Public Prosecutor v Lim Hwang Ngin Lawrence
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Kan Ting Chiu J |
Judgment Date | 05 February 2009 |
Neutral Citation | [2009] SGHC 27 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Shahla Iqbal and Jeyendran Jeyapal (Deputy Public Prosecutors) |
Published date | 13 February 2009 |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Defendant Counsel | Lee Teck Leng (Lee Associates) |
Subject Matter | Criminal Law,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing |
5 February 2009 |
|
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
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
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
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
To continue reading
Request your trial-
ADF v Public Prosecutor
...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
...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
...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 ......