fc_judgments: 104
Data source: lawnet.sg/lawnet/web/lawnet/free-resources
This data as json
| _id | _item_id | tags | date | court | case-number | title | citation | url | counsel | timestamp | coram | html | _commit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 104 | 8efed69301e54de403fd3f75f96af45b6950375a | [
"Family Law \u2013 Family violence \u2013 Orders for protection \u2013 Considerations for determining whether conduct amounts to family violence under the \u201ccontinual harassment\u201d limb in s 64 of the Women\u2019s Charter 1961",
"Family Law \u2013 Family violence \u2013 Orders for protection \u2013 Considerations for making personal protection orders",
"Family Law \u2013 Family violence \u2013 Orders for protection \u2013 Considerations for determining the duration of personal protection orders"
] |
2024-10-18 | Family Court | SS No. 864 of 2024 | XFL v XFM | [2024] SGFC 103 | https://www.lawnet.sg:443/lawnet/web/lawnet/free-resources?p_p_id=freeresources_WAR_lawnet3baseportlet&p_p_lifecycle=1&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&_freeresources_WAR_lawnet3baseportlet_action=openContentPage&_freeresources_WAR_lawnet3baseportlet_docId=%2FJudgment%2F32471-SSP.xml | [
"Rajwin Singh Sandhu (M/s Rajwin & Yong LLP) for the Wife",
"Patrick Fernandez (M/s Fernandez LLC) for the Husband."
] |
2024-11-20T16:00:00Z[GMT] | Kow Keng Siong | <root><head><title>XFL v XFM</title></head><content><div class="contentsOfFile"> <h2 align="center" class="title"><span class="caseTitle"> XFL <em>v</em> XFM </span><br><span class="Citation offhyperlink"><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/32471-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 103</a></span></h2><table id="info-table"><tbody><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Case Number</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body">SS No. 864 of 2024</td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Decision Date</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body">18 October 2024</td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Tribunal/Court</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body">Family Court</td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Coram</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body"> Kow Keng Siong </td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Counsel Name(s)</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body"> Rajwin Singh Sandhu (M/s Rajwin & Yong LLP) for the Wife; Patrick Fernandez (M/s Fernandez LLC) for the Husband. </td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Parties</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body"> XFL — XFM </td></tr></tbody></table> <p class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Family Law</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Family violence</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Orders for protection</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Considerations for determining whether conduct amounts to family violence under the “continual harassment” limb in s 64 of the Women’s Charter 1961</span></p> <p class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Family Law</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Family violence</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Orders for protection</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Considerations for making personal protection orders</span></p> <p class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Family Law</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Family violence</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Orders for protection</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Considerations for determining the duration of personal protection orders</span></p> <p></p><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="80%"><p class="Judg-Hearing-Date">18 October 2024</p></td><td><p class="Judg-Date-Reserved"></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p></p> <p class="Judg-Author"> District Judge Kow Keng Siong:</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Introduction</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_1"></a>1 SS No. 864 of 2024 is an application by the Wife for a personal protection order (“<b>PPO</b>”) for her 2½-year-old Son (D.O.B: 12 January 2022) and herself. The Respondent is the Husband.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_2"></a>2 After a trial, I granted the Wife’s application.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_3"></a>3 These are the reasons for my decision.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">The Wife’s case</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_4"></a>4 The Wife’s PPO application is based on the following claims:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_4-p2_a"></a>(a) First, the Husband had committed acts which came within <em>limb (a)</em> of the definition of “family violence” in s 64 of Women’s Charter 1961 (“<b>Charter</b>”) – i.e., he had wilfully or knowingly placed her in fear of hurt through the commission of the relevant acts. (“<b>1<sup>st</sup> Claim</b>”)</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_4-p2_b"></a>(b) Second, the Husband had also committed acts which came within <em>limb (d)</em> of the definition of “family violence” in s 64 – i.e., he had committed acts of continual harassment with intent to cause or knowing that the harassment was likely to cause anguish to her. (“<b>2<sup>nd</sup> Claim</b>”)</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_5"></a>5 The Wife gave the following evidence in support of her claims.