SUPREME COURT OF SINGAPORE
30 May 2024
Case summary
GFX v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGHC 140
Magistrate’s Appeal No 9145 of 2023/01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grounds of Decision of the High Court (comprising Sundaresh Menon CJ, Tay Yong Kwang JCA and Vincent Hoong J) (delivered by Tay Yong Kwang JCA):
Outcome: The General Division of the High Court (the “HC”) set out the applicable sentencing framework for offences under s 325 read with s 74B(2) of the Penal Code 1871. The court dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the sentence of ten years’ and four weeks’ imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane.
Background to the appeal
1 The appellant, a father of six young children, committed repeated acts of physical abuse against two of his children (“V1” is a daughter and “V2” is a son). Eleven charges were brought against him under the Penal Code (Cap 224, Rev Ed 2008) (the “Penal Code”). The Prosecution proceeded with three charges: (a) a charge under s 325 of the Penal Code read with s 74B(2) of the Penal Code for voluntarily causing grievous hurt to [V2], who was then two years and one month old (the “first charge”); (b) a charge under s 325 of the Penal Code for voluntarily causing grievous hurt to [V1] (the “third charge”); and (c) a charge under s 182 of the Penal Code for giving false information to the police (the “eighth charge”).
Facts
2 The events in the third charge took place in the evening of 25 May 2018 at the appellant’s home. The appellant carried [V1] when she started crying. He began rocking [V1] like a “baby spring”, shaking her forcefully. As a result, [V1] suffered a skull fracture and two fractured ribs, as well as other injuries. [V1] was hospitalised in KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital (“KKH”) for 33 days.
3 Following [V1]’s admission to KKH, [V1] and [V2] were placed in foster care by the Ministry of Social and Family Development (“MSF”). The police were also alerted. On 31 May 2018, the appellant made a police statement. He stated that his other daughter, who was then two years old, could have caused the skull and rib fractures sustained by [V1]. The appellant knew that this information was false. These facts formed the subject matter of the eighth charge.
4 The events in the first charge occurred at the appellant’s home on 20 September 2021 at about 6.50pm. The appellant watched videos sent to him by his wife. They showed [V2]’s reluctance to enter the appellant’s flat when [V2] was brought home for his weekend homestay. The appellant felt angry. He used his hands to shove [V2] on his head thrice causing him to fall to the floor each time. [V2] suffered serious injuries, including a fractured skull. [V2] underwent surgery on 21 September 2021 and was in the hospital for 24 days.
5 The appellant pleaded guilty to the three charges and consented to having the remaining eight charges taken into consideration for sentencing. The District Court Judge (the “DJ”) imposed an aggregate sentence of ten years’ and four weeks’ imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane. The appellant appealed for a more lenient sentence.
Sentencing framework
6 The appropriate sentencing framework for offences under s 325 read with s 74B(2) of the Penal Code was a three-step process that utilised the existing sentencing approach for s 325 Penal Code offences set out by the Court of Appeal in Public Prosecutor v BDB [2018] 1 SLR 127 (“BDB”), coupled with the additional factor of the age of the victim in the equation: at [40].
7 First, the court considers the seriousness of the injury in arriving at an indicative starting point for the “base” offence under s 325. The guidance provided by the Court of Appeal in BDB for s 325 offences applies with equal force: at [41]–[42], [49].
8 Second, a multiplier ranging from 1% to 100% is determined based on the age of the victim at the time of the offence, according to the table set out below. The younger the victim, the greater the culpability and the corresponding harm are likely to be. The indicative starting point for the s 325 offence is then enhanced by the percentage of the multiplier, resulting in an indicative enhanced sentence: at [43]–[44], [49].
Age of victim | Enhancement (the younger the victim, the higher the multiplier) (%) |
0–3 years | 76–100 |
Just over 3 years–6 years | 51–75 |
Just over 6–10 years | 26–50 |
Just over 10 years–just under 14 years | 1–25 |
9 Third, the court will adjust the indicative enhanced sentence upwards or downwards based on the presence of relevant aggravating and/or mitigating factors. For this purpose, the non-exhaustive list of aggravating factors set out by the Court of Appeal in BDB at [62]–[75] is relevant: at [46]–[47], [49].
Decision on appeal
10 The court dismissed the appeal against sentence: at [2] and [58].
11 In relation to the third charge and the eighth charge, there was no basis at all to find that the sentences imposed by the DJ were manifestly excessive or wrong in principle: at [51].
12 For the first charge, applying the first step of the sentencing framework, an indicative starting point of five years’ imprisonment was acceptable. The grievous hurt caused to [V2] was a fractured skull, which was inherently more serious than multiple fractures to the limbs and ribs: at [51]–[52].
13 At the second step of the sentencing framework, a multiplier of 80% was applied to the indicative starting point, because [V2] was only two years and one month old at the time of the offence. This yielded an indicative enhanced sentence of nine years’ imprisonment: at [52].
14 At the third step of the sentencing framework, an uplift of another three years’ imprisonment would have been warranted, based on the presence of several aggravating factors: (a) the appellant was [V2]’s biological father; (b) the appellant’s acts of violence against [V2] were not an isolated incident; (c) MSF had previously intervened after the appellant’s violent acts against [V1]; and (d) the appellant had relevant antecedents: at [53].
15 The sentences for all three charges were to run consecutively. The appellant would have been liable to an indicative aggregate sentence of 19 years’ and four weeks’ imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane. Having regard to the totality principle, an aggregate sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane would have been appropriate for the appellant’s offences: at [56].
16 The court allowed the sentence imposed by the DJ to stand as the Prosecution did not appeal against the sentence and since this appeal was the first case before the HC where the sentencing framework for enhanced sentences under s 74B(2) was examined: at [58].
This summary is provided to assist in the understanding of the Court’s grounds of decision. It is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court. All numbers in bold font and square brackets refer to the corresponding paragraph numbers in the Court’s grounds of decision.