[2023] SGHC 224: Public Prosecutor v Xavier Yap Jung Houn
The case [2023] SGHC 224 involves the criminal trial of Xavier Yap Jung Houn, who was convicted of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Here’s a summary of the key points from the judgment:
1. Background: Xavier Yap Jung Houn, a 50-year-old Singaporean, killed his two sons, who were 11 years old and diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Global Developmental Delay (GDD). He believed he was alleviating their suffering and his wife’s burden. He planned to commit suicide after killing them but failed.
2. Mental Health: Yap was suffering from Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) of moderate severity, which impaired his judgment of the nature and wrongfulness of the offenses, qualifying him for the partial defense of diminished responsibility under Exception 7 to section 300 of the Penal Code.
3. Charges and Sentencing: Yap pleaded guilty to two charges of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304(a) of the Penal Code. The court had to determine the appropriate individual sentences for each charge and whether these sentences should run concurrently or consecutively.
4. Facts of the Case:
- Planning and Execution: In early 2022, Yap decided to kill his sons and himself. On January 21, 2022, he took them to a playground, strangled them, and submerged their faces in water to ensure their deaths. He then unsuccessfully attempted to kill himself.
- Post-Offense Conduct: Yap called the police and falsely claimed he had been attacked, hoping this would result in a harsher penalty for him.
5. Mental Health Diagnosis: Three medical reports indicated Yap had MDD, which impaired his judgment significantly at the time of the offenses. He was, however, fit to plead and understood that killing was wrong.
6. Prosecution’s Position: The prosecution argued for a sentence of seven to ten years for each charge, emphasizing deterrence and retribution due to the premeditated nature of the crimes, the vulnerability of the victims, and the abuse of parental trust.
7. Defense’s Position: The defense argued for a sentence not exceeding five years for each charge, emphasizing rehabilitation due to Yap’s mental disorder, his remorse, and his cooperation with the police.
8. Court’s Decision:
- Individual Sentences: The court imposed an individual sentence of seven years for each charge, considering the severity of the offenses and the mitigating factor of Yap’s mental disorder.
- Concurrent or Consecutive: The court had to determine whether the sentences should run concurrently or consecutively, considering the principles of the one-transaction rule and the totality principle.
The judgment is extensive and considers various factors, including the nature of the offenses, the mental health of the accused, and the legal principles guiding sentencing for mentally disordered offenders.
