Apex court increases maid abuser’s jail time by 6 months after considering earlier ‘sustained’ assaults
The Court of Appeal said that a High Court judge had made an “error of law” by disregarding the previous assaults when sentencing Suzanna Bong for abusing her domestic worker.
- Suzanna Bong Sim Swan abused her domestic worker about two to three times a week over two years
- However, she was only charged with striking Ms Than Than Soe on May 17, 2015
- Her sentence was reduced in the High Court last year
- Now, the Court of Appeal increased it again
- Three judges ruled that earlier instances of abuse should be considered when sentencing offenders if there is a “sustained pattern”
SINGAPORE — Suzanna Bong Sim Swan, who was convicted of abusing a domestic worker until she went partially blind, now has to serve six more months of jail time after a ruling by the Court of Appeal on Wednesday (Sept 23).
The 48-year-old will still have to pay compensation of S$1,000 as well to the 34-year-old worker, Ms Than Than Soe.
The highest court of the land, which raised her jail term from eight months to one year and two months, said that the courts should not look at a charge in isolation when sentencing an offender who has shown a sustained pattern of abuse.
In 2018, Bong was initially sentenced to one year and eight months’ jail in the State Courts, but this was reduced by the High Court last year after she lodged an appeal.
She was found guilty of a single charge of causing hurt to Ms Than. During her trial, Bong claimed that she never physically abused Ms Than and denied hitting her with a bottle.
However, she abused Ms Than about two to three times a week over the course of two years. This included punching her in the eye or face, and slapping or pulling Ms Than’s hair.
The maid’s eyesight began to deteriorate and when she told Bong about this, Bong told her not to lie.
On May 17 in 2015, she struck the helper on the cheek three times with a medicated oil glass bottle. She was charged in court over this incident and not for the previous assaults.
In accepting her appeal against her sentence last year, High Court judge Chua Lee Ming ruled that he found no “causal link” between the assault and Ms Than’s injuries. The maid had gone legally blind in one eye.
The only injury that Bong caused then was a contusion on Ms Than’s face, Justice Chua found.
COURT OF APPEAL’S FINDINGS
Prosecutors then asked the Court of Appeal to consider three questions of law dealing with psychological harm and culpability.
The apex court panel comprised Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon and Judges of Appeal Andrew Phang and Tay Yong Kwang.
The questions that they answered “yes” to last month were:
Should courts consider the psychological harm that arises from a sustained pattern of abuse, such as multiple incidents of assault, even though the offender was not charged over these incidents?
Is it an aggravating factor in sentencing when an offender knows, or is likely aware of, a victim’s pre-existing injury or particular vulnerability from previous proved incidents when they assaulted the victim in the same part of the body?
Judge Tay, who delivered the judgement, noted that sentencing courts have sometimes excluded an offender’s conduct that did not form part of criminal charges in an attempt not to over-punish them.
However, courts “must be able to consider all the circumstances of a case in order to assess it realistically”, the Court of Appeal said.
Justice Chua had made an “error of law” by disregarding the previous assaults when sentencing Bong, the panel added.
In Bong’s case, the final assault had taken place "in context of a sustained pattern of abuse”.
Ms Than worked long hours, was deprived of food and proper sleeping arrangements, and was not paid until after the May 2015 incident.
“In our opinion, any intermittent good times enjoyed must be measured against the persistent bad times endured.
“We find it hard to accept that such a victim would not be experiencing a high degree of despondency and anxiety most of the days and therefore suffering a high level of psychological harm,” the apex court judges added.
They then directed prosecutors and Bong’s lawyers from Eversheds Harry Elias LLP to file submissions on how their findings would affect the jail term and compensation order.
On Wednesday, the three appeal judges increased her sentence to reflect her higher level of culpability.
They did not make changes to the compensation order, which Justice Chua had reduced from S$38,540 to S$1,000.
This was because Bong’s increased culpability was already reflected in the higher jail sentence, and compensation orders are not meant to punish offenders.
