PP v Aniza bte Essa: Abetment of Culpable Homicide & Sentencing of Mentally Disordered Offenders
In Public Prosecutor v Aniza bte Essa, the Court of Appeal of Singapore reviewed the sentence of Aniza binte Essa, who was convicted of abetting culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Public Prosecutor appealed against the nine-year imprisonment sentence, arguing for life imprisonment based on the gravity of the offense and the need for deterrence. The court considered the Hodgson criteria for sentencing mentally disordered offenders and the principle of proportionality. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's sentence was not manifestly inadequate, given Aniza's diminished responsibility due to mental illness caused by spousal abuse.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court of Appeal reviewed Aniza bte Essa's 9-year sentence for abetting culpable homicide, addressing sentencing principles for mentally disordered offenders.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Appellant | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Tan Kiat Pheng of Attorney-General’s Chambers Walter Woon of Attorney-General’s Chambers Gillian Koh Tan of Attorney-General’s Chambers Samuel Chua of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Aniza bte Essa | Respondent | Individual | Sentence Upheld | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Sek Keong | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| V K Rajah | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Tan Kiat Pheng | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Walter Woon | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Gillian Koh Tan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Samuel Chua | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Noor Mohamed Marican | Marican & Associates |
4. Facts
- Aniza was married to the deceased in September 2001 and had two sons with him.
- Aniza was 24 years old when she committed the abetment offence.
- Aniza was diagnosed with an abnormality of the mind at the time of the offence, substantially impairing her responsibility.
- The impairment of her mental faculties arose from frequent quarrels and physical/verbal abuse by the deceased.
- Aniza met Nasir in November/December 2006 while working as a waitress.
- Aniza and Nasir became lovers in February 2007 and planned to kill the deceased in June 2007.
- Nasir killed the deceased by repeatedly stabbing him with a knife.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Aniza bte Essa, Cr App 2/2008, [2009] SGCA 16
- PP v Aniza bte Essa, , [2008] 3 SLR 832
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Aniza married the deceased. | |
| The deceased was sent to prison. | |
| The deceased was released from prison. | |
| Aniza met Nasir. | |
| Aniza and Nasir became lovers. | |
| Aniza and Nasir agreed on a plan to kill the deceased. | |
| Aniza was remanded. | |
| Dr. Tommy Tan issued a psychiatric report on Aniza. | |
| Dr. Kenneth Koh issued a psychiatric report on Aniza. | |
| Judgment in PP v Aniza bte Essa [2008] 3 SLR 832 was issued. | |
| Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2007 came into effect. | |
| Judgment reserved in Public Prosecutor v Aniza bte Essa. |
7. Legal Issues
- Sentencing of Mentally Disordered Offenders
- Outcome: The court clarified the application of the Hodgson criteria in Singapore's sentencing regime for mentally disordered offenders.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Application of Hodgson criteria
- Proportionality in sentencing
- Consideration of diminished responsibility
- Burden of Proof in Mitigation
- Outcome: The court held that the Prosecution had accepted the reports of the two psychiatrists for the purpose of mitigation.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Admissibility of psychiatric reports
- Acceptance of self-serving statements
- Evidentiary standards in mitigation pleas
8. Remedies Sought
- Life Imprisonment
9. Cause of Actions
- Abetment of Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing Guidelines
- Mitigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PP v Aniza bte Essa | High Court | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR 832 | Singapore | Sets out the facts of the case. |
| R v Rowland Jack Forster Hodgson | English Court of Appeal | Yes | (1968) 52 Cr App R 113 | England | Enunciated the Hodgson criteria for sentencing mentally unstable offenders. |
| Attorney-General’s Reference No 32 of 1996 (Steven Alan Whittaker) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 1 Cr App R (S) 261 | England | Explained the relationship between the elements of the Hodgson criteria. |
