ANITA DAMU @ SHAZANA BT ABDULLAH v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Facts

Ms Anita Damu @ Shazana bt Abdullah employed Ms Siti Khodijah as a domestic helper from 19 October 2013 until 23 April 2015, when a Ministry of Manpower officer saw scars on the helper and reported the matter. Between May and June 2014, after the helper, who was not given enough food, ate a longan without permission, the accused splashed hot water from a flask on her leg and back, leaving permanent marks. In August 2014 she pressed a hot iron onto both of the helper's hands and wrists, tearing the skin and leaving permanent scarring. She also poked the helper with the sharp metal prong of a bamboo pole and hit her face with a slipper. She allowed the helper only five hours' sleep on school days and had made her sign a letter saying she would be jailed for taking food if she reported anything.

The accused pleaded guilty to two charges of causing hurt by dangerous means and two of voluntarily causing hurt, all enhanced because the victim was a domestic worker under s 73(2) of the Penal Code, and one charge under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act for denying adequate rest; four others were taken into consideration. The District Judge, accepting that she had major depressive disorder with auditory hallucinations, imposed 31 months' imprisonment and compensation. The High Court later set aside the hallucinations finding and remitted the question, and after delays while the accused was unfit to plead, the District Judge found she had not had hallucinations. The cross-appeals in Magistrate's Appeal No 9358 of 2018 then returned to the High Court.

Issues

1. Whether the District Judge was right to find the accused did not experience auditory hallucinations when offending.
2. Whether a fine instead of imprisonment was appropriate.
3. What sentencing approach applies to causing hurt by dangerous means to a domestic worker, and what sentences were warranted.
4. Whether the compensation order should be increased.

Holding

Sundaresh Menon CJ dismissed the accused's appeal and allowed the Prosecution's appeal, increasing the aggregate sentence from 31 months' to 84 months' (seven years') imprisonment, more than the 55 months the Prosecution sought. After a totality adjustment, the sentences of four years for the iron incident, 32 months for the hot water incident and four months for denying rest were ordered to run consecutively. The court also ordered further compensation of $9,588, making total compensation of $19,500 for pain and suffering inclusive of the $4,000 already paid voluntarily.

Reasoning

The court upheld the finding on hallucinations. The accused's statements to the authorities gave detailed reasons for the abuse, blaming the helper's work, with no mention of voices; the claim first surfaced some ten months after arrest, and her family's evidence did not link any episode to the offences. Once that claim was rejected, her depression had no bearing on the offences, unlike cases where mental illness had severely impaired control. Imprisonment was plainly required.

For causing hurt by dangerous means to a domestic worker, the court rejected the Prosecution's simple multiplier. It set out a stepped approach: a starting point from the framework in Low Song Chye v Public Prosecutor and another appeal [2019] 5 SLR 526 based on physical harm; an uplift for the dangerous means; an uplift under s 73(2) for the victim's vulnerability and psychological harm, using the factors in Tay Wee Kiat; then adjustment for aggravating and mitigating factors. The simple hurt charges followed the Tay Wee Kiat framework.

Aggravating factors were the accused's efforts to stop the helper seeking help and her lack of remorse, including lying about the injuries, blaming the helper and fabricating the hallucinations. No weight was given to the guilty plea, because the evidence was overwhelming and the fabricated claim forced the helper to testify and remain in Singapore without work for years. For denying rest, four months was fitting given the long period and the helper being made to sleep on the floor without a mattress.

On compensation, each charge was a separate occasion of abuse deserving its own award, and the accused gave no evidence about her means.

From the judgment