Wong Soon Lee v Public Prosecutor: Appeal Against Sentence for Outrage of Modesty

Wong Soon Lee appealed to the High Court of Singapore against the sentence of 12 months' imprisonment and three strokes of the cane imposed by the district court for an outrage of modesty conviction. The Chief Justice, Yong Pung How, allowed the appeal in part, upholding the imprisonment sentence but setting aside the caning sentence. The court found the caning sentence manifestly excessive given the circumstances of the case.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal allowed in part; sentence varied.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Wong Soon Lee appealed against his sentence for outrage of modesty. The High Court upheld the imprisonment but set aside the caning sentence.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorRespondentGovernment AgencySentence variedPartial
Hui Choon Kuen of Deputy Public Prosecutors
Hamidul Haq of Deputy Public Prosecutors
Wong Soon LeeAppellantIndividualAppeal allowed in partPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Yong Pung HowChief JusticeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Hui Choon KuenDeputy Public Prosecutors
Hamidul HaqDeputy Public Prosecutors

4. Facts

  1. The appellant was convicted of outrage of modesty.
  2. The appellant touched the complainant's breast in a pub.
  3. The appellant was drunk at the time of the incident.
  4. The trial judge sentenced the appellant to 12 months' imprisonment and three strokes of the cane.
  5. The appellant appealed against the sentence.
  6. The appellant had previous convictions related to drunk driving.
  7. The appellant has a 15-year-old son with a rare blood disease.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Wong Soon Lee v Public Prosecutor, MA 72/2002, [2002] SGHC 216

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Incident occurred at Take-Off Pub
Appeal hearing
Judgment delivered

7. Legal Issues

  1. Whether hardship caused to the accused's family carries mitigating value
    • Outcome: The court held that hardship caused to the family occasioned by imprisonment is of little weight.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive
    • Outcome: The court held that the imprisonment sentence was not manifestly excessive, but the caning sentence was manifestly excessive and set it aside.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Whether antecedents can be taken into account when sentencing
    • Outcome: The court held that antecedents, even if not strictly similar, can be taken into account if they share broad similarities.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. 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 NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Chandresh Patel v PPHigh CourtYes[1995] 1 CLAS 323SingaporeCited as the benchmark sentence for outrage of modesty cases involving intrusion of private parts or sexual organs.
Lai Oei Mui Jenny v PPHigh CourtYes[1993] 3 SLR 305SingaporeCited for the principle that hardship caused to the family due to imprisonment is of little weight.
Lim Choon Kang v PPHigh CourtYes[1993] 3 SLR 927SingaporeCited for the principle that hardship caused to the family due to imprisonment is of little weight.
PP v Tan Fook SumHigh CourtYes[1999] 2 SLR 523SingaporeCited for the principle that hardship caused to the family due to imprisonment is of little weight, unless the circumstances are exceptional.
R v InghamCourt of Appeal (Criminal Division)YesR v Ingham (1980) 2 Cr App R (S) 184England and WalesCited for the principle that imprisonment inevitably causes hardship to the family, which is not a factor that affects the sentence.
Teo Keng Pong v PPHigh CourtYes[1996] 3 SLR 329SingaporeCited to support the principle that a bare denial should not adversely affect the sentence and compared to the facts of the present case to set aside the caning sentence.
R Yoganathan v PPHigh CourtYes[1999] 4 SLR 264SingaporeCited for the principle that antecedents, even if not strictly similar, can be taken into account if they share broad similarities.
Leong Mun Kwai v PPHigh CourtYes[1996] 2 SLR 338SingaporeCited for the principle that antecedents, even if not strictly similar, can be taken into account if they share broad similarities.
Lim Kim Seng & Anor v PPHigh CourtYes[1992] 1 SLR 743SingaporeCited for the principle that antecedents, even if not strictly similar, can be taken into account if they share broad similarities.
Ng Chiew Kiat v PPHigh CourtYes[2000] 1 SLR 370SingaporeCited for the principle that the appropriate sentence for outrage of modesty depends on the nature of the act and the circumstances.
Nordin bin Ismail v PPHigh CourtYes[1996] 1 CLAS News 250SingaporeCited as an example of an outrage of modesty case where the sentence was reduced to a fine.
Soh Yang Tick v PPHigh CourtYes[1998] 2 SLR 42SingaporeCited as an example of an outrage of modesty case where the sentence was reduced to a fine.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Penal Code (Cap 224) s 354Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Outrage of modesty
  • Caning
  • Mitigation
  • Manifestly excessive
  • Benchmark sentence
  • Antecedents
  • Drunkenness

15.2 Keywords

  • Outrage of Modesty
  • Criminal Law
  • Singapore
  • Sentencing
  • Appeal

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Outrage of Modesty95
Criminal Law90
Sentencing90
Criminal Procedure85
Offences70
Criminal Revision60

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Sentencing