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">1<sup>st</sup> Claim<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_1" id="Ftn_1_1"><sup>[note: 1]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_6"></a>6 On 6 May 2024, while in their matrimonial home (“<b>Flat</b>”), the Husband became extremely upset with the Wife and her father over how they were feeding and managing the Son (“<b>feeding issues</b>”). When the Wife eventually called the Police for assistance to manage the Husband, he became even more upset. After the Police left the Flat, the Husband continued to vent his anger – by picking up the Son and pushing the Wife’s father out of the Flat.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_2" id="Ftn_2_1"><sup>[note: 2]</sup></a></span> The Wife decided to leave the Flat with the Son and her father.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_7"></a>7 The Wife tendered two audio recordings – “C2” (“<b>long audio recording</b>”) and “C3” (“<b>short audio recording</b>”) – to show that the Husband had behaved aggressively during the above incident (“<b>6 May incident</b>”).</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_7-p2_a"></a>(a) The long audio recording lasted about 30 mins. It recorded events <em>before and including</em> the time the Police arrived at the Flat.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_3" id="Ftn_3_1"><sup>[note: 3]</sup></a></span> The following can be heard from the recording:</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_7-p2_a-p3_i"></a>(i) For about 20 mins, before the Police arrived, the Husband berated the Wife over the feeding issues and her decision to call the Police. Additionally, he (1) hurled vulgarities at her<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_4" id="Ftn_4_1"><sup>[note: 4]</sup></a></span> and (2) threatened to “go crazy” and to evict her father “straight away” if she insisted on reporting him to the Police.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_5" id="Ftn_5_1"><sup>[note: 5]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_7-p2_a-p3_ii"></a>(ii) In the midst of the shouting and scolding, there was a loud crash. According to the Wife, this was the sound of toys falling to the floor after the Husband had kicked a table (in anger) where the toys were placed.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_6" id="Ftn_6_1"><sup>[note: 6]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_7-p2_a-p3_iii"></a>(iii) After the Police arrived at the Flat, the Wife told them that she had called for them because she was “scared” that the Husband might beat her.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_7" id="Ftn_7_1"><sup>[note: 7]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_7-p2_b"></a>(b) The short audio recording lasted about 4½ mins. It recorded events <em>after</em> the Police had left the Flat. In the recording, the Husband could be heard raising his voice and using vulgarities.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_8" id="Ftn_8_1"><sup>[note: 8]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_8"></a>8 According to the Wife, the 6 May incident was not the first time that the Husband had “acted aggressively and roughly”.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_9" id="Ftn_9_1"><sup>[note: 9]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_8-p2_a"></a>(a) Prior to the incident, the Husband had scolded her on other occasions. He had also pulled her hair and dragged her for a distance. On one occasion, the Husband slapped her face so forcefully that her lips bled. The Wife used to have recordings of these incidents of family violence. However, sometime on or around 2018, the Husband smashed her handphone, tablet, and laptop which contained these recordings.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_10" id="Ftn_10_1"><sup>[note: 10]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_8-p2_b"></a>(b) Prior to the 6 May incident, the Husband had also hit the Son. The child was only 18 months’ old when the violence first began.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_11" id="Ftn_11_1"><sup>[note: 11]</sup></a></span> The Husband would put the dog leash on the table and beat the Son if he did not eat properly.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_12" id="Ftn_12_1"><sup>[note: 12]</sup></a></span> At times, he would also slap the Son out of frustration and anger.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_13" id="Ftn_13_1"><sup>[note: 13]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_8-p2_c"></a>(c) On 14 April 2024, the Husband had “very violently slapped” the Son and whipped him with the leash (“<b>14 April incident</b>”). To prove this, the Wife tendered photos which showed bruises on the Son’s face and arm.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_14" id="Ftn_14_1"><sup>[note: 14]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">2<sup>nd</sup> Claim</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_9"></a>9 According to the Wife, throughout the marriage, the Husband had frequently shouted at her, spoke to her in a demeaning manner, and used vulgarities at her. The Husband knew that she was uncomfortable with such behaviour.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_15" id="Ftn_15_1"><sup>[note: 15]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Husband’s case</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_10"></a>10 The Husband denied the Wife’s claims.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_11"></a>11 Regarding the 6 May incident, the Husband admitted to having uttered expletives. However, he explained that this was done out of frustration at the Wife’s failure to cooperate with him in “compelling” the Son to finish his food. The Husband did not intend to hurt her emotionally.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_12"></a>12 As for the 14 April incident, the Husband explained that he had difficulty coaxing the Son to eat at the material time. Out of anger, he picked up a dog leash and showed it to the Son – merely to “scare” him into completing his meal. The Husband denied having hit the child’s face and arm.