Public Prosecutor v Daryati: Murder & Diminished Responsibility Defence

In Public Prosecutor v Daryati, the High Court of Singapore convicted Daryati of murder under Section 300(c) of the Penal Code. Daryati, an Indonesian domestic helper, was charged with the murder of her employer, Mdm Seow Kim Choo. Daryati initially pleaded not guilty, later attempting to rely on the defense of diminished responsibility. The court, after hearing evidence from both the prosecution and the defense, rejected the diminished responsibility defense and found Daryati guilty of murder, sentencing her to life imprisonment. The charge was amended from s 300(a) to s 300(c) of the Penal Code.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Conviction under Section 300(c) of the Penal Code; sentenced to life imprisonment.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Daryati was convicted of murder under Section 300(c) of the Penal Code. The court rejected her defense of diminished responsibility and sentenced her to life imprisonment.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorProsecutionGovernment AgencyConvictionWon
Lim Shin Hui of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Wong Kok Weng of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Phoebe Tan of Attorney-General’s Chambers
DaryatiDefenseIndividualDefense of diminished responsibility not provenLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Valerie TheanJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Lim Shin HuiAttorney-General’s Chambers
Wong Kok WengAttorney-General’s Chambers
Phoebe TanAttorney-General’s Chambers
Wong Li-Yen DewDew Chambers
Mohamed Muzammil Bin MohamedMuzammil & Company
N Sudha NairHilborne Law LLC

4. Facts

  1. The accused is an Indonesian national employed as a domestic helper.
  2. The accused began to miss her lover and became homesick.
  3. The accused's passport was kept in a locked safe in the master bedroom.
  4. The accused devised a plan to threaten the deceased with a knife to obtain the keys to the safe.
  5. The accused hid weapons on the second floor of the house.
  6. The accused stabbed and slashed the deceased multiple times on the neck, head and face.
  7. The deceased died from the wounds on her head and neck.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Public Prosecutor v Daryati, Criminal Case No 15 of 2019, [2021] SGHC 135

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Accused began employment as a domestic helper.
Accused devised a plan to threaten the deceased with a knife.
Accused wrote about her plan in her diary.
Accused drew a map of the house in her diary.
Accused told Don Hayati to alert her when Mr Seow came to the house.
Accused hid weapons in the house.
Mr Seow visited the house.
Accused sharpened a knife.
Accused retrieved a long knife from the storeroom.
Accused confronted the deceased in the master bedroom.
Accused stabbed and slashed the deceased.
Mr Ong was stabbed by the accused.
Police and paramedics arrived at the house.
Deceased pronounced dead.
Accused made a statement to Insp Mahathir Bin Mohamad.
Autopsy conducted on the deceased's body.
Dr Chan produced a report on the autopsy.
Accused was first remanded.
Accused made a statement to ASP Ang Ghim Sing.
Dr Sarkar interviewed the accused.
Dr Sarkar interviewed the accused.
Dr Sarkar interviewed the accused.
Dr Sarkar furnished his first report.
Accused made a statement to DSP Arun.
Accused made a statement to DSP Arun.
Accused made a statement to DSP Arun.
Accused made a statement to DSP Arun.
Dr Sarkar's evidence was adduced.
Dr Sarkar furnished his second report.
Dr Tan interviewed the accused.
Dr Tan interviewed the accused.
Dr Tan interviewed the accused.
Dr Tan's report was dated.
The Prosecution closed its case.
The charge was amended from s 300(a) to s 300(c) of the Penal Code.
Adjourned hearing; defence counsel informed that the accused wished to rely on the defence of diminished responsibility.
Dr Sarkar's third report was tendered.
Trial began.
Court found that the accused had not proved the defence of diminished responsibility.
Grounds of decision issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Whether the accused was suffering from such abnormality of mind as substantially impaired her mental responsibility for her acts and omissions in causing the death.
    • Outcome: The court found that the accused had not proved the defence of diminished responsibility on the balance of probabilities.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Persistent depressive disorder
      • Intermittent major depressive episodes
      • Functional impairment
  2. Whether the Prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did cause and intend to cause the bodily injuries suffered by the deceased.
    • Outcome: The court found that the Prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did cause and intend to cause the bodily injuries suffered by the deceased.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Conviction
  2. Life Imprisonment

9. Cause of Actions

  • Murder

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Law
  • Homicide

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Iskandar bin Rahmat v Public Prosecutor and other mattersCourt of AppealYes[2017] 1 SLR 505SingaporeCited for the principle that the accused bears the burden of establishing the defence of diminished responsibility on the balance of probabilities.
Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Public Prosecutor and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2019] 2 SLR 216SingaporeCited for the elements required to prove Exception 7 of s 300 of the Penal Code (diminished responsibility).
Anita Damu v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2020] 3 SLR 825SingaporeCited for the principle that expert opinion should have a proven factual basis.
R v ByrneCourt of Criminal AppealYes[1960] 2 QB 396England and WalesCited for the definition of 'abnormality of mind'.
Wang Wenfeng v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2012] 4 SLR 590SingaporeCited for the elements of the charge under s 300(c) of the Penal Code.
Chan Lie San v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2019] 2 SLR 439SingaporeCited for the issue of the discretionary death penalty.
Chua Hwa Soon Jimmy v PPCourt of AppealYes[1998] 1 SLR(R) 601SingaporeCited regarding the determination of the first and third limbs of diminished responsibility.
Zailani bin Ahmad v PPCourt of AppealYes[2005] 1 SLR(R) 356SingaporeCited regarding the determination of the first and third limbs of diminished responsibility.
PP v JuminemHigh CourtYes[2005] 4 SLR(R) 536SingaporeCited regarding the determination of the first and third limbs of diminished responsibility.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 300(a)Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 300(c)Singapore
Penal Code s 302(2)Singapore
Penal Code s 299Singapore
Penal Code Exception 7 to s 300Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code s 147Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Diminished responsibility
  • Abnormality of mind
  • Persistent depressive disorder
  • Intention to cause bodily injury
  • Culpable homicide
  • Mental responsibility
  • DSM-5
  • ICD-10

15.2 Keywords

  • Murder
  • Diminished responsibility
  • Penal Code
  • Singapore
  • Criminal Law
  • Domestic helper
  • Abnormality of mind

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Murder95
Diminished Responsibility90
Criminal Law90
Penal Code80
Psychiatry60
Evidence50
Criminal Procedure40

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Murder
  • Diminished Responsibility
  • Mental Health