SINGAPORE: A guy who shook or pushed his two-month-old girl and two-year-old boy to fracture their heads lost his appeal for a lower word.
The High Court ruled in a ruling on Thursday ( May 30 ) that he should have been given about five years’ more jail time instead. However, they allowed the original word of 10 times and four days ‘ prison and 12 stroke of the cane to walk.
The trial had not filed an appeal against the word, and this was done in part because the event was the first of its kind to be examined by the High Court, with a new punishment system planned for later cases.
After pleading guilty to two matters of deliberately causing severe harm to a person under the age of 14 and one count of lying to the authorities, the Singaporean father of six, who is now 35, was sentenced in August 2023. Other claims were taken into account.
He lied about how his daughter got hurt before he fractured her bones and vertebrae in 2018 as he was angry with her screams.
Following the Ministry of Social and Family Development’s intervention, the child was afterwards placed in foster care.
But the person reoffended, exhibiting violence towards his two- year- older son in 2021 by shoving his head several times but that he fell down consistently, vomited and had seizures.
The subjects were hospitalised, but survived.  ,
The person, who cannot be identified to protect the victims ‘ names, launched a self-represented appeal for a more lenient sentence.
He pleaded for a simultaneous sentence, which would have a shorter prison term, and said he loved his kids but regretted his activities.
FIRST SUCH CASE FOR HIGH COURT’S Exam
A three-judge court was set up to create an appropriate punishment strategy for the offence of deliberately grieving harm against a person under 14 because this was the first case in which the High Court had to take into account the punishment implications of Section 74B of the Penal Code.
Part 74B, which became effective in 2020, allows a word for a particular category of crimes committed against victims younger than 14 to result in a sentence that is twice the original penalty.
The three magistrates who conducted the hearing, including Justice Vincent Hoong, Justice Tay Yong Kwang, and Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, laid out a new punishment regime for such crimes.
The court determined that a word of 15 years in prison and 12 wood strikes would have been ideal in the man’s situation, an increase of about five years ‘ jail time.
Justice Tay, who delivered the ruling, said:” The plaintiff said that he was sad and asked the court to give him a possibility. He ought to apologize a lot, but there was no justification for us to lower the words he received or require that one of the sentences be readied for the rest.
He claimed that the lower court’s last sentence was” so forgiving rather than obviously excessive”
Justice Tay said,” we decided to let the word imposed by the ( lower court judge ) stand” because the prosecution did not intend to appeal the sentence and because this elegance was the first before the High Court to review the sentencing foundation for such crimes.
The court stated that the frustrations of a parent cannot ever justify or excuse the abuse of their children, despite the fact that the man had claimed that because of the boy’s behavior, he had acted the way he did toward his son.