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_16" id="Ftn_16_1"><sup>[note: 16]</sup></a></span> According to the Husband, the red marks on the Son (as shown in the photos) could have been caused by other factors, such as, redness from heat, the child scratching himself, mosquito bites, etc.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_17" id="Ftn_17_1"><sup>[note: 17]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Applicable principles</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Requirements for PPO</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_13"></a>13 Before I proceed to analyse the parties’ case and evidence, it is useful to set out the requirements for issuing a PPO. In this regard, s 65(1) of the Charter states that –</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">The court may, upon satisfaction on a balance of probabilities that <em>family violence has been committed </em><b><em>or </em></b><em>is likely to be committed against a family member</em> and that <em>it is necessary for the protection of the family member</em>, make a protection order restraining the person against whom the order is made from using family violence against the family member.</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">[emphasis in bold and italics added]</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_14"></a>14 On a plain reading of s 65(1), the Wife must prove two things to succeed in her PPO application.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_14-p2_a"></a>(a) <em>First</em>, the Wife must prove that the Husband had committed or “is likely” to commit family violence against the Son and herself.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_14-p2_b"></a>(b) <em>Second</em>, she must also prove that a PPO “is necessary” to protect the Son and herself from future violence.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_15"></a>15 I have some general observations regarding these requirements.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">First requirement – Observations</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_16"></a>16 It is clear from s 65(1) that there is <em>no need</em> for an applicant to prove that family violence has been committed to satisfy the first requirement. It is sufficient for the applicant to show – on a balance of probabilities – that such violence “is likely to be committed against a family member”.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_17"></a>17 This reading is in line with –</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_17-p2_a"></a>(a) First, the <em>“pre-emptive”</em> purpose of a PPO – i.e., to protect an applicant from family violence, and</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_17-p2_b"></a>(b) Second, the settled principle that a PPO is <em>not intended to punish</em> a respondent for past violence: <em>Lai Kwok Kin v Teo Zien Jackson</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/25309-SSP.xml')">[2020] 5 SLR 389</a> (“<b><em>Lai Kwok Kin</em></b>”) at [38]; <em>Yue Tock Him v Yee Ee Lim</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/[2011] SGDC 0099.xml')">[2011] SGDC 99</a> at [10]; <em>WSD v WSE</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/30956-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 1</a> (“<b><em>WSD</em></b>”) at [1].</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Second requirement – Observations</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_18"></a>18 I now come to the second requirement.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">Risk assessment</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_19"></a>19 Clearly, the question of whether a PPO is necessary or not involves a risk assessment – i.e., <em>how likely will the respondent commit family violence against the applicant in future?</em></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_20"></a>20 If there is little or no risk of such violence, then the applicant does not require protection, and a PPO will thus be unnecessary. Factors that are relevant to this risk assessment include the following:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_20-p2_a"></a>(a) <b>What are the reasons/circumstances for the family violence</b>: <em>XDV v XDW</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/32454-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 87</a> at [15] and [17]. For instance, the fact that a respondent tries to walk away from the applicant’s abusive and relentless taunting but eventually succumbs to the continual provocation is a relevant consideration. This is because the family violence is self-induced.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_20-p2_b"></a>(b) <b>Whether the family violence is a recent occurrence</b>. Courts have declined to issue a PPO where a significant amount of time had passed (since the family violence) by the time of the hearing: <em>UNQ v UNR</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/25291-SSP.xml')">[2020] SGHCF 21</a> at [38] (more than two years had lapsed); <em>GFS v GFT</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/29939-SSP.xml')">[2023] SGFC 21</a> (“<b><em>GFS</em></b>”) at [113] (between one to 17 years had lapsed); <em>VFM v VFN</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/26547-SSP.xml')">[2021] SGFC 91</a> (“<b><em>VFM</em></b>”) (more than two years had lapsed) at [79].</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_20-p2_c"></a>(c) <b>Whether the family violence is a one-off occurrence</b>. For examples where this was found to be a relevant consideration, see <em>TED v TEE</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/17809-SSP.xml')">[2015] SGFC 88</a> at [35]; <em>VFM</em> at [79]-[81].