Public Prosecutor v Ho Wei Yi

Tay Yong Kwang J:

[1] The accused pleaded guilty to the following Charge:

[2] The punishments provided for this offence are imprisonment for life or imprisonment of up to 20 years with discretionary fine or caning.

[3] The Statement of Facts below sets out the circumstances leading to the offence. The accused admitted all the facts in the SOF without qualification. The SOF reads:

[4] The Annexures referred to in the SOF are not set out in this judgment as there are about 150 pages of text altogether. References will be made to them where relevant.

[5] The accused has no criminal record. The prosecution submitted that the principles of deterrence and rehabilitation would be most relevant in this case. It suggested that an appropriate sentence would be between 8 and 10 years’ imprisonment without caning.

[6] The prosecution highlighted that the accused had a history of psychiatric illness since 2003. He has been diagnosed with chronic paranoid schizophrenia which manifested itself in paranoid delusion, auditory hallucination, social withdrawal and agitated and aggressive behaviour. The accused was however fit to plead in court and to stand trial. He was not of unsound mind at the material time. He knew what he was doing and knew that it was wrong to set fire in his home (hereinafter referred to as “the flat”).

[7] The gravity of the offence had to be taken into consideration. There was the greatest possible damage to a person and to property. The autopsy report noted that there were thermal injuries (full skin thickness burns) over the vast majority of the deceased’s body. Dr Paul Chui opined that the deceased was alive and actively breathing for a period of time during the fire in the flat. This was evidenced by the high levels of carboxyhaemoglobin and the presence of soot in the deceased’s airways and oesophagus. It was also in evidence that at least 2 calls for help were made by the deceased to the police during the time the blaze was engulfing the flat. The deceased was elderly and did not attack the accused in any way.

[8] The prosecution also noted that the fire was started in a housing estate at night when most of the residents would have been at home. Others were put in peril by the accused’s acts. It was fortuitous that no injury to the neighbours and no damage to the adjoining flats were occasioned by the fire.

[9] The prosecution also submitted that the acts of the accused should be viewed in the context of his strained relationship with his parents and the extent of his insight and understanding of his psychiatric condition. It was clear that the accused felt resentment at having been made to undergo ECT. This resentment, coupled with his refusal to take his medication, resulted in his increasingly hostile and violent behaviour towards his family members from 2008. The resentment and hostility were not caused by his psychiatric illness. He did not want to go to hospital but feared that this was becoming increasingly likely as his parents were determined to proceed with the application for a Personal Protection Order against him.

[10] The various psychiatric reports on the accused showed that he was capable of making rational choices. For instance, his decision not to go back to the flat to try to extinguish the flames was because he knew his father had called the police and he did not want to return and be arrested for arson. This was clearly a reality-based decision driven by self-preservation rather than by his psychiatric condition. He was also able to disregard his auditory hallucinations at times. This was demonstrated by the incident after the fire when he “nearly listened” to voices telling him to jump off a building but did not do so after recalling a Bible verse.

[11] Dr Tejpal Singh of IMH, who had taken over the care of the accused from July 2011 until he was returned to the prison, was of the opinion that the accused’s condition, a relapsing and remitting illness, had improved with medication. As long as the accused took his medication regularly (which meant daily for the rest of his life), his mental state was likely to be stable. Otherwise, he would be at a high risk of relapse and pose a danger to the public. The difficulty was that the accused did not believe that he needed treatment. Treatment could be provided for him in prison, a hospital or a structured setting. His mental state and risks would have to be re-assessed at the time of his release from prison. The psychiatrist would not recommend that the accused stay with his mother as there were concerns about her depression. He recommended that the accused be admitted to a forensic psychiatric ward at IMH as a step-down measure upon completion of sentence and thereafter be sent to supported accommodation in the community or to a long-stay ward at IMH. He could also live at home with family members who are willing and able to care for him and who could ensure compliance with treatment.

[12] The prosecution pointed out that the accused’s apparently stable condition at present was probably attributable to his treatment in custody. The IMH psychiatrist’s report of 24 April 2013 still contained reservations about the depth of the accused’s insight into his mental condition and the need for treatment. The psychiatrist reported that “although he accepts our account of his diagnosis, need for treatment and his potential risks, I am not sure if it is a true and deep understanding”.

[13] The prosecution also referred to a letter dated 20 January 2014 from the Member of Parliament (“MP”) for Whampoa where it was stated that the accused’s elder brother and his (the brother’s) wife had approached and said to the MP that they would not be able “to support two mentally unwell persons” (meaning the accused and the mother) and that they were worried that the accused might be a danger to their family which includes a young child. Accordingly, the prosecution submitted that a suitably long imprisonment term should be imposed as the accused still required close supervision and a structured environment to address his condition. The probability of a relapse remained high with the attendant risks to himself and to others.

[14] The accused’s counsel urged the court to impose a term of 4 to 6 years’ imprisonment. The accused, who was 29 years old at the time of the offence, had a long documented history of psychiatric illness. That was kept in check until sometime in December 2006 when he stopped taking his medication. His mental state deteriorated thereafter. The present offence had a causal link to his mental disorder.

