VJB v VJC

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Cheryl Koh
• Judgment Date: 16 June 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] SGFC 55
• Court: Family Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: SS No. 2185 of 2019, District Court Appeal No. 24 of 2020
• Year: 2020
• Published date: 25 June 2020
• Hearing Date: 03 March 2020,11 February 2020
• Plaintiff Counsel: The Complainant Son-in person
• Defendant Counsel: Mr. Foo Ho Chew (H C Law Practice) -for the Respondent Father
• Subject Matter: Family Law,Personal Protection Order,section 65 of the Women's Charter (Cap. 353)
• Citation: [2020] SGFC 55

District Judge Cheryl Koh: Introduction

SS No. 2185 of 2019 is an application by the complainant son (the “Son”) against the respondent father (the “Father”) for a personal protection order (“PPO”), filed pursuant to section 65 of the Women’s Charter (Cap. 353).

On 3 March 2020, I allowed the Son’s application. The Father has appealed.

Essentially, I found that the Father has caused continuous harassment against the Son by repeatedly and persistently following the Son, approaching and confronting him, loitering outside his national service camp and residence, lying in wait for him, monitoring his movements, insulting and threatening him, having a physical altercation with him, approaching and confronting his girlfriend (the “Girlfriend”), approaching and confronting the Girlfriend’s parents, and filming them on video. These acts of harassment took place repetitively over a continuous period of time between December 2018 to September 2019. This is despite the Father knowing, or he ought to have known, that these acts would cause mental, emotional and psychological anguish to the Son, and in my view, a PPO against the Father is necessary for the Son’s protection.

Background facts

The Father is 57 years old, and the Son is 24 years old. In November 2018, parties had a dispute over the Son collecting a deposit from his sister to use his laptop. The Father messaged the Son “If you have the guts, don’t come home”, called him an “unfilial son” and used a four letter vulgarity word on him¹. On or around 8 November 2018, the Son moved out of the Father’s residence. The Son is currently residing with his girlfriend (the “Girlfriend”) and her parents, at their residence (the “Girlfriend’s residence”).

The Son alleged there were about seven (7) incidents of harassment engaged by the Father against him, a brief summary of which is as follows: on 31 December 2018, at the Girlfriend’s workplace by creating a scene when he approached and confronted the Girlfriend, shouted at her and took photos, resulting in the Girlfriend having to consider an early termination of her contract; on 3 February 2019, at the Son’s national service camp by approaching and confronting the Son, following him, shouting at him and attempting to get into his private hire car with him, resulting in the police being called to stop the Father from following him; on 7 April 2019, at the Son’s national service camp where the Father and his wife (also the Son’s mother, the “Mother”) followed him and called him names, filmed him with their mobile phones and threatened to beat up the Girlfriend’s parents. The Father and Mother also managed to obtain the address of the Girlfriend’s residence and went and loitered at the void deck; on 23 June 2019, by loitering at the staircase outside the Girlfriend’s residence and together with the Mother, confronting the Girlfriend at the bus stop, eventually leading to a physical altercation between the Father and the Son and the police being called; on 17 August 2019 at around 7.15AM, by loitering at the staircase outside the Girlfriend’s residence with the Mother and later, by taking videos or photos of the Son from a traffic junction, resulting in the police being called; on 31 August 2019 at about 9.00AM, by loitering at the staircase outside the Girlfriend’s residence and splashing a liquid at the door before leaving, resulting in the police being called; and on 8 September 2019 at 9.00AM, by loitering outside the Son’s residence with the Mother, calling the Son names and blocking the Girlfriend’s parents’ way, resulting in the police being called.

The Father admitted to visiting the Son and/or the Girlfriend on all these incidents, but argued he only did so because he wanted to see the Son or ask him to go home. Additionally, he raised two incidents in his Statement. The first was on 16 January 219 where he went to look for the Son at his national service camp. The second was on 20 April 2019 where the Father and the Mother met with the Girlfriend’s parents. This meant that other than the seven (7) incidents of harassment relied upon by the Son in his Statement, there were at least two (2) additional incidents admitted by the Father where he had attempted to contact the Son or the persons the Son is living with.