</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_20-p2_d"></a>(d) <b>Whether there has been a material change in the circumstances</b>. Courts have declined to issue PPO where the parties have (since the family violence) ceased physical interactions or are no longer residing together. See <em>XDL v XDM</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/32241-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 83</a> at [9] to [12]; <em>WSD</em> at [38]; <em>GFS</em> at [115]; <em>CSW v CSX</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/27616-SSP.xml')">[2022] SGFC 47</a> (“<b><em>CSW</em></b>”) at [72].</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_21"></a>21 On the other hand, if there is a real risk of future family violence, then a PPO will be appropriate. Factors that may be indicative of such a risk include the following.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_21-p2_a"></a>(a) <b>The underlying cause for family violence remains unresolved</b>. For an example of this, see <em>VKW v VKX</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/24914-SSP.xml')">[2020] SGFC 70</a> (“<b><em>VKW</em></b>”) at [2] and [27(b)].</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_21-p2_b"></a>(b) <b>The parties are likely to have future interactions</b>. Examples of this include the following:</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_21-p2_b-p3_i"></a>(i) The parties are still living in the same household: <em>TJH v TJI</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/18339-SSP.xml')">[2015] SGFC 160</a> at [51] and [52] (the parties were siblings); <em>UFD v UFC</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/20754-SSP.xml')">[2017] SGFC 106</a> at [3], [19] and [20] (the parties were siblings).</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_21-p2_b-p3_ii"></a>(ii) The parties need to interact because of child access: <em>TQY v TQZ</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/19299-SSP.xml')">[2016] SGFC 100</a> at [38] and [39] (divorce proceedings pending); <em>WKZ v WKY</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/29504-SSP.xml')">[2023] SGFC 7</a> at [40] and [42] (divorce proceedings pending); <em>AMT v AMV</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/[2011] SGDC 0114.xml')">[2011] SGDC 114</a> at [64] and [65] (parties were divorced); <em>VMW v VMX</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/25341-SSP.xml')">[2020] SGFC 97</a> at [4], [5] and [26] (parties were divorced).</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_21-p2_b-p3_iii"></a>(iii) There is a need for one party to visit the other party’s residence to see a close relative: <em>VPK v VPJ</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/25668-SSP.xml')">[2021] SGFC 18</a> at [22] and [23] (parties were siblings and their mother resided with one of them); <em>VDL v VDM</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/23972-SSP.xml')">[2019] SGFC 138</a> at [44]-[46] (parties were father and son, and the latter’s mother was residing with the father);</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_21-p2_c"></a>(c) <b>The respondent is deeply antagonistic towards the applicant</b>.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_21-p2_d"></a>(d) <b>The respondent has a propensity for violence.</b> Such a propensity –</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_21-p2_d-p3_i"></a>(i) may be due to, e.g., a personality trait or mental condition: see <em>WVK v WVJ</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/30973-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 5</a> at [22] (where the respondent had difficulty regulating her emotions around the applicant), or</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_21-p2_d-p3_ii"></a>(ii) may be inferred, e.g., from the fact that his criminal antecedents for violence or that PPO has been previously ordered against him/her: <em>VKW</em> at [27(c)].</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_21-p2_e"></a>(e) <b>The respondent is unapologetic for the family violence committed</b>. For instance, the respondent –</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_21-p2_e-p3_i"></a>(i) shows no remorse for the violence that he/she has committed: <em>WSD</em> at [55] and [56]; <em>WDR v WDQ</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/27586-SSP.xml')">[2022] SGFC 46</a> at [89] and [91],</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_21-p2_e-p3_ii"></a>(ii) seeks to minimise the seriousness or impact of his/her acts of family violence.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_21-p2_f"></a>(f) <b>There is an escalation in the family violence</b>.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_21-p2_g"></a>(g) <b>Further violence is committed after the PPO application</b>. Evidence of such post-complaint violence may be considered so long as the respondent (i) is not taken by surprise and (ii) has been given sufficient opportunity to respond to the evidence at the trial: <em>Teng Cheng Sin v Law Fay Yuen</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/SLR/[2003] 3 SLR(R) 0356.xml')">[2003] 3 SLR(R) 356</a> at [19] and [20]; <em>Lai Kwok Kin</em> at [57] – [60]; <em>VFM v VFN</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/26547-SSP.xml')">[2021] SGFC 91</a> at [44]-[47]; <em>VAW v VAX</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/25988-SSP.xml')">[2021] SGFC 50</a> at [52] and [55]; <em>VYW v VYV</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/27025-SSP.xml')">[2022] SGFC 2</a> at [32] – [39]; <em>BCY v BCZ</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/[2012] SGDC 0360.xml')">[2012] SGDC 360</a> at [6] – [9].