Public Prosecutor v Vitria Depsi Wahyuni: Culpable Homicide, Domestic Worker Violence

In Public Prosecutor v Vitria Depsi Wahyuni, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal by the Prosecution against the High Court's sentence of 10 years' imprisonment imposed on Vitria Depsi Wahyuni for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Vitria, an Indonesian domestic worker, was charged with causing the death of her 87-year-old employer. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, enhancing Vitria's sentence to 20 years' imprisonment, emphasizing the need for deterrence and protection of the public in cases involving domestic worker violence.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The Prosecution appealed against a 10-year imprisonment term for culpable homicide. The Court of Appeal enhanced Vitria's sentence to 20 years, emphasizing deterrence and public safety.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorAppellantGovernment AgencyAppeal AllowedWon
Christina Koh of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Lau Wing Yum of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Vitria Depsi Wahyuni (alias Fitriah)RespondentIndividualSentence EnhancedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chao Hick TinJustice of AppealYes
V K RajahJustice of AppealNo
Philip PillaiJudgeNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Christina KohAttorney-General’s Chambers
Lau Wing YumAttorney-General’s Chambers
Mohd Muzammil Bin MohdMuzammil & Co

4. Facts

  1. Vitria was employed as a domestic worker for the deceased, an 87-year-old woman.
  2. The deceased was particular about household chores and reprimanded Vitria.
  3. Vitria felt angry and the thought of killing the deceased entered her mind.
  4. Vitria stuffed bed sheets into her pillow to smother the deceased.
  5. Vitria tried to smother the deceased with a pillow, but the deceased struggled.
  6. Vitria strangled the deceased until she stopped moving.
  7. Vitria attempted to conceal the crime by staging a fall in the toilet.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Public Prosecutor v Vitria Depsi Wahyuni (alias Fitriah), Criminal Appeal No 2 of 2012, [2012] SGCA 67
  2. Public Prosecutor v Vitria Depsi Wahyuni (alias Fitriah), , [2012] SGHC 49

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Vitria arrived in Singapore
Vitria started working for the deceased
The deceased chided Vitria for not cleaning the rusty grilles well enough
The deceased called Vitria 'stupid' and 'big eyes'
Vitria attempted to smother the deceased
Vitria killed the deceased
Vitria flagged down a taxi and the taxi driver called the police
Vitria's remand
Appeal allowed and Vitria’s sentence enhanced to 20 years’ imprisonment
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder
    • Outcome: The court found the respondent guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Appropriateness of Sentence
    • Outcome: The court found the initial sentence of 10 years to be manifestly inadequate and enhanced it to 20 years.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [2005] 4 SLR(R) 536
      • [2005] 2 SLR(R) 220
      • [2004] SGHC 244

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Increased Imprisonment Term

9. Cause of Actions

  • Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Law
  • Appeals

11. Industries

  • Domestic Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Public Prosecutor v Juminem and AnotherHigh CourtYes[2005] 4 SLR(R) 536SingaporeCompared to the present case; Judge determined that the present case did not merit a higher sentence than Juminem.
Purwanti Parji v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2005] 2 SLR(R) 220SingaporeCited for the principle that domestic workers who resort to violence should expect severe condemnation and harsh deterrent sentences.
Public Prosecutor v Sundarti Supriyanto (No 2)High CourtYes[2004] SGHC 244SingaporeDistinguished from the present case; in Sundarti, the injuries on the victim were extensive and the accused had gone out of their way to mask their involvement in the offence.
Public Prosecutor v UIHigh CourtYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 500SingaporeCited for the legal principles which govern appellate review of sentences.
Public Prosecutor v Siew Boon LoongHigh CourtYes[2005] 1 SLR(R) 611SingaporeCited for the principle that a sentence will be regarded as unjustly lenient or severe where substantial alterations rather than minute corrections are necessary to remedy the injustice.
Public Prosecutor v Mohammed Liton Mohammed Syeed MallikHigh CourtYes[2008] 1 SLR(R) 601SingaporeCited for the principle that a sentence will be regarded as unjustly lenient or severe where substantial alterations rather than minute corrections are necessary to remedy the injustice.
Angliss Singapore Pte Ltd v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2006] 4 SLR(R) 653SingaporeCited for the principle that the mere fact that an appellate court would have awarded a higher or lower sentence than the trial judge is not sufficient to compel the exercise of its appellate powers.
Dinesh Singh Bhatia s/o Amarjeet Singh v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2005] 3 SLR(R) 1SingaporeCited for the principle that sentencing precedents should not be applied rigidly or religiously.
Public Prosecutor v Purwanti ParjiHigh CourtYes[2004] SGHC 224SingaporeCited for the sentencing considerations of retribution and deterrence in cases of physical violence committed within the domestic worker-employer relationship.
Public Prosecutor v Tan Kei Loon AllanCourt of AppealYes[1998] 3 SLR(R) 679SingaporeCited as an example of a case where the court noted that the sentencing provisions under the previous 304(a) left the courts with limited discretion to calibrate sentences according to the culpability of the offender.
Public Prosecutor v Chee Cheong Hin ConstanceHigh CourtYes[2006] 2 SLR(R) 707SingaporeCited as an example of a case where the High Court was grappling with the question of whether a 10-year imprisonment term or life imprisonment should be imposed on a mentally unstable offender charged under the previous s 304(a).
Abdul Nasir bin Amer Hamsah v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[1997] 2 SLR(R) 842SingaporeCited for the principle that life imprisonment meant imprisonment for the rest of the accused person’s natural life.
Public Prosecutor v Aniza bte EssaHigh CourtYes[2009] 3 SLR(R) 327SingaporeCited for the principle that the huge disparity between a 10-year imprisonment term and life imprisonment made it difficult for the court to apply the proportionality principle and deal with the culpability of the offender in a more nuanced fashion.
Public Prosecutor v RohanaHigh CourtYes[2006] SGHC 52SingaporeCompared to the present case; in Rohana, a key distinguishing factor was that the accused’s actions were not premeditated.
Public Prosecutor v BarokahHigh CourtYes[2008] SGHC 22SingaporeCompared to the present case; in Barokah, the court found that the accused’s thought process before and after the killing was collected, despite the fact she was undergoing depression and had a dependent personality disorder.
R v HodgsonCourt of AppealYes(1968) 52 Cr App R 113England and WalesCited for the conditions enunciated for a life imprisonment term to be imposed.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 304(a)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Culpable Homicide
  • Domestic Worker
  • Premeditation
  • Deterrence
  • Vulnerable Victim
  • Sentencing
  • Asphyxia
  • Strangulation

15.2 Keywords

  • culpable homicide
  • domestic worker
  • violence
  • sentencing
  • Singapore
  • appeal

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Culpable Homicide95
Criminal Law90
Penal Code80
Criminal Procedure40
Murder20
Wrongful Termination5
Personal Injury5

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Sentencing
  • Homicide
  • Domestic Violence