PP v ABC: Outrage of Modesty - Assessing Child Witness Testimony

The Public Prosecutor appealed to the Court of Appeal of Singapore against the acquittal of ABC by the High Court on one charge of outraging the modesty of his step-daughter. ABC was initially charged with multiple offences, including rape and outrage of modesty. The trial judge convicted ABC on some charges but acquitted him on the fourth charge of outraging modesty in 1996. The Court of Appeal, comprising Chao Hick Tin JA, Tan Lee Meng J, and Yong Pung How CJ, allowed the Public Prosecutor's appeal, convicting ABC on the fourth charge and imposing a sentence of two years' imprisonment and two strokes of the cane, to be served concurrently with the existing sentences.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The Public Prosecutor appealed against ABC's acquittal on one charge of outraging modesty. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge's doubts unfounded.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorAppellantGovernment AgencyAppeal AllowedWon
Tan Wee Soon of DPPs
ABCRespondentIndividualConviction on Fourth ChargeLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chao Hick TinJustice of the Court of AppealYes
Tan Lee MengJudgeNo
Yong Pung HowChief JusticeNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Winston Cheng Howe MingDPPs
Tan Wee SoonDPPs

4. Facts

  1. The respondent, ABC, was charged with outraging the modesty of his step-daughter in 1996 when she was eight years old.
  2. The trial judge acquitted ABC on the fourth charge, citing doubts about the victim's reliability and potential confusion of events.
  3. The victim was able to differentiate and give distinct details regarding each of the two incidents of outrage of modesty.
  4. The first incident occurred at Gardenia Court, while the second occurred at Yishun Central.
  5. The victim's mother corroborated the 1995 incident to an extent, but there was no such corroboration for the 1996 incident.
  6. The trial judge found the victim to be a reliable witness in relation to the other charges, including rape and the 1995 outrage of modesty incident.
  7. The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's finding that the prosecution had failed to prove the fourth charge beyond a reasonable doubt was against the weight of the evidence and clearly wrong.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Public Prosecutor v ABC, Cr App 20/2002, [2003] SGCA 14

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Outrage of modesty committed against the victim
Outrage of modesty committed against the victim
Rape committed against the victim
Rape committed against the victim
Rape committed against the victim
Rape committed against the victim
ABC charged in the High Court
ABC convicted on some charges
Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and convicted ABC

7. Legal Issues

  1. Outrage of Modesty
    • Outcome: The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in acquitting the respondent on the fourth charge of outraging modesty and substituted a conviction.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Assessment of Child Witness Testimony
    • Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in thinking that the victim had confused the second "exercise" in 1996 with that of 1995, as the two events were separate and the accounts given by the victim were distinct.
    • Category: Procedural
  3. Function of Appellate Court in Assessing Findings of Fact
    • Outcome: The Court of Appeal reiterated that an appellate court should not upset a finding of fact based on the credibility and veracity of the witnesses whom the trial judge had seen and observed when giving evidence unless it was plainly against the weight of the evidence and unsupportable.
    • Category: Procedural
  4. Corroboration of Uncorroborated Evidence of a Child Complainant of Sexual Offences
    • Outcome: The Court of Appeal stated that the rule that there should be corroboration is one of prudence and practice rather than of law, and further caution must be exercised with regard to children's evidence.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Conviction
  2. Imprisonment
  3. Caning

9. Cause of Actions

  • Outrage of Modesty

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Law
  • Appeals

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Lim Ah Poh v PPUnknownYes[1992] 1 SLR 713SingaporeCited regarding the principle that an appellate court should not upset a finding of fact unless it was plainly against the weight of the evidence and unsupportable.
PP v Sugianto & AnorUnknownYes[1994] 2 SLR 1SingaporeCited regarding the principle that an appellate court should not upset a finding of fact unless it was plainly against the weight of the evidence and unsupportable.
Mohamed Sugal Esa Mamasan Rer Alalah v The KingPrivy CouncilYes(1946) AIR PC 3UnknownCited regarding the rule of prudence and practice not to act on the uncorroborated evidence of a child.
Chao Chong & Ors v PPUnknownYes[1960] MLJ 238MalaysiaCited regarding the reasons for treating children’s evidence with further caution.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
s 376(1) of the Penal CodeSingapore
s 376(2)Singapore
s 354Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Outrage of modesty
  • Child witness
  • Corroboration
  • Findings of fact
  • Appellate court
  • Step-daughter
  • Reasonable doubt

15.2 Keywords

  • Criminal Law
  • Outrage of Modesty
  • Child Witness
  • Singapore
  • Appeal

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Outrage of Modesty95
Criminal Law95
Offences90
Evidence80
Criminal Procedure70
Criminal Revision60
Cross-Border Insolvency10

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Evidence
  • Family Law