</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">Collateral purposes</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_22"></a>22 It bears emphasis that PPOs will not be issued where they are sought to serve a collateral purpose. Courts have dismissed such applications where they are sought –</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_22-p2_a"></a>(a) To bolster an applicant’s request for the care and control of her children: <em>CSW</em> at [13]-[17];</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_22-p2_b"></a>(b) To indirectly challenge a child handover order: <em>CSW</em> at [18] and [19];</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_22-p2_c"></a>(c) To resolve a dispute regarding (i) child access (<em>UNQ</em> at [39]) or (ii) trivial matters (<em>VKW</em> at [15]).</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">Need for deterrence</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_23"></a>23 Finally, it is also relevant to consider whether there is a need for a PPO to <em>deter</em> future family violence. Let me explain.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_23-p2_a"></a>(a) The possibility of arrest and being investigated by the Police can be a powerful deterrent against the commission of family violence.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_23-p2_b"></a>(b) However, such a possibility may not be available if the offence arising from such violence is a “non-arrestable offence” in law. Examples include family violence which involve (i) assault / using criminal force under s 352 and (ii) voluntarily causing hurt under s 323 of the Penal Code 1871. What this means is that the perpetrators of such offences cannot be arrested without a warrant.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_23-p2_c"></a>(c) A PPO can address this issue. This is because the breach of a PPO is itself an arrestable offence: s 65(11) of the Charter. Thus, a respondent who voluntarily causes hurt to an applicant after the latter has been given a PPO may be arrested for breaching the order.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">My Decision</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_24"></a>24 I will now apply the above principles to the present case.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">The Husband has committed family violence</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_25"></a>25 I find that the Husband had committed family violence. My reasons for this finding are as follows.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">Family violence on 14 April 2024</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_26"></a>26 <em>First</em>, there is the Wife’s evidence that the Husband had slapped the 2½-year-old Son and whipped him with a dog leash on 14 April 2024.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_27"></a>27 The Husband did not dispute that such an act, if true, would constitute family violence. Indeed, during the trial, it was put to the Wife that whipping the Son with a leash was a serious and cruel act.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_28"></a>28 The only factual matter that had to be decided is whether the Husband did in fact whip and slap the Son. In my view, the answer is yes.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_28-p2_a"></a>(a) There is no evidence to show why the Wife would want to falsely accuse the Husband of having whipped the Son.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_28-p2_b"></a>(b) Furthermore, the fact that such an act had taken place is supported by objective evidence. There are photos that show injuries on the Son’s left cheek and left forearm.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_18" id="Ftn_18_1"><sup>[note: 18]</sup></a></span> I found the Husband’s evidence that these injuries might have been caused by heat rash, mosquito bites, or the Son scratching himself to defy belief.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_28-p2_c"></a>(c) The Wife’s claim that the Husband had whipped the Son with a dog leash is also supported by the Husband’s own admission to having used the dog leash to force the Son to eat. I disbelieve his evidence that the leash was used merely as a “scare tactic”.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_29"></a>29 The Husband submitted that I should disbelieve the Wife’s evidence regarding the 14 April incident because there is no medical report of the Son’s injuries or police report regarding the incident.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_19" id="Ftn_19_1"><sup>[note: 19]</sup></a></span> I was not persuaded by the Husband’s submission.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_29-p2_a"></a>(a) The Wife had explained that she was afraid that if she had brought the Son to see a doctor or lodged a police report, this could cause the Husband to lose his job and thus cause the family to suffer.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_20" id="Ftn_20_1"><sup>[note: 20]</sup></a></span> I found this explanation to be inherently credible.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_29-p2_b"></a>(b) Furthermore, the Wife’s explanation is supported by the long audio recording. In the recording, the Husband could be heard <em>repeatedly</em> warning the Wife not to complain to the police as doing so would “destroy” his life and the family.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">Family violence on 6 May 2024</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_30"></a>30 <em>Second</em>, there is the Wife’s evidence regarding the 6 May incident.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_31"></a>31 The Husband submitted that he did not commit family violence during the incident because he did cause hurt to either the Wife or the Son.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_21" id="Ftn_21_1"><sup>[note: 21]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_32"></a>32 I am unable to accept the Husband’s submission.