 2006 and 5 May 2006. The five charges are:

1st Charge:

on or about 29 January 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 knocking her head with your knuckles several times, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 323 read with section 73(2) of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.

9th Charge

on or about 21 April 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 hitting her head with your hands repeatedly, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 323 read with section 73(2) of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.

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.

3 He had entered a qualified plea of guilt to the 1st charge, pleaded guilty to the 9th charge, and pleaded not guilty to the 10th, 12th and 13th charges. He was found guilty on these five charges after a trial of 25 days, and was acquitted on the other eight charges. On the five charges that he was convicted on, the accused was sentenced to:

1st Charge

3 weeks imprisonment

9th Charge

6 months imprisonment

10th Charge

6 months imprisonment

12th Charge

6 months imprisonment

13th Charge

6 months imprisonment

The sentences for 9th and 13th charges were to run consecutively and the sentences for the 1st, 10th and 12th charges were to run concurrently to those of the 9th and 13th charges.

4 The accused had appealed against the conviction on the 10th, 12th and 13th charges, and I have delivered my grounds of decision on 8 October 2008 in [2008] SGHC 171. Subsequently, the prosecution filed its appeal against the sentences on 13 November 2008, and the accused filed a similar appeal on 24 November 2008.

The mitigation plea

5 The plea in mitigation recounted that:

19. After that shaking incident, the relationship between the accused and Tri went downhill. He was less patient and he scolded her more. He never managed to forgive Tri for what she had done to Hazel and the shaking incident played on his mind subsequently. He had unwittingly allowed his deep anger and frustration with Tri over that shaking incident to get the better of him, and that eventually led to him losing control of himself and assaulting Tri.

and went on to highlight that no instruments or objects were used during the assaults and the injuries inflicted were not serious or life-threatening.

6 The accused had been a police officer since 1993 and has been promoted over the years and attained the rank of staff sergeant in 2002, and has received several awards and commendations. He had no antecedent of any criminal conduct.

7 Counsel urged me to consider imposing a fine for the less serious offences and short custodial sentences of one to four weeks’ imprisonment for the other offences and that only two sentences are to run consecutively.

The prosecution’s submissions

8 The prosecution took a very different view on the sentences to be imposed. It pressed for sentences at a minimum of twelve months’ imprisonment on each charge, with the sentences to run consecutively.[note: 1]

9 In its submissions, the prosecution asserted that the accused had inflicted severe injuries particularly on vulnerable areas of the body such as the abdomen and the head.

10 The prosecution also pointed to the recurrence of the offences, the accused’s lack of remorse, and that the accused had abused his position as a police officer.

11 I directed parties to make further submissions with references to sentences that have been imposed for similar offences, and the further submissions received were of assistance to me.

The law and the guidelines

12 At the time of the offences, an offence under s 323 of the Penal Code was punishable with imprisonment of up to one year, a fine of up to $1,000 or both. Under s 73(2), for an offence against domestic maids, the imprisonment is increased by one-and-a-half times. The maximum sentence for the offences which the accused was convicted was one and a half years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to $1,500, or both. The maximum sentences have been increased at the present time, but the revisions do not apply retrospectively to the accused’s offences

13 The guidelines for sentencing in maid-abuse cases are well established. In PP v Chong Siew Chin [2002] 1 SLR 117, Yong Pung How CJ stated that deterrent sentences should be imposed for offences of abuse to domestic maids as they require additional protection because (i) they are mostly recruited from neighbouring countries and are separated from the support of family and friends and are dependent on their employers for food and lodging; and (ii) maid abuse usually takes place in the privacy of the home where offences are hard to detect. In Chua Siew Lin v PP [2004] 4 SLR 497, Yong CJ went on to state that custodial sentences should be imposed in such cases.

14 I had a reason to ask for further submissions from counsel. After I have read the prosecution’s submissions that minimum sentences of five years imprisonment should be imposed to run consecutively, I wanted to know if the proposed sentences were in keeping with the sentences passed on other offenders.

15 I will refer to the principal cases. In Ong Ting Ting [2004] 4 SLR 53, Yong Pung How CJ stated (at [48]) that the sentencing norm for cases involving maid abuse where no serious physical injury was caused is one to six weeks imprisonment. In that case, the appellant punched and kicked a maid and caused injuries to her head, elbow, jaw and thighs. The appellant was convicted of four charges under s 323 and two charges of using criminal force under s 352, and one charge of criminal intimidation under s 506. She was sentenced to one week’s imprisonment for each s 323 offence, with two of the sentences to run concurrently, and the sentence was upheld on appeal.

16 In PP v Chong Siew Chin referred to in [13], the accused slapped her domestic maid on three separate occasions on the same day. At her trial, she was ordered to pay a fine of $1,500 for each offence. On the prosecution’s appeal, Yong CJ increased the sentence to six weeks’ imprisonment for each offence with two sentences to run consecutively.

17 In Chua Siew Lin v PP also referred to in [13], the appellant was convicted for causing hurt to her maid by slapping her and pushing her head against a wall and was sentenced to two weeks’ imprisonment. Yong CJ dismissed the accused’s appeal against the sentence.

18 In other cases longer custodial sentences were imposed. In Farida Begam d/o Mohd Artham v PP [2001] 4 SLR 610, the accused hit her domestic maid on the head and upper body with a wooden pole and hit her on the face with a slipper. She was convicted after a trial of an offence under s 323 Penal Code and was sentenced to three months imprisonment. On appeal before Yong CJ, he found that there were no real mitigating factors, but there were aggravating factors in that the maid sustained rather serious injuries on the head and face. The accused had used a wooden pole and a slipper in the assault, the accused was in a position of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • ADF v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 1 December 2009
    ...12 months’ imprisonment. The Judge delivered separate grounds of decision for the convictions ([2008] SGHC 171 (“GD 1”)) and sentences ([2009] SGHC 27 (“GD 4 ADF has appealed against the convictions on the tenth, 12th and 13th charges, as well as the sentences imposed on all five charges. T......
  • ADF v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 1 December 2009
    ...12 months’ imprisonment. The Judge delivered separate grounds of decision for the convictions ([2008] SGHC 171 (“GD 1”)) and sentences ([2009] SGHC 27 (“GD 4 ADF has appealed against the convictions on the tenth, 12th and 13th charges, as well as the sentences imposed on all five charges. T......
  • Public Prosecutor v Peter Elangovan s/o Adaikkalasamy
    • Singapore
    • District Court (Singapore)
    • 7 October 2009
    ...In Heng Kwee Huang v Public Prosecutor [2002] SGDC 122 (which was cited by the High Court in Public Prosecutor v Lim Hwang Ngin Lawrence [2009] SGHC 27 as a sentencing precedent at [19]), the offender who has no antecedents was convicted after a trial under section 324 read with section 73 ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT