Public Prosecutor v DAM

These are the sentencing remarks in Criminal Case No 30 of 2022 in the General Division of the High Court. The accused, DAM, pleaded guilty to four charges. He caused the death of his toddler daughter, Umaisyah, by slapping her face forcefully many times and then not getting her medical help (culpable homicide under s 304(b) of the Penal Code). He ill-treated his stepson, then about six, over roughly a year with a belt, a hanger and his hand (s 5(5)(b) of the Children and Young Persons Act). He took part in a riot on Beach Road in which a man pulled from a van was punched and kicked (s 147 of the Penal Code). He also consumed methamphetamine (s 8(b)(ii) of the Misuse of Drugs Act).

Five further charges were taken into consideration, including ill-treating Umaisyah and another child, burning her body and hiding her remains, lying to a Ministry of Education officer about where she was, and failing to return to supervision. The prosecution asked for a total of between 20½ and 21½ years' imprisonment and 18 strokes; the defence asked for less. The judge also lifted the gag order to the extent of allowing Umaisyah's name to be published, while it continued to protect the surviving children.

1. Whether the maximum sentence should be imposed for culpable homicide despite the guilty plea
2. What sentence was appropriate for the prolonged abuse of the stepson
3. What sentences were appropriate for the rioting and drug consumption charges
4. Whether the sentences should run consecutively under the totality principle

On the homicide, the judge found the killing among the worst cases of culpable homicide. The child was slapped until she weakened, had blood in her mouth, suffered a concussive seizure and stopped breathing, and no help was called because the parents feared trouble over her injuries and his drug use. The usual plea discount was withheld. That the attack was unplanned, or that he tried to revive her, counted for little given his evident readiness to use violence.

On the abuse charge, the abuse was more persistent than in cases such as Public Prosecutor v BDB [2018] 1 SLR 127, where shorter terms were imposed, and called for severe punishment and deterrence.

On rioting, he acted while on the run from supervision and later breached bail. Public violence on a road, even in the early hours, could attract caning. On the drug charge, his history of drug offences and the circumstances justified six years and three strokes.

Applying the totality principle and ADF v Public Prosecutor and another appeal [2010] 1 SLR 874, the judge held that the separate offences, with multiple victims and persistent criminality, should each be punished in full and run consecutively.

The court sentenced the accused to 10 years' imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane for culpable homicide, three years' imprisonment for the child abuse charge, 2½ years' imprisonment and three strokes for rioting, and six years' imprisonment and three strokes for drug consumption. All sentences were ordered to run consecutively, giving a total of 21½ years' imprisonment and 18 strokes, backdated to 1 July 2018.