[15] Citing the Court of Appeal’s decision in PP v Aniza bte Essa [2009] 3 SLR(R) 327, the accused’s counsel submitted that the accused was not of so unstable a character that he would be likely to re-offend in the future. Deterrence has little or no effect on mentally unstable offenders. It was argued that rehabilitation ought to be at the forefront when considering the length of imprisonment given the accused’s low likelihood of re-offending.

[16] In a report made in July 2013, Dr M Winslow, senior consultant psychiatrist in the Singapore Prison Service, noted that the accused was aware of his illness and that his mental state had stabilized with medication. The accused was relevant and rational, with an euthymic or normal mood in the circumstances. The treatment appeared to have ameliorated his psychiatric symptoms which had gone into remission. He was aware of his need for long-term medication and treatment and had shown good response to anti-psychotic medication. He also appeared willing to undergo psychiatric rehabilitation and treatment for the long term. In Dr Winslow’s opinion, before the accused could be considered for community treatment or rehabilitation, he should undergo a period of observation and rehabilitation at the IMH so that his progress could be better observed and he could take part in programmes to understand his illness better. He could also undergo supervised medication.

[17] Given that the accused had a low risk of recidivism if he complied with treatment, the court should be primarily concerned about whether he would comply with medication and treatment upon his release from imprisonment. He had faithfully complied throughout his period in remand and, on one occasion, even reminded the prison staff to give him his medication when that was overlooked.

[18] In a handwritten note, the accused reminisced about his deceased father. He also stated that he now understood that he has an extremely severe and major mental illness and that he would hurt himself or other innocent people if he did not take his medication daily and continue with his treatment. He believed that he was no longer as foolish, proud and stubborn as before.

[19] The accused also has strong support from his family members. In a joint affidavit affirmed in June 2013, his mother (aged 59), his male cousin (aged 33), his paternal uncle (aged 58) and his paternal aunt (aged 66) pledged that they would be responsible for the accused’s daily care and provide him with the necessary financial and emotional support. They would also ensure that he adhere strictly to his treatment and medication. Should the accused refuse to comply, they undertook to immediately contact the authorities referred to in the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act (Cap 178A, 2012 Rev Ed). They would also help the accused to secure gainful employment upon his release from prison. The uncle and the aunt do not reside in the flat in issue. The cousin did not reside there too but has been doing so from the time the joint affidavit was affirmed.

[20] In response to what the accused’s elder brother and his wife had said to the MP (see [13] above), the defence counsel argued that the two of them were no longer residing in the flat. They were also not asked to play a supportive role for the accused’s rehabilitation.

[21] The accused was genuinely remorseful over what he had done to his father. His sole concern now is to spend as much time as possible with his aging mother and, when he is able, to provide for and take care of her.

[22] It was further argued that caning ought not to be imposed because he was suffering from mental impairment at the time of the offence (PP v Hwang Yew Kong [2006] SGHC 22). Two previous cases involving mentally impaired accused persons in family tragedies were also referred to. They were PP v Lee Show Fui (unreported) and PP v Han John Han [2007] 1 SLR(R) 1180. The sentence in the first case was five years’ imprisonment. In the second case, the original sentence of 3 years was enhanced on appeal to 5 years. As the present accused’s case was “obviously less graphic and/or heinous”, “a similar and/or lower term of imprisonment would be appropriate”. An imprisonment term of 4 to 6 years would therefore be just.

[23] Bearing in mind the amount of time the accused had spent in custody (whether in prison under remand or in IMH), I sentenced him to 8 years’ imprisonment backdated to 21 September 2011(the day he ceased to be under the Minister’s order – see paragraph 31 of the SOF above). I agreed that caning was not appropriate in the circumstances of this case.

[24] It was clear that the accused’s state of mind was directly affected by his compliance with medication and treatment. He has been doing well in the recent past because of such compliance after his arrest. It was equally clear that his compliance took place in controlled surroundings with structural support, whether in prison or in IMH. Before the offence took place, the history showed that he was not a person who could be counted upon to take care of himself by faithfully consuming his prescribed medication. We have seen what he could do to his mother when he was unwell due to his non-compliance with medication. The offence also revealed how dangerous he could be to his family and the kind of collateral damage that he could have inflicted on his neighbours in the housing estate. It would therefore be highly unsafe and irresponsible to release him too soon into society.

[25] The relatives who affirmed the affidavit pledging their support for the accused have good intentions and high hopes. However, I am not confident that they will be able to discipline the accused once he is a free man. The accused has proved that he is not a docile person. Even after his arrest, he could refuse to cooperate with the police unless he had legal representation (see paragraph 35 of the SOF). A man who had no fear of law enforcement officers while in custody does not appear to me to be someone who would placidly obey the persuasion of his kind relatives when he has liberty.

[26] Among the four relatives, three are not young. They may not be able to protect themselves if the accused turns violent. The mother has some problems of her own. The uncle and the aunt cannot be with the accused all the time. The cousin is male and is about the same age as the accused but he will have his own life to take care of and is unlikely to be able to spend many waking hours with the accused. No evidence has been shown that the relatives were particularly close to the accused in the past. I do not think they will be in a position to cope with and to keep the strong-willed accused in check if he is given his liberty too soon.

[27] For these reasons, I was of the view that an appropriate term of imprisonment would be 8 years backdated to 21 September 2011.