PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v Xavier Yap Jung Houn

Facts

Xavier Yap Jung Houn, aged 50, pleaded guilty in Criminal Case No 27 of 2023 to two charges of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under s 304(a) of the Penal Code for killing his twin sons, aged 11. Both boys had been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder and global developmental delay and attended a mainstream primary school. According to the agreed facts, he became concerned about their conditions and his wife's difficulty accepting them, began to have suicidal thoughts and bought an ice-pick in December 2021, and early in 2022 began seriously considering killing the boys and himself, believing this would relieve their suffering and his wife's burdens.

On 21 January 2022 he drove the boys to a quiet playground he had chosen, took them into a nearby canal and strangled each in turn, then placed their faces in the water to make sure they were dead. His attempts to kill himself failed. He then called the police and falsely said he had been attacked, hoping to receive the death penalty when the truth emerged, which led to a police search. An IMH psychiatrist found he had major depressive disorder of moderate severity that impaired his judgment, qualifying him for the partial defence of diminished responsibility, but that he was not of unsound mind and knew killing was wrong. The Prosecution sought seven to ten years per charge, consecutive; the Defence sought no more than five years per charge, concurrent.

Issues

1. Whether deterrence and retribution or rehabilitation should be the main sentencing consideration for an offender with major depressive disorder
2. What individual sentence was appropriate for each charge
3. Whether the two sentences should run concurrently under the one-transaction rule or consecutively

Holding

Vincent Hoong J sentenced the accused to seven years' imprisonment on each charge, ordered the sentences to run consecutively for an aggregate of 14 years' imprisonment, and backdated the sentence to 22 January 2022, the date of his arrest.

Reasoning

Applying Lim Ghim Peow v Public Prosecutor [2014] 4 SLR 1287 and Public Prosecutor v Kong Peng Yee [2018] 2 SLR 295, the court placed the accused among offenders who keep their understanding of what they are doing: his reasons were grounded in fact, he knew the killings were wrong and he understood their consequences. The offences were also of the most serious kind, so deterrence and retribution were the main considerations.

Aggravating factors were the boys' particular vulnerability, the betrayal of a parent's trust and premeditation. His early plea and his depression carried weight, but his lie to the police meant he had not fully cooperated, and his mother's age and his low risk of reoffending were not mitigating. Compared with Public Prosecutor v BAC [2016] SGHC 49 and Public Prosecutor v CAD [2019] SGHC 262, seven years per charge was right; the Defence's precedents involved more serious mental impairment or were unreported, and there was no basis for judicial mercy. Anything above seven years would give too little weight to the plea and the disorder.

The one-transaction rule did not apply because two different victims' interests in life were violated, the acts differed, and the purpose to kill each boy was distinct. Concurrent sentences would be morally unjust, and an aggregate of 14 years was neither disproportionate nor crushing.

From the judgment