The Son submitted documents tendered and marked as “C1, pages 1 to 22” and his complaint form is marked as “C2”. The Father submitted documents tendered and marked as “R1, pages 1 to 16”. The Son had one witness, who was the Girlfriend. The Father also had one witness, the Mother, whose affidavit is marked as “R2”. The Father also admitted three video recordings with transcriptions and translations marked as “R3”. The hearing took place over two half days on 11 February 2020 and 3 March 2020.

Grounds of Decision The law

Section 65(1) of the Women’s Charter (Cap. 353) states as follows: “65.—(1) The court may, upon satisfaction on a balance of probabilities that family violence has been committed or is likely to be committed against a family member and that it is necessary for the protection of the family member, make a protection order restraining the person against whom the order is made from using family violence against the family member.”

“Family violence” is defined in section 64 of the Women’s Charter to mean the commission of any of the following acts: wilfully or knowingly placing, or attempting to place, a family member in fear of hurt; causing hurt to a family member by such act which is known or ought to have been known would result in hurt; wrongfully confining or restraining a family member against his will; or causing continual harassment with intent to cause or knowing that it is likely to cause anguish to a family member, but does not include any force lawfully used in self-defence, or by way of correction towards a child below 21 years of age.

It is trite that there are two limbs to be satisfied for the grant of a PPO: first, that an act of violence has been committed in the past or that there is a likelihood of its occurrence in the future and second, it is necessary for the protection of the family member that an order be made: AMT v AMV [2011] SGDC 14 at [18].

In Yue Tock Him v Yee Ee Lim [2011] SGDC 99, the term “harassment” is defined at [33] to mean “a course of conduct by a person, whether by words or action, directly or through third parties, sufficiently repetitive in nature as would cause, and which he ought reasonably to know would cause, worry, emotional distress or annoyance to another person.” (emphasis added)

The issues thus arise as to whether the above incidents raised by the Son constitute continual harassment caused by the Father against the Son, with an intent to cause or knowing they would likely cause anguish to the Son, and a PPO is necessary for the Son’s protection.

The present case

In my judgment, the Son has proven on a balance of probabilities that the Father has continually harassed him despite knowing that it would cause him anguish, and a PPO is necessary for his protection.

Acts amounting to continual harassment

31 December 2018

For the incident on 31 December 2018, the Girlfriend testified that the Father had come to her workplace to look for her. Whilst videoing her, the Father asked her to persuade the Son to return home, but she informed him that it was not something she could control. He then began shouting. He was asked to leave by a human resource personnel, one “Angela”, but he came back into the premises a second time and had to be escorted out by a “big-sized” staff².

The Father admitted he had visited the Girlfriend’s workplace to ascertain the Son’s whereabouts³, but denied he was shouting or taking photos⁴.

I preferred the Girlfriend’s testimony to the Father’s. Her testimony is consistent with the Son’s message exchange with Angela, who messaged the Son stating “[the Father] was shouting away here” and “[you] (sic) will have to give him [a] (sic) call and tell him not to come” (words in square brackets replaced)⁵. The Son responded that once the Girlfriend completed her contract, “Angela” should let the Father know that the Girlfriend no longer worked there if he showed up again. “Angela” replied she had asked the Girlfriend to discuss terminating her contract earlier. This meant that the Father’s words and behaviour at the Girlfriend’s workplace would have been of such extremity or disruptiveness, so as to cause “Angela” to contact the Son directly, and for the Girlfriend to consider terminating her contract. This would have been to avoid the Father causing further issues at the Girlfriend’s workplace. This is notwithstanding that the Girlfriend eventually completed her contract after further discussions.

The Father also admitted that during the incident on 31 December 2018, he was feeling “upset⁶”, which supports the Girlfriend’s testimony that the Father was behaving in a “worked up” and “agitated” manner⁷. As for the Father’s denial that he had taken photographs on his phone, the Father admitted he did take out his phone, but it was to contact the Mother⁸. However, it is borne in mind that the Father is someone who appeared to readily record incidents on his phone, as evidenced by his production of video recordings of the incidents on 16 January, 7 April and 23 June 2019.

It is further observed that the Father had confronted the Girlfriend at her workplace and not the Son. This incident would nonetheless have caused the Son distress in that the Father had approached the Girlfriend at her workplace and created a scene, such that the human resource officer had to contact the Son directly to intervene. In any event, for conduct to constitute harassment, it need not be made directly against the victim but also indirectly by harassing the victim’s closed ones, as in this case, the Son’s girlfriend.

16 January 2019

The...