Public Prosecutor v Zin Mar Nwe

Zin Mar Nwe came to Singapore in January 2018 as a foreign domestic worker. She was 17, though her passport made her appear 23 on her agent's instruction. She began working for Mr S on 10 May 2018, and on 26 May 2018 his 70-year-old mother-in-law came to stay for a month. On 25 June 2018 the accused stabbed her some 26 times; the cause of death was multiple stab wounds. She was tried in Criminal Case No 60 of 2021 for murder under s 300(c) of the Penal Code. She admitted stabbing the deceased repeatedly with the intention of causing the wounds, which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, and relied only on the partial defence of diminished responsibility.

Her accounts varied widely. She first told police two dark-skinned men had killed the deceased, then in later statements admitted the stabbing in detail, saying she was very angry when the deceased said she would be sent back to the agent, after earlier hitting her. She also described repeated physical mistreatment by the deceased. After the stabbing she washed the knife, retrieved her belongings, went to her maid agency for her passport and wandered for hours before being arrested. The defence psychiatrist said she had adjustment disorder and was in a dissociative state, unaware of what she was doing. The prosecution psychiatrist found no mental illness.

1. Whether the accused was suffering from an abnormality of mind at the time of the stabbing.
2. Whether any abnormality arose from a mental illness, specifically adjustment disorder.
3. Whether her mental responsibility for causing the death was substantially impaired, including whether she was in a dissociative state.

The court accepted that the deceased had hit the accused, both to get her attention or reprimand her and in retaliation when accidentally hurt, and that the threat to send her back to the agent, which she feared would leave her in debt in her home country, came after a period of such treatment. But for that threat she would not have stabbed the deceased.

The diagnosis of adjustment disorder was not made out. The defence expert's account of the stressors shifted, and on the evidence her homesickness and stress were no greater than those of an ordinary person in her position, nor was her work impaired; her performance had in fact improved shortly before. The court preferred the prosecution psychiatrist's view that her feelings were normal and expected reactions, as more consistent with her admissions to the police.

The court rejected the claim of a dissociative state. She had described the stabbing and her reasons for it in detail to the police, conceded at trial that she could recall it, and her conduct afterwards was purposeful. The defence expert's opinion rested on her later account that she only realised what she had done afterwards, which the court did not accept, and he did not explain how adjustment disorder would leave her unable to control actions she knew she was doing. Public Prosecutor v Juminem and another [2005] 4 SLR(R) 536 was distinguishable, as the impairment found there was different. Her decision was emotional and irrational, but that alone did not show an abnormality of mind. The elements of murder were established, including her intention to stab.

The High Court convicted the accused of murder as charged, finding that the defence of diminished responsibility was not established, and said it would address sentence later.