[2016] SGHC 49

The accused is a female Singaporean who is now 43 years old. She pleaded guilty to the following charge:

The punishments provided by law under s 304(a) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) in respect of the charge are as follows:

Taking into consideration the fact that the accused is a female and therefore not liable to caning as per s 325 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed), I sentenced the accused to 5 years’ imprisonment with effect from 13 September 2014, the date of arrest.

The Statement of Facts

The accused admitted all the facts set out in the following statement of facts:

The accused’s antecedents

The accused has a few antecedents, albeit not of significance here. In 1990, she was convicted of theft under s 380 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Ed) and was ordered to undergo probation for one year. In 2008, she was convicted under s 5(3) of the Employment of Foreign Workers Act (Cap 91A, 1998 Rev Ed) for employing a foreign worker otherwise than in accordance with the conditions of the work permit. A second charge under s 22(1) of the Employment of Foreign Workers Act for failing to comply with conditions of the work permit was taken into consideration. She was sentenced to a $4000 fine.

The Prosecution’s submissions on sentence

The Prosecution submitted that a range of five to seven years’ imprisonment would be appropriate in the present case. The cases of PP v Kang Kah Li¸ Criminal Case No. 28 of 2009 (10 July 2009, unreported) (“Kang Kah Li”) and PP v Goh Hai Eng, Criminal Case No. 4 of 2010 (24 February 2010, unreported) (“Goh Hai Eng”) were cited in support of such a sentencing range. Notably, the accused persons in these cases also suffered from severe depression that significantly impaired their mental responsibility at the time of the offence.

The Prosecution further submitted that an aggravating factor in the present case was the presence of some element of planning and pre-meditation. This could be seen from how the accused had coaxed the deceased onto the stool and told him to look out of the window before pushing him out of the window to his death. The Prosecution argued that this element of planning and premeditation was also present in Kang Kah Li and Goh Hai Eng.

Nonetheless, the Prosecution acknowledged that similar to the cases of Kang Kah Li and Goh Hai Eng, the accused was likely to pose a low risk of danger to society. Hence, taking into account the presence of planning and premeditation as well as the accused’s mental condition that substantially impaired her mental responsibility for her offence, it was submitted that a sentence of between five to seven years’ imprisonment would be sufficient punishment for the accused.

The mitigation plea

The Defence submitted that a sentence of not more than five years should be imposed. The following points in mitigation were raised:

(a) The accused had a psychiatric history of major depression since 2008, which may be linked causally to the deceased’s autistic condition.

(b) The accused was a working woman and the primary care-giver to the deceased. She buckled under the pressures of caring for a special needs child whilst labouring under depression.

(c) The accused was a loving wife and mother. The Defence tendered letters written by the accused’s husband and their elder son stating the same and that they wished to be reunited with her soon.

(d) The accused formed the thought of causing death to the accused only at that the point of time when she saw the deceased in the kitchen, after she had cleaned up the deceased. When the police arrived, they found her hugging a pillow with her eyes closed and later collapsing in hysteria.

(e) The accused has been in custody since September 2014 and has responded well to treatment. She has made such swift recovery that she was asked to be a mentor to newcomers in prison.

The court’s decision

The accused had admitted readily to her actions and pleaded guilty to the charge without reservation. In her statement to the police taken one day after the tragic incident, she spelt out in detail the events that took place on the previous day.

The accused had a pre-existing and documented mental condition that was directly attributable to the deceased. In a medical report dated 27 October 2014, Dr. Jerome Goh Hern Yee (“Dr Goh”) confirmed that she was diagnosed with major depression since 10 September 2008, which was six years before the time of offence. Dr Goh reported that the accused had told him that her “whole world came crashing down” when the deceased was diagnosed with autism at three years of age. It was then that she began to have suicidal thoughts as well as thoughts of harming the deceased. She also blamed herself for the deceased’s condition. In my view, an accused’s documented pre-existing depression that is directly linked to the victim carries much more weight as a mitigating factor than assertions of depression or other mental disorders that are made only after an accused has committed an offence and has been arrested, especially when such an accused had been functioning normally before the offence.

The accused’s mental disorder affected her judgment adversely at the time of the offence. Dr Goh was of the opinion that the accused was aware of the nature and quality of her actions at the time of the incident but her depression would have substantially impaired her mental responsibility for her actions.

The accused’s risk of reoffending is low. In his clarification report dated 4 December 2015, Dr Goh opined that the accused’s risk of violent recidivism is low but that she would “require continuing psychiatric care” to maintain remission of her depression. She also appeared to be recovering well from her depressive disorder while in custody. In Dr Goh’s opinion, the accused’s “recovery prospects are good”.

Finally, the accused has strong family support that could assist her on her path to full recovery after she is released from prison. Her husband and her elder son (who is about 14 years old), far from being angry with her for what she had done, have given written statements to express their longing for her return to the family. The husband said that the accused has been “a wonderful wife to her husband and caring mother to her sons”. The elder son said that the accused “lovingly takes care and sacrifices so much” for the deceased. He concluded by stating that “my mum is a very joyous and happy person who is also very helpful and loving. I really would like my mum do come back home as soon as possible”.

For these reasons, although the accused ought to be punished for the offence against her son, I was of the view that five years’ imprisonment, taking effect from the date of the accused’s arrest (13 September 2014), would be sufficient punishment for her. Besides serving as punishment, the period in custody would also be useful in helping her to recover fully as she would have adequate supervision and medical attention while in prison. I hope she recovers well and returns home a much stronger person emotionally to rebuild her family and her personal life.