Public Prosecutor v N

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeYong Pung How CJ
Judgment Date01 October 1999
Neutral Citation[1999] SGHC 255
Docket NumberMagistrate's Appeal No 161 of 1999
Date01 October 1999
Year1999
Published date19 September 2003
Plaintiff CounselJennifer Marie and Gilbert Koh (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
Citation[1999] SGHC 255
Defendant CounselRespondent in person
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Subject MatterWrongful confinement,Principles of sentencing,Voluntarily causing hurt,Aggravating factors,Threat to kill,Criminal intimidation,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Offences against spouse,Principles of deterrence in sentencing
Introduction

The respondent pleaded guilty and was convicted by district judge Louis D`Souza on the following three charges in the district court:

DAC 2061/99

You, [...], male/22 years old, NRIC No S 7618809B, are charged that you on or about 4 September 1998 at or about 8pm at Blk 126 Rivervale Street [[num ]...], Singapore, voluntarily caused hurt to one female, to wit, by slapping her on her face and thereby committed an offence punishable under s 323 of the Penal Code (Cap 224).

DAC 2063/99

You, [...], male/22 years old, NRIC No S 7618809B, are charged that you on or about 4 September 1998 at or about 8pm at one of the bedroom of Blk 126 Rivervale Street [[num ]...], Singapore, did wrongfully restrain one female at the said premises, to wit, by tying both her hands using a towel and gagging her with another towel, to prevent her from leaving the said bedroom, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 342 of the Penal Code (Cap 224).

DAC 2065/99

You, [...], male/22 years old, NRIC No S 7618809B, are charged that you on or about 18 August 1998 at or about 11.30pm to 1am, at Blk 410 Serangoon Central void deck, Singapore, did intimidate one female, to wit, by threatening to kill her, with intent to cause alarm to the said female, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 506 of the Penal Code (Cap 224).



Three other charges of voluntarily causing hurt, wrongful confinement and criminal intimidation were taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing.
In summary, the respondent was charged for voluntarily causing hurt to the victim who was his wife between 10pm to 12am on 4 September 1998 by pulling her hair and slapping her face. He was also alleged to have wrongfully restrained her inside a vehicle by pulling onto her hair and pushing her to the seat to prevent her from leaving the vehicle at about 11.30pm on 4 September 1998. The last charge for criminal intimidation stated that he had threatened to kill her at about 12am to 1.30am on 5 September 1998.

The respondent was fined a total sum of $4,000 for the offences: $1,000 for DAC 2061/99; $1,000 for DAC 2063/99; and $2,000 for DAC 2065/99.
The prosecution appealed against the sentences on the ground that they were manifestly inadequate. I allowed the appeal and sentenced the respondent to one week`s imprisonment for DAC 2061/99, six months` imprisonment for DAC 2063/99 and 12 months` imprisonment for DAC 2065/99. Sentences on the charges in DAC 2063/99 and DAC 2065/99 were to run consecutively and the sentence on the remaining charge was to run concurrently. I also ordered the fines to remain. As the respondent had already paid the fines, he was to serve a total of 18 months` imprisonment for the offences. I now set out my reasons for allowing the appeal.

The facts

At the material times, the respondent was a regular in the Singapore Navy holding the rank of a Second Sergeant. The wife and the respondent were married in February 1996 and they have a two year old son. They frequently quarrelled and they had been living apart since November 1997 when the wife, together with her son, moved to her parents` house at Blk 410 Serangoon Central.

On 18 August 1998, while the respondent was away on overseas training, he paged for her.
She responded to his paging and contacted him by telephone. In the course of the conversation, an argument ensued over the payment of his handphone bill. When the wife suggested that they get a divorce, the respondent was very upset and angry. He threatened to kill her if she dared to leave him. The wife was very frightened and she believed that he would carry out his threat upon his return from his training in less than three weeks` time. This was because he spoke in a very fierce manner and he had on previous occasions behaved violently towards her.

