DT v Public Prosecutor: Outrage of Modesty, Criminal Force, and Admissibility of Statements
In DT v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by DT against his conviction for two charges of outrage of modesty under section 354 of the Penal Code. The charges involved incidents with his stepdaughter. The appeal concerned the admissibility of the complainant's statement to the police and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
DT was convicted of outrage of modesty. The appeal was dismissed, addressing issues of criminal force, admissibility of statements, and sentencing.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DT | Appellant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | Sashi Nathan |
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal dismissed | Won | Ng Cheng Thiam, Eddy Tham Tong Kong |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Sashi Nathan | Harry Elias Partnership |
| Ng Cheng Thiam | Deputy Public Prosecutors |
| Eddy Tham Tong Kong | Deputy Public Prosecutors |
4. Facts
- The appellant was convicted of two charges of outrage of modesty under s 354 of the Penal Code.
- The complainant was the stepdaughter of the appellant.
- The alleged incidents of outrage of modesty took place before Mdm Noraidah's death.
- The first occurrence took place sometime in May 1993 outside her grandmother's flat.
- The second molest incident occurred several years later, when the complainant brought her younger brother to visit her mother and their stepsister.
- The complainant's police report led to investigations of the alleged molest incidents.
5. Formal Citations
- DT v Public Prosecutor, MA 107/2001, [2001] SGHC 193
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant married the complainant's mother, Mdm Noraidah. | |
| Mdm Noraidah gave birth to a baby daughter, Nurulatika. | |
| First alleged incident of outrage of modesty occurred. | |
| Second alleged incident of outrage of modesty occurred. | |
| Appellant and Mdm Noraidah shifted to their new home at Choa Chu Kang. | |
| Family meeting at the appellant's home in Choa Chu Kang. | |
| Complainant filed a police report. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Whether offences proven
- Outcome: The court found that the offences were proven.
- Category: Substantive
- Whether manifestly excessive
- Outcome: The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.
- Category: Procedural
- Admissibility of statements
- Outcome: The court ruled on the operation of s 122(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68).
- Category: Procedural
- Weight of evidence
- Outcome: The court considered the weight of the evidence.
- Category: Substantive
- Corroboration
- Outcome: The court considered the corroboration of the evidence.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Outrage of Modesty
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yohannan v R | High Court | Yes | [1963] MLJ 57 | Malaysia | Cited to support the argument that the court is obliged to refer to the statement of a witness to the police at the request of the accused. |
| Chandrasekaran v PP | N/A | Yes | [1971] 1 MLJ 153 | Malaysia | Cited to support the argument that the court is obliged to refer to the statement of a witness to the police at the request of the accused. |
| Samsudin v PP | High Court | Yes | [1962] MLJ 405 | Malaysia | Cited to support the argument that the court is obliged to refer to the statement of a witness to the police at the request of the accused. |
| PP v Sng Siew Ngoh | High Court | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR 143 | Singapore | Cited for the purpose of Section 122 and the purpose of witness statements. |
| Selvarajan James v PP | High Court | Yes | [2000] 3 SLR 750 | Singapore | Cited to reiterate the position that the form of trial prescribed in the Criminal Procedure Code has never been to provide for any form of pre-trial or trial disclosure by the prosecution. |
| Lee Kwang Peng v PP | High Court | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR 278 | Singapore | Cited regarding the allegation of innocent infection and the weight of evidence. |
| Tan Pin Seng v PP | High Court | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR 418 | Singapore | Cited regarding the natural reluctance on the part of victims of sexual offenses to make a police report. |
| Tang Kin Seng v PP | High Court | Yes | [1997] 1 SLR 46 | Singapore | Cited regarding the evidential value of a prompt complaint. |
| Soh Yang Tick v PP | High Court | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR 42 | Singapore | Cited regarding the main reason for not making a police report soon after an incident is because the victim is afraid of the shame it would bring to the family. |
| Ng Chiew Kiat v PP | N/A | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR 370 | Singapore | Cited by the counsel for the appellant on the basis that the district judge imposed a manifestly excessive sentence on the appellant. |
| PP v Chia Fook Kun | N/A | Yes | N/A | Singapore | Cited by the counsel for the appellant on the basis that the district judge imposed a manifestly excessive sentence on the appellant. |
| Chandresh Patel v PP | N/A | Yes | N/A | Singapore | Cited regarding the standard sentence where a victim's private parts or sexual organs were intruded. |
| PP v Johari bin Samad | N/A | Yes | N/A | Singapore | Cited regarding cases where more severe punishment has been meted out. |
| Chean Siong Guat v PP | N/A | Yes | [1969] 2 MLJ 63 | Malaysia | Cited regarding the discrepancies between the evidence of 2 witnesses. |
| Mohamed Fiaz Baksh v The Queen | N/A | Yes | [1958] AC 167 | N/A | Cited regarding the true test when exercising such discretion seems to be that the police statement must afford material for serious challenge to the credibility or reliability of the witness on matters relevant to the prosecution case. |
| PP v Teoh Choon Teck | N/A | Yes | [1963] MLJ 34 | Malaysia | Cited regarding the use of procedural rules for such purposes. |
| Tan Khee Koon v PP | N/A | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR 724 | Singapore | Cited regarding the use of procedural rules for such purposes. |
| PP v IC Automaton (S) Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1996] 3 SLR 249 | Singapore | Cited regarding the use of procedural rules for such purposes. |
| SM Summit Holdings Ltd & Anor v PP | N/A | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR 922 | Singapore | Cited regarding the use of procedural rules for such purposes. |
| Business Software Alliance & Ors v SM Summit Holdings Ltd & Anor | N/A | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR 733 | Singapore | Cited regarding the use of procedural rules for such purposes. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| s 354 Penal Code (Cap 224) | Singapore |
| s 122(2) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Outrage of modesty
- Criminal force
- Admissibility of statements
- Section 122(2) CPC
- Manifestly excessive sentence
- Totality principle
- Corroboration
- Contamination of evidence
- Ulterior motive
- Conspiracy
15.2 Keywords
- Outrage of Modesty
- Criminal Force
- Statements
- Singapore
- High Court
- Criminal Law
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Evidence
- Sexual Offences
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Evidence