Maid who stabbed 70-year-old woman 26 times gets murder conviction reduced on appeal

CNA

15-05-2025

SINGAPORE: A maid serving a life sentence for murdering her employer's 70-year-old mother-in-law when she was 17 has successfully appealed against her conviction.
Zin Mar Nwe, now 24, was originally found guilty of murder after a trial and sentenced to life imprisonment in 2023.
On Wednesday (May 15), the Court of Appeal allowed her partial defence on the grounds of grave and sudden provocation.
This meant her murder charge was reduced to one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon delivered the decision on behalf of a three-judge panel also comprising Justices Tay Yong Kwang and See Kee Oon.
"Given the particular circumstances of this accused person, in particular her youth, the challenges of her indebtedness to her employment agent and her fear of being repatriated in these circumstances, we think a reasonable person situated as the accused person was could reasonably have been similarly provoked," he said.
Parties will return to court at a later date to make submissions on the sentence.
Culpable homicide is punishable with life imprisonment, or up to 20 years in prison with a fine. As Zin Mar Nwe is a woman, she cannot be caned.
The maid, who is from Myanmar, stabbed the victim in June 2018 after the elderly woman threatened to send her back to her agent.
The victim was watching television when Zin Mar Nwe knifed her 26 times until she stopped moving.
The maid then retrieved her belongings, washed the knife and changed before fleeing. She was arrested at her employment agency.
There is a gag order on the identities of the victim, her family members and the location of the incident.
FINDINGS ON MAID ABUSE
Grave and sudden provocation is one of the exceptions under which culpable homicide is not murder.
Establishing this defence involves consideration of whether a person sharing similar characteristics with and in the same situation as the offender would be deprived of self-control by the provocation.
To this end, the Court of Appeal considered the trial judge's findings on whether Zin Mar Nwe was abused by the victim prior to the killing.
Chief Justice Menon said these findings went directly towards the defence of grave and sudden provocation.
The trial judge, Justice Andre Maniam, had accepted that the victim hit the maid to get her attention or reprimand her, and that the victim also retaliated when the maid accidentally hurt her on certain occasions.
In his judgment, he had said: "I do not believe that the accused would have stabbed the deceased if there were just an isolated statement by the deceased, on the day in question, that the accused would be sent back to the agent.
"Rather, that statement was made after a period in which the deceased had scolded, hit, and hurt the accused.
He had continued: "But for the threat to send the accused back to the agent, however, the accused would not have stabbed the deceased."
Justice Maniam had also accepted that the maid did not report the victim's treatment of her to the rest of the family, and it seemed she was "willing to tolerate such treatment, although she was hurt, sad, and felt unappreciated".
"The accused however feared being sent back to the agent (and consequently back to her home country in debt), and when the deceased threatened to do so, that triggered the stabbing."
He had further noted that Zin Mar Nwe had told the police she was "very angry" when the victim said those words to her.
PARTIES' ARGUMENTS
Zin Mar Nwe's appeal was fought by lawyers Josephus Tan and Cory Wong Guo Yean of Invictus Law, who represented her under the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme.
Mr Tan argued that the "ingredients" of grave and sudden provocation were already present in the trial and should have been considered by the trial judge.
These included the evidence that the maid gave about being abused, her mounting debt with her employment agency and the threat of being sent back to her agency.
He also pointed to her young age and the fact that she had already been rejected by two employers since arriving in Singapore in January 2018, which were part of her characteristics and situation at the time.
The provocation posed by the victim's threat to send Zin Mar Nwe back to her agency the next day took place against this backdrop, the maid's lawyers argued.
It "struck directly at the heart of her dire employment predicament in Singapore", they said in written submissions.
"And at the tender age of 17, we suggest that (Zin Mar Nwe) would reasonably not have the appropriate coping mechanisms to deal with or to attenuate the gravity of the provocation," they added.
Deputy Public Prosecutors Kumaresan Gohulabalan, Sean Teh and Brian Tan argued that a defence of grave and sudden provocation was not supported by the evidence.
Mr Kumaresan argued that the trial judge was wrong to find that the victim had verbally or physically abused Zin Mar Nwe as this was based solely on evidence given by the maid, who was not a credible witness.
He pointed out that she never reported the abuse to the rest of the family despite them having a good relationship with her, and did not write about it in her diary even though she candidly recorded her feelings there.
The prosecutors also pointed to "radically inconsistent" versions of events that the maid gave, such as an account she gave of two "dark-skinned" men killing the victim before she admitted to the stabbing.
However, the Court of Appeal found that Justice Maniam's findings were supported by the weight of evidence, and clearly established the subjective element of the gravity of the provocation.
He said the court did not read those findings as extending to acts of alleged abuse that occurred before the day of the killing itself.
Chief Justice Menon also noted the "heinous" nature of the knife attack and the absence of a motive for the killing. During the appeal, the prosecution had also acknowledged the trial judge's "troubles" in establishing motive.
Addressing the maid's credibility, Chief Justice Menon acknowledged that Zin Mar Nwe initially came up with a false account of how the victim was killed.
However, four days after the killing, she gave a "nuanced" account of what had happened – an altercation with the victim and a threat of being sent back to her agent – and the effect this had on her.
He said it was "implausible" that she made this up to defend herself when it was not being advanced in her defence until now, and that her account was essentially consistent throughout her trial.