Anita Damu v Public Prosecutor: Mental Illness, Expert Evidence, and Admissibility

Anita Damu appealed against her sentence for abusing her domestic helper. The High Court, presided over by Sundaresh Menon CJ, considered the admissibility and relevance of psychiatric evidence regarding the appellant's claim of suffering from Major Depressive Disorder with psychotic features, specifically auditory hallucinations. The court set aside the District Judge's finding that the appellant experienced auditory hallucinations and will hear further directions from the parties.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Finding of the District Judge that the appellant did experience auditory hallucinations set aside. Further directions to be given after hearing from the parties.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding sentence for domestic helper abuse. The court considered the admissibility of psychiatric evidence and the impact of auditory hallucinations.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorRespondent, AppellantGovernment AgencyFurther directions to be givenNeutral
Tan Zhongshan of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Seah Ee Wei of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Jarret Huang of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Anita Damu @ Shazana Bt AbdullahAppellant, RespondentIndividualFinding of auditory hallucinations set asideNeutral

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Sundaresh MenonChief JusticeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Tan ZhongshanAttorney-General’s Chambers
Seah Ee WeiAttorney-General’s Chambers
Jarret HuangAttorney-General’s Chambers
Sarindar SinghSingh & Co
R S BajwaBajwa & Co

4. Facts

  1. The appellant pleaded guilty to charges under the Penal Code and the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act for abusing her domestic helper.
  2. The appellant tendered a mitigation plea asserting she suffered from Major Depressive Disorder with psychotic features, experiencing auditory hallucinations.
  3. The Prosecution disputed the assertion that the appellant experienced auditory hallucinations at the time of the offences.
  4. The appellant did not testify at the Newton hearing regarding her auditory hallucinations.
  5. The District Judge accepted that the appellant was suffering from MDD with psychotic features and that there was a causal link to the offending.
  6. The District Judge sentenced the appellant to an aggregate sentence of 31 months’ imprisonment and ordered compensation to the victim.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Anita Damu v Public Prosecutor, , [2019] SGHC 233

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Magistrate’s Appeal No 9358 of 2018 filed
Hearing of the appeals
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Admissibility of Expert Evidence
    • Outcome: The court found that the relevance and reliability of the psychiatric evidence was critically undermined by the appellant’s failure to give evidence at the Newton hearing.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Basis rule
      • Ultimate issue rule
  2. Impact of Mental Illness on Culpability
    • Outcome: The court set aside the finding of the District Judge that the appellant did experience auditory hallucinations.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Auditory hallucinations
      • Major Depressive Disorder with psychotic features

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Appeal against sentence
  2. Appeal against compensation order