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_32-p2_a"></a>(a) Given [16] above and the nature of the Wife’s case (see [4] to [9] above), to make out the first requirement, it is sufficient if the Wife could prove –</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_32-p2_a-p3_i"></a>(i) That the Husband had wilfully or knowingly placed her in fear of hurt,</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_32-p2_a-p3_ii"></a>(ii) That he had committed acts of continual harassment with intent to cause or knowing that the harassment was likely to cause anguish to her, or</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_32-p2_a-p3_iii"></a>(iii) That he was likely to commit family violence in future.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_32-p2_b"></a>(b) It is evident from the audio recordings that the Husband had a violent temperament.</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_32-p2_b-p3_i"></a>(i) For about 20 mins, the Husband “went crazy” (to borrow his own words) – he repeatedly shouted, used expletives, and even kicked a table – all because of (1) how he had perceived the Wife to have mis-managed the Son’s feeding and (2) her decision to call the Police.</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_32-p2_b-p3_ii"></a>(ii) During the entire episode, the Wife did not do anything that could reasonably be said to be provocative.</p> <p class="Judg-3"><a id="p1_32-p2_b-p3_iii"></a>(iii) From the audio recordings, the Husband’s tone and words to the Wife were clearly threatening. He must have known that such aggression had affected the Wife – she repeatedly told him not to speak harshly.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">Family violence on other occasions </p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_33"></a>33 <em>Third</em>, the Wife had also alleged that there were other incidents where the Husband was physically violent towards the Son and her: see [8(a)] above.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_34"></a>34 In my view, the Wife is probably telling the truth regarding these incidents.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_34-p2_a"></a>(a) The Wife struck me an honest witness who gave evidence in a straightforward manner.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_34-p2_b"></a>(b) If the Wife’s complaints of family violence were motivated by malice, she could easily have embellished her evidence – e.g., by claiming that the Husband had inflicted <em>physical</em> harm on the Son during the 6 May incident, or by testifying he had committed <em>more</em> incidents of family violence. She did not do so – despite having been specifically questioned on these matters.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_35"></a>35 In contrast, there is evidence that the Husband could be manipulative. For instance –</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_35-p2_a"></a>(a) During the trial, the Husband tried to portray the Wife as someone who was aggressive and who used vulgarities. However, this is not borne out by both the audio recordings and the Wife’s conduct during the trial. She spoke calmly and was soft-spoken in the audio recordings and in court.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_35-p2_b"></a>(b) During the trial, the Husband had also explained that the loud crash heard in the long audio recording was the sound of a passing motorcycle. I found this explanation to be incredible – as the sound did not resemble what the Husband had described.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_35-p2_c"></a>(c) From the long audio recording, the Husband could be heard (a) trying to dissuade the Wife from reporting him to the Police because it would “destroy” the family, and (b) threatening to “go crazy” and to evict the Wife’s father “straight away” if she insisted on reporting him.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-3">Whether there had been continual harassment</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_36"></a>36 <em>Finally</em>, there is the Wife’s 2<sup>nd</sup> Claim – i.e., the Husband had “continually harassed” her intending to cause or knowing that it was likely to cause her “anguish”.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_37"></a>37 To prove family violence under the “continual harassment” limb, the following must be established:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_37-p2_a"></a>(a) The respondent has committed “harassment” – i.e., an act of annoying or worrying the applicant by putting pressure on him/her or saying or doing unpleasant things to him/her.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_22" id="Ftn_22_1"><sup>[note: 22]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_37-p2_b"></a>(b) The harassment is “continual” – i.e., repeated, repetitive. <span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_23" id="Ftn_23_1"><sup>[note: 23]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_37-p2_c"></a>(c) The respondent has carried out the continual harassment with the intention or the knowledge that it is likely to cause “anguish” – i.e., severe pain, mental suffering, or unhappiness – to the applicant.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_24" id="Ftn_24_1"><sup>[note: 24]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id=""></a>Courts have recognised repetitive conduct that causes worry, emotional distress or annoyance as coming within the scope of “continual harassment” under limb (d): see e.g., <em>Yue Tock Him v Yee Ee Lim</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/[2011] SGDC 0099.xml')">[2011] SGDC 99</a> at [33].</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_38"></a>38 In my view, the Husband had committed family violence under the “continual harassment” limb.