| Veen v The Queen (No 1) | High Court of Australia | Yes | (1979) 143 CLR 458 | Australia | Approved the Hodgson criteria in Australia. |
| Veen v The Queen (No 2) | High Court of Australia | Yes | (1988) 164 CLR 465 | Australia | Held that the Hodgson criteria did not compel the sentence of life imprisonment and that the central principle of sentencing was proportionality. |
| R v Chivers | Court of Criminal Appeal of Queensland | Yes | [1993] 1 Qd R 432 | Australia | Followed Veen v The Queen (No 2) and emphasized the principle of proportionality. |
| R v Hester | Court of Criminal Appeal of Queensland | Yes | [2008] QCA 277 | Australia | Approvingly cited R v Chivers. |
| Neo Man Lee v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1991] SLR 146 | Singapore | Considered the applicability of the Hodgson criteria in Singapore and expressed broad agreement with them. |
| PP v Loh Ah Nu | High Court | Yes | [1992] SGHC 62 | Singapore | Offender suffered from depression and was sentenced to life imprisonment, but the Hodgson criteria were not referred to. |
| Ong Teng Siew v PP | High Court | Yes | [1998] SGHC 121 | Singapore | Offender suffered from a psychotic disorder and was sentenced to life imprisonment, but the Hodgson criteria were not referred to. |
| PP v Tan Kei Loon Allan | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR 288 | Singapore | Referred to Neo Man Lee and explained the new logic consequent upon the ruling in Abdul Nasir. |
| Abdul Nasir bin Amer Hamsah v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR 643 | Singapore | Held that the term “life imprisonment” as used in the Penal Code meant imprisonment for the natural life of the offender. |
| PP v Ong Wee Teck | High Court | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR 479 | Singapore | S 304(a) offender was sentenced to life imprisonment. |
| PP v Kwok Teng Soon | High Court | Yes | [2001] 4 SLR 516 | Singapore | S 304(a) offender was sentenced to life imprisonment. |
| PP v Dolah bin Omar | High Court | Yes | [2001] 4 SLR 302 | Singapore | Sentenced the offender to life imprisonment because he needed constant psychiatric treatment and supervision for an indefinite period. |
| PP v Ng Kwok Soon | High Court | Yes | [2002] 3 SLR 199 | Singapore | S 304(a) offender was sentenced to life imprisonment as he was not mentally unstable. |
| PP v Muhamad Hasik bin Sahar | High Court | Yes | [2002] 3 SLR 149 | Singapore | S 304(a) offender was sentenced to life imprisonment as he was not mentally unstable. |
| PP v Lim Hock Hin | High Court | Yes | [2002] 4 SLR 895 | Singapore | S 304(a) offender was sentenced to life imprisonment as the Hodgson criteria were satisfied. |
| PP v Ng Kwang Lim | High Court | Yes | [2004] SGHC 85 | Singapore | S 304(a) offender was sentenced to life imprisonment as the Hodgson criteria were satisfied. |
| PP v Kok Weng Shang Bernard | High Court | Yes | [2005] SGHC 64 | Singapore | S 304(a) offender was sentenced to life imprisonment as the Hodgson criteria were satisfied. |
| Purwanti Parji v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 2 SLR 220 | Singapore | S 304(a) offender was sentenced to life imprisonment as the Hodgson criteria were satisfied. |
| PP v Lim Ah Liang | High Court | Yes | [2007] SGHC 34 | Singapore | S 304(a) offender was sentenced to life imprisonment as the Hodgson criteria were satisfied. |
| Mohammad Zam bin Abdul Rashid v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR 410 | Singapore | S 304(a) offender was sentenced to life imprisonment as the Hodgson criteria were satisfied. |
| PP v Barokah | High Court | Yes | [2008] SGHC 22 | Singapore | S 304(a) offender was sentenced to life imprisonment as the Hodgson criteria were satisfied. |
| PP v Barokah | High Court | Yes | [2009] SGHC 46 | Singapore | S 304(a) offender was sentenced to life imprisonment as the Hodgson criteria were satisfied. |
| PP v Rohana | High Court | Yes | [2006] SGHC 52 | Singapore | S 304(a) offender was sentenced to imprisonment as they posed little or low risk of re-offending. |
| PP v Chee Cheong Hin Constance | High Court | Yes | [2006] 2 SLR 707 | Singapore | S 304(a) offender was sentenced to imprisonment as they posed little or low risk of re-offending. |
| PP v Aguilar Guen Garlejo | High Court | Yes | [2006] 3 SLR 247 | Singapore | S 304(a) offender was sentenced to imprisonment as they posed little or low risk of re-offending. |
| PP v Han John Han | High Court | Yes | Criminal Appeal No 1 of 2007 | Singapore | S 304(a) offender was sentenced to imprisonment as they posed little or low risk of re-offending. |