9. Cause of Actions

  • Abuse
  • Violation of Employment of Foreign Manpower Act

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Law
  • Appeals

11. Industries

  • Domestic Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Kanagaratnam Nicholas Jens v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2019] SGHC 196SingaporeCited for the importance of psychiatric reports and their impact on an accused person’s life and liberty.
Jet Holding Ltd and others v Cooper Cameron (Singapore) Pte Ltd and another and other appealsCourt of AppealYes[2006] 3 SLR(R) 769SingaporeCited regarding the best evidence rule.
Malayan Banking Bhd v ASL Shipyard Pte Ltd and othersHigh CourtYes[2019] SGHC 61SingaporeCited regarding the best evidence rule.
Public Prosecutor v Lim Kuan HockUnknownYes[1967] 2 MLJ 114MalaysiaCited regarding adverse inference when a party fails to call a key witness.
Buksh v MilesUnknownYes(2008) 296 DLR (4th) 608UnknownCited with approval regarding adverse inferences.
Sudha Natrajan v The Bank of East Asia LtdHigh CourtYes[2017] 1 SLR 141SingaporeCited with approval regarding adverse inferences.
Independent State of Papua New Guinea v PNG Sustainable Development Program LtdHigh CourtYes[2019] SGHC 68SingaporeCited with approval regarding adverse inferences.
Oh Laye Koh v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[1994] SGCA 102SingaporeCited regarding adverse inferences when an accused person refuses to testify.
Haw Tua Tau v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[1981] 2 MLJ 49MalaysiaCited regarding adverse inferences when an accused person refuses to testify.
R v UnderwoodUnknownYes[2005] 1 Cr App Rep 178England and WalesCited regarding adverse inferences in Newton hearings.
Ramsay v WatsonHigh Court of AustraliaYes(1961) 108 CLR 642AustraliaCited regarding the basis rule for expert evidence.
Dasreef Pty Ltd v HawcharHigh Court of AustraliaYes[2011] HCA 21AustraliaCited regarding the basis rule for expert evidence.
Khoo Bee Keong v Ang Chun Hong and anotherHigh CourtYes[2005] SGHC 128SingaporeCited with approval regarding the basis rule for expert evidence.
Muhlbauer AG v Manufacturing Integration Technology LtdCourt of AppealYes[2010] 2 SLR 724SingaporeCited with approval regarding the basis rule for expert evidence.
Leith McDonald Ratten v The QueenPrivy Council (Appeal from Australia)Yes[1972] AC 378United KingdomCited regarding psychiatric evidence.
R v PhillionSupreme Court of CanadaYes[1978] 1 SCR 18CanadaCited regarding psychiatric evidence.
DPP v A and BC Chewing GumQueen's Bench DivisionYes[1968] QB 159England and WalesCited regarding the ultimate issue rule.
R v StockwellCourt of Appeal (Criminal Division)Yes(1993) 97 Cr App Rep 260England and WalesCited regarding the ultimate issue rule.
Pacific Recreation Pte Ltd v S Y Technology Inc and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 491SingaporeCited regarding the ultimate issue rule.
Chiu Teng @ Kallang Pte Ltd v Singapore Land AuthorityHigh CourtYes[2014] 1 SLR 1047SingaporeCited regarding the ultimate issue rule.
Cheong Soh Chin and others v Eng Chiet Shoong and othersHigh CourtYes[2018] SGHC 131SingaporeCited regarding the ultimate issue rule.
Eu Lim Hoklai v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2011] 3 SLR 167SingaporeCited regarding the ultimate issue rule.
Public Prosecutor v Virat KaewnernHigh CourtYes[1993] 1 SLR(R) 358SingaporeCited regarding hearsay statements.
Public Prosecutor v Adetunji Adeleye SuleHigh CourtYes[1993] 2 MLJ 70MalaysiaCited regarding hearsay statements.
R v Aziz and othersCourt of Appeal (Criminal Division)Yes[1995] 3 WLR 53England and WalesCited regarding hearsay statements.
R v Sharp (Colin)Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)Yes[1988] 1 WLR 7England and WalesCited regarding hearsay statements.
Public Prosecutor v Dinesh s/o RajantheranCourt of AppealYes[2019] 1 SLR 1289SingaporeCited regarding the duty of the court to ensure the accused maintains the intention to plead guilty.
Tay Wee Kiat and another v Public Prosecutor and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2018] 4 SLR 1315SingaporeCited regarding the sentencing framework for domestic maid abuse.
R v HolmesCourt of Criminal AppealYes[1953] 2 All ER 324England and WalesCited regarding psychiatric evidence.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore
Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (Cap 91A, 2009 Rev Ed)Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Psychiatric evidence
  • Auditory hallucinations
  • Major Depressive Disorder
  • Newton hearing
  • Statement of facts
  • Admissibility
  • Relevance
  • Basis rule
  • Ultimate issue rule
  • Malingering

15.2 Keywords

  • Criminal
  • Appeal
  • Psychiatric evidence
  • Mental illness
  • Domestic helper abuse
  • Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Newton hearings100
Sentencing Principles90
Expert evidence90
Criminal Procedure90
Unsound mind80
Evidence Law80
Admissibility of evidence70
Evidence70
Psychiatry60
Mental Health Law60
Penal Code50
Criminal Revision50
Employment of Foreign Manpower Act40

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Evidence Law
  • Mental Health Law