Public Prosecutor v Rohana

Woo Bih Li J:

[1] The accused, Rohana, faced a charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The charge read:

[2] The accused entered a plea of guilt to the charge. I accepted the plea and convicted her accordingly.

[3] The offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment or imprisonment of not more than ten years, with a possible liability of fine and caning as well which were not in issue before me.

[4] The circumstances in which the offence was committed are found in the Statement of Facts (“SOF”) which reads:

[5] According to the mitigation plea, the accused’s daily routine was to wake up at 5.30am and work until 2.00am. On 2 July 2005, the deceased had scolded the accused for not washing a wok properly. The accused eventually went to bed at 2.00am and was totally exhausted. The next morning at about 7.00am, the accused was awakened by the deceased who was at the door of the bedroom. Being tired still, the accused however continued to lie in bed. When the deceased came into her bedroom, she said, “Ana why you still sleep so many things to do stupid lah you very jak lak I cannot tahan you.” The deceased then pushed the right cheek of the accused. This led to the scuffle which is described in the SOF.

[6] In Purwanti Parji v PP [2005] 2 SLR 220 (“Purwanti”), an Indonesian maid who was almost 18 years of age had killed a lady who was 57 years of age. The deceased was the mother-in-law of the maid’s employer. The maid was charged with an offence punishable under s 304(a) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed). She was sentenced to life imprisonment by the High Court and the Court of Appeal upheld that sentence.

[7] In PP v Sundarti Supriyanto (No 2) [2004] SGHC 244 (“Sundarti”), the maid had killed her employer and was facing a charge of murder. She was convicted on a reduced charge punishable under s 304(a) of the Penal Code. In sentencing, the court took into account other charges including a charge under s 304(a) involving the death of a child of the employer. The accused was sentenced to life imprisonment.

[8] In PP v Juminem [2005] 4 SLR 536 (“Juminem”), the two accused were also charged with the offence of murdering a woman who was 47 years of age. The first accused was her maid and the second accused was the maid of the second husband of the deceased. The second accused had agreed to the first accused’s suggestion to kill her employer. The court found both accused not guilty of murder because of diminished responsibility and convicted them instead of the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under s 304(a) of the Penal Code. The first accused who was 18 years of age was sentenced to life imprisonment and the second accused who was 15 years of age was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment.

[9] Mr Muzammil, counsel for the Defence, stressed the simple background of the accused and the history of abuse she had suffered which included, among other things, physical violence like the slapping of the accused by the deceased. The accused had attempted to commit suicide twice and there was no premeditation. He also submitted that in Purwanti, the accused had attacked the victim who was sleeping in that case. Mr Muzammil also tendered the accused’s apology for causing the death of the deceased.

[10] Mr Jaswant Singh for the Prosecution submitted that a term of life imprisonment was appropriate. He said that the three other cases cited above indicated a sentencing norm. He stressed the violent nature of the accused’s actions that fateful day which resulted in 75 external injuries on the deceased and her refusal to stop even though the deceased had begged to be spared because of her two young children. He submitted that the accused had full control of the situation as well as her mental faculties and had not acted out of a momentary loss of self-control.

[11] He submitted that the accused also had avenues for help. She had been advised by a doctor who had examined her when she was “unwell” to report any physical violence to the police. I would add that the doctor also advised her to contact her maid agency to sort out any unhappiness in her relationship with her employer. Mr Singh also pointed out that the accused had a sister living in Singapore whom she could have turned to for help. Mr Singh further submitted that the accused had also the presence of mind to attempt to cover up her crime and the calm manner in which she did so demonstrated a lack of remorse.

[12] Mr Singh submitted that the three conditions to be satisfied before a life imprisonment is imposed, as reiterated by the Court of Appeal in Purwanti, were satisfied in the case before me. However, I was of the view that the fact that the three conditions were satisfied did not necessarily mean that a sentence of life imprisonment should be imposed and “the court must exercise caution before commuting a young offender to life imprisonment, especially since life imprisonment now means imprisonment for the rest of the prisoner’s natural life”: per Yong Pung How CJ in Purwanti at [25].

[13] I did not think that the three cases cited indicated a sentencing norm for cases under s 304(a) where a maid has killed an employer or a relative of the employer. Even if they did, they did not restrict the court’s power to impose such a sentence as the court considered appropriate in the particular circumstances of the case.

[14] A key feature which distinguished the case before me from Purwanti and Juminem was that the actions of the accused persons in those cases were premeditated. The judgment in Sundarti on sentencing does not indicate whether the actions there of the accused were premeditated. In any event, as I have mentioned, the accused’s actions there caused the death of two lives resulting in a charge under s 304(a) being taken into consideration in sentencing. True, Rohana had also sought to cover up her crime but not in the manner that Sundarti did by starting a fire. I would add that there were various aggravating factors in Purwanti.

[15] As for the 75 injuries inflicted on the deceased, most were minor. As for Mr Singh’s submission that Rohana had full control of her mental faculties, this was not quite correct. Dr Tommy Tan, a consultant psychiatrist at Woodbridge Hospital, had opined that Rohana was suffering from an abnormality of mind, arising from her moderately severe depressive episode, which substantially impaired her mental responsibility. Accordingly, he was of the view that she qualified for the defence of diminished responsibility. I would add that I should not be taken to suggest that life imprisonment is inappropriate for all such cases. Indeed, at times, the mental state of an accused person may require life imprisonment to be imposed.

[16] It is obvious that maid abuse cannot be condoned in our society but it is equally clear that acts of violence, which are not in self-defence, by maids against their employers cannot be tolerated, especially when such acts result in a fatality . I was concerned about what appeared to be a recent spate of incidents of maids killing their employers which must obviously be discouraged. The presence of physical or other abuse by an employer means that the maid should seek to remove herself from the situation, which can at times be quite desperate. If help is needed, then such help should be sought. All these should be done sooner rather than later. A history of physical or other abuse can never justify or be an excuse for a killing.

[17] Nevertheless, having considered all the circumstances before me, including the absence of premeditation, I did not consider life imprisonment to be appropriate. I also did not consider a term of five to eight years suggested by Mr Muzammil to be an adequate sentence. Accordingly, I sentenced the accused, Rohana, to imprisonment for ten years from 4 July 2005, being the date of her remand.