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_38-p2_a"></a>(a) During the 6 May incident, the Husband could be heard in the audio recordings repeatedly (i) berating the Wife and (ii) using vulgar and demeaning language towards her.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_38-p2_b"></a>(b) According to the Wife, the 6 May incident was not the only time that the Husband had treated her in such a manner. For the reasons stated in [34] above, I believed her.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_38-p2_c"></a>(c) The Husband must have known that his repeated use of vulgar and demeaning language towards the Wife would cause her emotional distress. In the long audio recording, the Wife could be heard repeatedly telling him to stop using such offensive language.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">PPO is necessary</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_39"></a>39 Having found that the first requirement for PPO has been proved, I now come to the issue of whether a PPO is necessary to protect the Wife and the Son (i.e., the second requirement for a PPO).</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_40"></a>40 I am mindful that the Wife and Son are no longer staying in the Flat with the Husband. This can support an argument that they do not need any protection from the Husband.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_41"></a>41 In my view however, a PPO is still necessary. These are my reasons.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_41-p2_a"></a>(a) <em>First</em>, it is clear to me that the Husband resented the Wife for (i) having left the Flat with the Son, (ii) how she had been caring for the child, and (ii) having deprived him of access to the child.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_41-p2_b"></a>(b) <em>Second</em>, at the time of the PPO hearing, the issue of which party is to have care, control, and access to the child had not been conclusively resolved with a court order on ancillary matters yet.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_41-p2_c"></a>(c) <em>Third</em>, the parties will need to interact to facilitate the Husband’s access to the Son. The evidence shows that the Husband was prepared to resort to force to get back the Son. According to the Wife, after 6 May 2024, there was an occasion when she facilitated a meeting between the Husband and the Son. On that occasion, the Husband had attempted to run away with the child. The Husband did not dispute this aspect of the Wife’s evidence.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_41-p2_d"></a>(d) <em>Finally</em>, the Husband seemed to have little insight into his violent temperament. For instance, he claimed that it was normal for couples to use vulgar language at each other. Additionally, the Husband alleged that he was agitated during the 6 May incident because the Wife had used profanities against him. This claim is not supported by the audio recordings. Even if the Wife had provoked the Husband, his continual verbal abusive of her is wholly disproportionate. The Husband’s explanations for his behaviour during the 6 May incident show two things: either (i) he had little insight into his anger management issues, or (ii) he was not remorseful for his behaviour. This is a matter of concern given [41(a)] to [41(c)] above.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Conclusion</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">The order</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_42"></a>42 Given the above, I order that the Husband is not to use family violence in any form against the Wife and the Son. I wish to emphasise to the Husband two things. <em>First</em>, it is an offence to contravene the order that I have made. <em>Second</em>, if the Husband were to intentionally contravene the order, he can be arrested and be punished with a fine and/or imprisonment.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_43"></a>43 The PPO shall take immediate effect and last for a period of 24 months. (In other words, the order will expire on 17 October 2026.) In determining the duration of the PPO, I have considered the following:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_43-p2_a"></a>(a) It is settled law that the reach of a judicial decision or order should not be excessive.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_43-p2_b"></a>(b) When this principle is applied to s 65, what this means is that a PPO should not extend beyond the duration necessary to protect an applicant. In determining the duration, the following are relevant: (i) The nature of the parties’ relationship. (ii) The nature of underlying issue that gave rise to the family violence and whether this can be resolved. (iii) If the answer is yes, then the likely duration for resolving the issue.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_43-p2_c"></a>(c) For instance, if there is evidence that the parties’ relationship can be restored and rebuilt, e.g. with the concurrent order of a counselling order, then a PPO with a fixed duration may be appropriate. For examples, see e.g., <em>XBC v XBD</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/32020-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 63</a> at [62] and [63]; <em>WVK v WVJ</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/31177-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 15</a> at [1] and [24]; <em>VKW v VKX</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/24914-SSP.xml')">[2020] SGFC 70</a> at [2], [27] and [28]; <em>VDL v VDM</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/23972-SSP.xml')">[2019] SGFC 138</a> at [46].</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_43-p2_d"></a>(d) In the present case, there is no evidence to suggest that the Wife and Son need protection from the Husband for an indefinite period. The parties have been living apart since the 6 May incident and appear to be taking steps to end their marriage and go their separate ways.