Upon the respondent`s return to Singapore on 4 September 1998, he asked the wife to meet him, promising that they would have a peaceful talk.
During a discussion at the void deck at Blk 410 Serangoon Central later in the evening, the respondent and the wife quarrelled again. He dragged her into his car and drove her back to their house at Rivervale Road. Upon arrival, he ordered her to go to their apartment bedroom. To avoid a scene, she did as she was told. He followed her into the bedroom and locked the door after them.

The wife was seated on the bed when the respondent hugged her.
When she struggled to free herself, he turned violent and forcibly stripped her of her clothes. He then used a bath towel to tie her hands together and used another piece of cloth to gag her. Thereafter, he proceeded to engage in sexual intercourse with her against her will.

After that, he helped her to put on her pair of shorts and panties before untying her.
He then took out a blouse which he had bought for her and told her to put it on. She resisted. This was followed by another physical struggle by her which ended with his slapping her across her face. When the respondent had calmed down, the wife told him that she wanted to go back to her parents` place. The respondent agreed and drove her back to Serangoon Central.

The next day, a medical examination was conducted on the wife at the Singapore General Hospital which revealed the following injuries:

(a) 1 x 2 cm fresh bruise over the right eyebrow;

(b) two 1 cm diameter bruises over the left cheekbone;

(c) 1cm diameter bruise over the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
52 cases
  • Public Prosecutor v Mohammed Liton Mohammed Syeed Mallik
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 31 Octubre 2007
    ...which could aid this court as to the appropriate attitude (if not the sentence) to be adopted in cases such as this. 101 In PP v N [1999] 4 SLR 619 (“N”), the accused forcibly had sexual intercourse with his wife, but could not be convicted of rape owing to the marital exception to rape (se......
  • Public Prosecutor v Tan Kok Ming Michael and other appeals
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 6 Septiembre 2019
    ...PP v Marzuki bin Ahmad [2014] 4 SLR 623 (folld) PP v Mok Ping Wuen Maurice [1998] 3 SLR(R) 439; [1999] 1 SLR 138 (folld) PP v N [1999] 3 SLR(R) 499; [1999] 4 SLR 619 (folld) PP v Syed Mostofa Romel [2015] 3 SLR 1166 (folld) PP v Tay Sheo Tang Elvilin [2011] 4 SLR 206 (folld) PP v Tok Teck H......
  • Public Prosecutor v Tan Kok Ming Michael and other appeals
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 6 Septiembre 2019
    ...SLR(R) 439 at [19]), and this is especially where they show persistence and recalcitrance in offending (see, eg, Public Prosecutor v N [1999] 3 SLR(R) 499 at [19]). This was clearly the case here, where there were similar modi operandi in the 1st TIC charge and the proceeded charge reflecti......
  • Tan Rui Leen Russell v PP
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 27 Abril 2009
    ...v Kwan Cin Cheng [1998] 1 SLR (R) 434; [1998] 2 SLR 345 (refd) PP v Luan Yuanxin [2002] 1 SLR (R) 613; [2002] 2 SLR 98 (refd) PP v N [1999] 3 SLR (R) 499; [1999] 4 SLR 619 (refd) Wong Leong Chin v PP [2000] 3 SLR (R) 560; [2001] 1 SLR 146 (refd) Yeo Kwan Wee Kenneth v PP [2004] 2 SLR (R) 45......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • CORPORAL PUNISHMENT OF CHILDREN BY PARENTS Is It Discipline or Violence and Abuse?
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2018, December 2018
    • 1 Diciembre 2018
    ...will still permit a husband to restrain a wife of her liberty, in case of any gross misbehaviour. 102 See, eg, Public Prosecutor v N[1999] 3 SLR(R) 499 at [23] for condemnation of a husband's mistreatment of his wife, and ADF v Public Prosecutor[2010] 1 SLR 874 at [159], [177] and [220] for......
  • Criminal Procedure, Evidence and Sentencing
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2000, December 2000
    • 1 Diciembre 2000
    ...violence. A deterrent sentence in the form of imprisonment should be imposed in deserving cases of family violence, as was done in PP v N[1999] 4 SLR 619. Sentences of fines may be more appropriate only in less serious cases in which no or little violence is involved, eg causing continual h......

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