| Ng So Kuen Connie v PP | High Court | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR 178 | Singapore | Referred to regarding deterrence as a relevant objective in punishing an offender whose cognitive understanding had been substantially impaired. |
| Goh Lee Yin v PP | High Court | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR 530 | Singapore | Referred to regarding deterrence as a relevant objective in punishing an offender whose cognitive understanding had been substantially impaired. |
| PP v Law Aik Meng | High Court | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR 814 | Singapore | Referred to regarding deterrence as a relevant objective in punishing an offender whose cognitive understanding had been substantially impaired. |
| PP v Juminem | High Court | Yes | [2005] 4 SLR 536 | Singapore | Referred to as a comparable case where the offender was mentally unstable. |
| PP v Lim Ah Seng | High Court | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR 957 | Singapore | Authority for the proposition that the Defence must prove statements in mitigation by evidence. |
| R v Michael Joseph Kerrigan | Court of Appeal | Yes | (1993) 14 Cr App R (S) 179 | England | Referred to regarding the burden of proving any extraneous fact alleged by way of mitigation. |
| R v Darius Nicholas Lechmere Guppy and Benedict Justin Marsh | Court of Appeal | Yes | (1995) 16 Cr App R (S) 25 | England | Referred to regarding the burden of proving any extraneous fact alleged by way of mitigation. |
| R v Kevin John Underwood | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 1 Cr App R (S) 90 | England | Referred to regarding the Prosecution being given the Defence’s mitigation speech in advance. |
| PP v Chan Yoke Ling Catherine | District Court | Yes | [2004] SGDC 108 | Singapore | Explained the reasons for the court’s somewhat indulgent approach to mitigation pleas. |
| PP v Tan Fook Sum | High Court | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR 523 | Singapore | Referred to regarding the usual limitations on evidentiary sources and standard of proof potentially limiting the information available to the Judge. |
| R v Robert John Newton | Court of Appeal | Yes | (1982) 4 Cr App R (S) 388 | England | Referred to regarding a Newton hearing. |
| PP v Kwong Kok Hing | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR 684 | Singapore | Cited regarding the limited scope for appellate intervention apropos sentences meted out by a lower court. |
| Angliss Singapore Pte Ltd v PP | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR 653 | Singapore | Cited regarding sentencing being very much a matter of discretion and requiring a delicate balancing of myriad considerations. |
| PP v Mohammed Liton Mohammed Syeed Mallik | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR 601 | Singapore | Cited regarding sentencing being very much a matter of discretion and requiring a delicate balancing of myriad considerations. |
| PP v Cheong Hock Lai | High Court | Yes | [2004] 3 SLR 203 | Singapore | Declared that an appellate court could interfere with a sentence meted out by the trial judge only if certain conditions were met. |
| PP v Siew Boon Loong | High Court | Yes | [2005] 1 SLR 611 | Singapore | Explained what was meant by “manifestly inadequate”. |
| R v Murdock | Queensland High Court | Yes | [1980] Qd R 504 | Australia | Adopted the Hodgson criteria without qualification. |
| R v Cheung Hing-biu | High Court | Yes | [1984] HKLR 87 | Hong Kong | Referred to regarding the Hong Kong courts holding that the Hodgson criteria need not be satisfied cumulatively. |
| HKSAR v Cheung Lai Man | High Court | Yes | [2004] 2 HKLRD 473 | Hong Kong | Referred to regarding the Hong Kong courts holding that the Hodgson criteria need not be satisfied cumulatively. |
| HKSAR v Cheng Wui Yiu | High Court | Yes | [2007] HKCU 2127 | Hong Kong | Referred to regarding the Hong Kong courts holding that the Hodgson criteria need not be satisfied cumulatively. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 304(a) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 109 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2007 (Act 51 of 2007) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Abetment
- Culpable Homicide
- Diminished Responsibility
- Hodgson Criteria
- Mitigation
- Spousal Abuse
- Psychiatric Assessment
- Life Imprisonment
- Deterrence
- Retribution
15.2 Keywords
- Abetment
- Culpable Homicide
- Sentencing
- Mental Disorder
- Hodgson Criteria
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
- Criminal Procedure
- Mental Health Law