PP v Dan: Culpable Homicide, Child Abuse & Evidence Disposal - Sentencing for Fatal Child Abuse
In Public Prosecutor v Dan, the High Court of Singapore sentenced Dan to 34 and a half years' imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane, with an additional six months' imprisonment in lieu of caning, for the culpable homicide of his five-year-old daughter, Ayeesha, as well as multiple charges of ill-treatment under the Children and Young Persons Act, including physical abuse and confinement, and for disposing of evidence under the Penal Code. The court found Dan guilty of horrific and sustained abuse, warranting a severe sentence to reflect society's abhorrence and to deter similar acts.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Accused sentenced to 34 and a half years’ imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane, with an additional six months’ imprisonment in lieu of caning.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Dan was sentenced to 35 years for culpable homicide and child abuse of his daughter, Ayeesha, including confinement and evidence disposal.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Prosecution | Government Agency | Judgment for Prosecution | Won | Han Ming Kuang, Norine Tan, Derek Ee, Maximilian Chew |
| DAN | Accused | Individual | Convicted and Sentenced | Lost | Cheong Jun Ming Mervyn, Lim Yi Zheng, Krishna Ramakrishna Sharma, Loh Guo Wei Melvin |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Aidan Xu @ Aedit Abdullah | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Han Ming Kuang | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Norine Tan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Derek Ee | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Maximilian Chew | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Cheong Jun Ming Mervyn | Advocatus Law LLP |
| Lim Yi Zheng | Advocatus Law LLP |
| Krishna Ramakrishna Sharma | Fleet Street Law LLC |
| Loh Guo Wei Melvin | Peter Low Chambers LLC |
4. Facts
- The accused repeatedly slapped, punched, caned, and kicked Ayeesha on her head and body.
- The accused confined Ayeesha and [R] to a toilet for nearly ten months.
- Ayeesha died as a result of head injuries sustained from multiple blows to her face.
- The accused disposed of evidence to conceal his crimes.
- Ayeesha was severely undernourished and had multiple injuries.
- The accused initially lied to the police about the events leading to Ayeesha's death.
- The accused was trained in martial arts.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v DAN, Criminal Case No 19 of 2023, [2024] SGHC 250
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Accused and [A] divorced | |
| Accused and [W] started living together | |
| Accused and [W] married | |
| Accused enrolled Ayeesha and [R] in a childcare centre | |
| Accused withdrew Ayeesha and [R] from the childcare centre | |
| Counselling session with case officer of Thye Hua Kwan FSC | |
| Accused stated he registered both children at another childcare centre | |
| Case officer was unable to contact the accused | |
| First known incident of physical abuse | |
| Accused and [W] created a "naughty corner" | |
| Accused physically assaulted Ayeesha | |
| Accused caned Ayeesha and [R] | |
| Accused repeatedly lied to the case officer at Thye Hua Kwan FSC and an officer at Apkim Centre of Social Services (“ACOSS”) about Ayeesha and [R’s] whereabouts | |
| Accused and [W] decided to create a second “naughty corner” in the kitchen toilet | |
| Accused and [W] confined Ayeesha and [R] in the toilet | |
| [W] found Ayeesha and [R] sleeping on the toilet floor | |
| Ayeesha died | |
| Accused removed items from the Flat | |
| Accused brought Ayeesha’s lifeless body and [R] to the Singapore General Hospital | |
| Accused was arrested | |
| Autopsy of Ayeesha was conducted | |
| CRO (Main) generated | |
| CRO (Supplementary) generated | |
| Prosecution’s sentencing submissions dated | |
| Accused’s mitigation plea and sentencing submissions dated | |
| Defence’s supplemental bundle of authorities dated | |
| Notes of Evidence dated | |
| Hearing date | |
| Medical Memo dated | |
| Prosecution’s submissions on imprisonment term in lieu of caning dated | |
| Defence’s submissions on imprisonment in lieu of caning dated | |
| Judgment Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Culpable homicide not amounting to murder
- Outcome: The court imposed 15 years’ imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane for the charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under s 304(a) of the Penal Code.
- Category: Substantive
- Ill-treatment of a child
- Outcome: The court imposed four years’ imprisonment for each of the four charges under s 5(1) of the CYPA.
- Category: Substantive
- Disposal of evidence
- Outcome: The court imposed a sentence of three and a half years’ imprisonment for the charge of disposing evidence under s 201 of the Penal Code.
- Category: Substantive
- Sentencing Principles
- Outcome: The court considered retribution and general deterrence as the main sentencing considerations.
- Category: Procedural
- One-transaction rule
- Outcome: The court held that the one-transaction rule did not apply as the offences were distinct.
- Category: Procedural
- Totality principle
- Outcome: The court held that the aggregate sentence cohered with the totality principle.
