Public Prosecutor v Luan Yuanxin

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 02 April 2002
• Neutral Citation: [2002] SGHC 65
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 12 of 2002
• Date: 02 April 2002
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 2002
• Plaintiff Counsel: Peter Koy (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Citation: [2002] SGHC 65
• Defendant Counsel: Respondent in person
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Penalties,Aggravated form of criminal intimidation,Criminal intimidation,Voluntarily causing hurt,Aggravating factors,s 506 Penal Code (Cap 224),Whether sentence of two months' imprisonment manifestly inadequate,Appellant strangling victim with copper wire and biting victim on back and hand,Premeditation and use of considerable force,Relevance of victim's fear,Sentencing,s 323 Penal Code (Cap 224),Appellant threatening to cause death to victim with use of weapon and within confines of victim's room,Whether maximum sentence should be imposed,Aggravating circumstances,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Principles,Verbal threat to strangle victim to death,Prior attempt to strangle victim

Judgment

GROUNDS OF DECISION

The respondent, Luan Yuanxin, was charged with committing criminal intimidation by pointing a cleaver, with a blade measuring 20 cm in length, at his wife (the "victim") and threatening to kill her. This is an offence punishable under s 506 of the Penal Code (Cap 224). He was also charged with two counts of voluntarily causing hurt; first, by using a copper wire to strangle the victim around her neck and, secondly, by biting the victim on her back and on her right hand. Both offences are punishable under s 323 of the Penal Code. The respondent pleaded guilty to all three charges. He was convicted and sentenced to two months’ imprisonment on the charge of criminal intimidation, two months’ imprisonment on the charge of strangling the victim with a copper wire and one month’s imprisonment on the charge of biting the victim on her back and on her right hand. The sentence of imprisonment for strangling the victim was to be consecutive to the sentence for criminal intimidation, thereby making a total term of imprisonment of four months. In passing the sentence, a fourth charge relating to voluntarily causing hurt by using both his hands to strangle the victim, an offence punishable under s 323, was taken into consideration with the respondent’s consent. The DPP appealed against the sentence on the ground that it was manifestly inadequate. I now set out my reasons for allowing the appeal and enhancing the sentences.

The facts

2 The respondent lived with the victim, their eight year old daughter and his mother-in-law in an HDB flat in Yishun.

3 On 1 September 2001, at about 11.10pm, the respondent entered the victim’s room with a meat cleaver. While pointing the cleaver at the victim, the respondent uttered in Mandarin that he wanted to kill her. The victim, who was in her room alone, quickly picked up the telephone in the room. When the respondent saw this, he retreated from the room and went into the kitchen.

The victim, fearing for her safety then left the house together with her elderly mother and her daughter to look for the police at the void deck of the flat

4 On 2 September 2001, at about 4 pm, the victim left her bedroom and went to the living room to get some ointment for a mosquito bite. The victim saw the respondent lying on a foldable bed in the living room. The victim’s mother and daughter were also in the living room at the material time. As the victim was about to return to her bedroom, the respondent suddenly grabbed her from behind and, in one swift motion, coiled and tightened a copper wire, measuring about one metre in length, around her neck. In that split second, the victim managed to slip her right hand underneath the wire while simultaneously using her left hand to pull at the wire in a bid to prevent it from further tightening. In the ensuing struggle, the respondent proceeded to pin the victim down onto the sofa in the living room, and further tightened the wire around her neck while verbally threatening to strangle her to death. He refused to loosen his grip on the wire even when the victim, who was having difficulty breathing, was gasping for air. Instead, he tried to pull the victim’s right hand away from underneath the wire, and even resorted to biting the victim’s right hand in an attempt make her release her tenacious grip on the wire. As the victim still refused to let go of the wire, the respondent proceeded to bite her on her back, near her right shoulder. By this time, the victim’s elderly mother and her eight year old daughter intervened and forced the respondent to release his grip on the wire. With their help, the victim finally managed to free herself from the respondent’s hold.

5 The victim then left the house together with her mother and daughter to lodge a police report. She sought treatment at Tan Tock Seng Hospital on the same day and the doctor who examined her noted that she suffered the following injuries as a result of the respondent’s attack:

a abrasions : 4 cm in diametre over anterior chest wall and left shoulder;

b two puncture wounds and ‘bite’ marks, seen over dorsal aspect of right hand;

c five wire marks : linear marks seen over the right hand and right side of neck (about 5 cm long);

d lacerations over the lower lips.

6 The victim was given the appropriate medical treatment and discharged with three days’ medical leave.

The appeal

7 The prosecution appealed against the sentence imposed on the ground that it was manifestly inadequate. They submitted, inter alia, that the district judge had erred in his assessment of the gravity of the offence.

8 Having reviewed the circumstances of the case, I agreed entirely with the...