ANITA DAMU @ SHAZANA BT ABDULLAH v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

ANITA DAMU @ SHAZANA BT ABDULLAH v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The High Court held the DJ was correct to reject the appellant's claim of auditory hallucinations because it was not supported by contemporaneous statements or credible corroboration; consequently the appellant's psychiatric condition did not diminish culpability and did not justify a non‑custodial outcome. The court clarified and adopted a stepwise sentencing approach for s324 read with s73(2): determine the Low Song Chye starting band for physical harm, uplift for dangerous means commensurate with potential harm, then apply an uplift under s73(2) for victim vulnerability/psychological harm, adjust for aggravating/mitigating factors, and apply totality. Applying that framework and...

Citation
[2025] SGHC 162
Parties
Appellant (hc/ma 9358/2018/01) and Respondent (hc/ma 9358/2018/02): Anita Damu @ Shazana bt Abdullah; Respondent (hc/ma 9358/2018/01) and Appellant (hc/ma 9358/2018/02): Public Prosecutor
Court
General Division of the High Court
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
14 August 2025
Case Number
HC/MA 9358/2018/01|HC/MA 9358/2018/02
Procedural Posture
Criminal Magistrates Appeals Against Sentence and Compensation / High Court Grounds of Decision on Cross‑appeals (remitted Proceedings)
Legal Topics
Assault Causing Hurt, Aggravated Causing Hurt (dangerous Means), S73(2) Penal Code Uplift for Domestic Workers, Compensation in Criminal Proceedings, Fitness to Plead/mental Disorder, Totality Principle
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Sentencing Employment Law Mental Health Law Domestic Worker Protection Assault Causing Hurt Aggravated Causing Hurt (dangerous Means) S73(2) Penal Code Uplift for Domestic Workers +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anita Damu @ Shazana bt Abdullah

Appellant (hc/ma 9358/2018/01) and Respondent (hc/ma 9358/2018/02)

Public Prosecutor

Respondent (hc/ma 9358/2018/01) and Appellant (hc/ma 9358/2018/02)

Procedural Posture

Criminal Magistrates Appeals Against Sentence and Compensation / High Court Grounds of Decision on Cross‑appeals (remitted Proceedings)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellant experienced auditory hallucinations at time of offences
  2. 2 Whether mental disorder warranted non‑custodial sentence
  3. 3 Appropriate sentencing approach and uplift for s324 read with s73(2) Penal Code (Enhanced s324)

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held the DJ was correct to reject the appellant's claim of auditory hallucinations because it was not supported by contemporaneous statements or credible corroboration; consequently the appellant's psychiatric condition did not diminish culpability and did not justify a non‑custodial outcome. The court clarified and adopted a stepwise sentencing approach for s324 read with s73(2): determine the Low Song Chye starting band for physical harm, uplift for dangerous means commensurate with potential harm, then apply an uplift under s73(2) for victim vulnerability/psychological harm, adjust for aggravating/mitigating factors, and apply totality. Applying that framework and...