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_43-p2_e"></a>(e) At the end of the divorce process, care, control and access relating to the Child – issues which have been the cause of conflict between the parties – will have been resolved.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_43-p2_f"></a>(f) Depending on whether the divorce and ancillary matters are contested or not, the process may take months to one/two years to complete.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_44"></a>44 Hopefully, by the end of two years, a PPO is no longer needed. However, if I am wrong, then the Wife can either apply to extend the PPO (under s 67 of the Charter) or apply for a fresh PPO, whichever is appropriate.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-2">Costs</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_45"></a>45 Finally, I come to the issue of costs. The Wife had asked for costs at $8,000.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_46"></a>46 In my view, costs order at $5,000 (in favour of the Wife) is more appropriate. My reasons are as follows:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_46-p2_a"></a>(a) The trial is straightforward and lasted for only half a day.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_46-p2_b"></a>(b) There were only two witnesses (i.e., the parties themselves).</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_46-p2_c"></a>(c) The evidence and submissions are not voluminous.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_46-p2_d"></a>(d) The Wife’s counsel appeared only at the 3<sup>rd</sup> (last) mention and the trial.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_46-p2_e"></a>(e) The Husband would have asked for $5,000 in costs if he had succeeded in the trial.</p> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%"><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_1_1" id="Ftn_1">[note: 1]</a></sup>Complainant’s Written Submissions dated 8 October 2024 at [4].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_2_1" id="Ftn_2">[note: 2]</a></sup>Wife’s affidavit dated 20 July 2024 at pages 19 and 20.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_3_1" id="Ftn_3">[note: 3]</a></sup>The arrival of the Police is recorded in C2 at about 19:20.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_4_1" id="Ftn_4">[note: 4]</a></sup>The vulgarities are recorded in C2 at, e.g., (1) 00.08, (2) 00.27, (3) 00.36, (4) 06:34, (5) 06.51, (6) 07:01, (7) 08:15, (8) 09:44, (9) 10:16, (10) 14:36, (11) 15:21, (12) 15:58, (13), 17:05, (14)</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_5_1" id="Ftn_5">[note: 5]</a></sup>The threats are recorded in C2 at, e.g., (1) 07:51, (2) 08:02, (3) 16:40, (4) 16:57, (5)</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_6_1" id="Ftn_6">[note: 6]</a></sup>This is recorded in C2 at 13:19.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_7_1" id="Ftn_7">[note: 7]</a></sup>This is recorded in C2 at 26:22.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_8_1" id="Ftn_8">[note: 8]</a></sup>This is recorded in C3 at (1) 00:22, (2) 01:06, (3) 02:18, (4) 02:45,</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_9_1" id="Ftn_9">[note: 9]</a></sup>Wife’s affidavit dated 20 July 2024 at [3] and [4].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_10_1" id="Ftn_10">[note: 10]</a></sup>Wife’s affidavit dated 20 July 2024 at [24].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_11_1" id="Ftn_11">[note: 11]</a></sup>Wife’s affidavit dated 20 July 2024 at [4].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_12_1" id="Ftn_12">[note: 12]</a></sup>Wife’s affidavit dated 20 July 2024 at [21].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_13_1" id="Ftn_13">[note: 13]</a></sup>Wife’s affidavit dated 20 July 2024 at [20].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_14_1" id="Ftn_14">[note: 14]</a></sup>Wife’s affidavit dated 20 July 2024 at [23].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_15_1" id="Ftn_15">[note: 15]</a></sup>Complainant’s Written Submissions dated 8 October 2024 at [5] and [23].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_16_1" id="Ftn_16">[note: 16]</a></sup>Husband’s affidavit dated 21 May 2024 at [27] and [28].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_17_1" id="Ftn_17">[note: 17]</a></sup>Father’s Submissions dated4 October 2024 at [11].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_18_1" id="Ftn_18">[note: 18]</a></sup>Wife’s affidavit dated 20 July 2024 at [23].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_19_1" id="Ftn_19">[note: 19]</a></sup>Father’s Submissions at [10].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_20_1" id="Ftn_20">[note: 20]</a></sup>Wife’s affidavit dated 20 July 2024 at [4].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_21_1" id="Ftn_21">[note: 21]</a></sup>Father’s Submissions at [12] and [15].</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_22_1" id="Ftn_22">[note: 22]</a></sup>See definition of “harassment” in the Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries online, accessible at – https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_23_1" id="Ftn_23">[note: 23]</a></sup>See definition of “continual” in the Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries online, accessible at – https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_24_1" id="Ftn_24">[note: 24]</a></sup>See definition of “anguish” in the Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries online, accessible at – https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com</p></div></content></root> | 1843 |
Links from other tables
- 1 row from _item in fc_judgments_version