- Category: Procedural
- Sentence in lieu of caning
- Outcome: The court imposed a sentence of six months’ imprisonment in lieu of caning.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Imprisonment
- Caning
9. Cause of Actions
- Culpable homicide not amounting to murder
- Ill-treatment of child
- Disposal of evidence
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Tan Fook Sum | High Court | Yes | [1990] 1 SLR(R) 1022 | Singapore | Cited for the retributive principle in sentencing, stating that the offender must pay for what he has done to restore the just order of society. |
| Public Prosecutor v Loqmanul Hakim bin Buang | High Court | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 753 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that punishment must reflect the seriousness of the crime committed. |
| Public Prosecutor v UI | High Court | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 500 | Singapore | Cited to support the principle that the relationship between parent and child is the ultimate relationship of trust and authority. |
| Public Prosecutor v Luan Yuanxin | High Court | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR(R) 613 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that violence committed in contravention of the bonds of trust between family members is particularly heinous. |
| Public Prosecutor v BDB | High Court | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 127 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where a child is abused by a person entrusted with their care, it is an aggravating factor warranting a higher sentence. |
| Public Prosecutor v Firdaus bin Abdullah | High Court | Yes | [2010] 3 SLR 225 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where a child is abused by a person entrusted with their care, it is an aggravating factor warranting a higher sentence. |
| Public Prosecutor v AFR | High Court | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 833 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the ultimate relationship of trust and dependence requires that such offenders receive sentences at the highest end of the scale. |
| Public Prosecutor v Azlin bte Arujanah and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 2 SLR 825 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the ultimate relationship of trust and dependence requires that such offenders receive sentences at the highest end of the scale and that abuse within the confines of the familial home brings added difficulties of detection. |
| Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 449 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in determining the mitigatory weight of a guilty plea, the sentencing court should consider the reasons set out in R v Millberry. |
| R v Millberry | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2003] 1 WLR 546 | England and Wales | Cited for the reasons why a court might reduce a sentence on account of a plea of guilt. |
| Wong Kai Chuen Philip v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1990] 2 SLR(R) 361 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the accused's plea of guilt would not have spared Ayeesha from any ordeal in testifying. |
| Public Prosecutor v Yap Jung Houn Xavier | High Court | No | [2023] SGHC 224 | Singapore | Cited by the Defence to argue for a lower sentence, but distinguished by the Prosecution and the court because the offender suffered from a mental disorder, unlike the accused in this case. |
| Public Prosecutor v CAD | High Court | No | [2019] SGHC 262 | Singapore | Cited by the Defence to argue for a lower sentence, but distinguished by the Prosecution and the court because the offender suffered from a mental disorder, unlike the accused in this case. |
| Public Prosecutor v DAM | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHC 265 | Singapore | Cited to support the imposition of 12 strokes of the cane for a s 304(b) offence. |
| Gan Chai Bee Anne v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2019] 4 SLR 838 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the composite effects of prolonged abuse should only be considered at the second step of determining the overall sentence. |
| Parthiban a/l Kanapathy v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2021] 2 SLR 847 | Singapore | Cited by analogy to the offence of perverting the course of justice under s 204A of the Penal Code, referring to the factors set out in Parthiban to calibrate the appropriate sentence. |
| Public Prosecutor v McCrea Michael | High Court | No | [2006] 3 SLR(R) 677 | Singapore | Cited by the Defence to argue for a lower sentence for the disposal of evidence charge, but distinguished by the Prosecution because it was decided under an older version of s 201. |
| ADF v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 874 | Singapore | Cited for the one-transaction rule and the factors to consider when ordering sentences to run consecutively. |
| Public Prosecutor v CCG | High Court | Yes | [2021] SGHC 207 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the totality principle ought not to be applied blindly. |
| Public Prosecutor v Law Aik Meng | High Court | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 814 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the totality principle ought not to be applied blindly and for the one-transaction rule. |
| Mohamed Shouffee bin Adam v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 998 | Singapore | Cited for the one-transaction rule and the principle that the court may deviate from the one-transaction rule where it is necessary to do so in order to give sufficient weight to the interest of deterrence. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lee Cheow Loong Charles | High Court | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 961 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the one-transaction rule does not apply where the offences in question are factually and conceptually distinct. |
| Kanagasuntharam v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1991] 2 SLR(R) 874 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court may justifiably deviate from the one-transaction rule where it is necessary to do so in order to give sufficient weight to the interest of deterrence. |
| Maideen Pillai v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR(R) 706 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there is no absolute rule precluding the court from ordering more than two sentences to run consecutively. |
| Amin bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 5 SLR 904 | Singapore | Cited for the principles in relation to an enhancement of sentence in lieu of caning. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 304(a) | Singapore |
| Children and Young Persons Act (Cap 38, 2001 Rev Ed) s 5(1) | Singapore |
| Children and Young Persons Act (Cap 38, 2001 Rev Ed) s 5(5)(b) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 201 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) s 332 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Culpable homicide
- Child abuse
- Ill-treatment
- Confinement
- Disposal of evidence
- Retribution
- General deterrence
- Vulnerability
- Abuse of trust
- Familial context
15.2 Keywords
- Culpable homicide
- Child abuse
- Sentencing
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Child Abuse
- Sentencing
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure and Sentencing
- Offences
- Culpable Homicide
- Statutory Offences
- Children and Young Persons Act