Goh Han Heng v Public Prosecutor: Outrage of Modesty Appeal
In Goh Han Heng v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by Goh Han Heng against his conviction for outrage of modesty under section 354 of the Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that Goh had squeezed the genitals of Ashley Sham Bin Haroon in a public toilet. The trial judge found Ashley's testimony credible and Goh's testimony unbelievable, and convicted Goh. Yong Pung How CJ dismissed the appeal, finding no grounds to overturn the trial judge's findings.
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
Goh Han Heng appeals his conviction for outrage of modesty. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding the victim's testimony credible and the defense unbelievable.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Conviction Upheld | Won | James E Lee of Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Goh Han Heng | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| James E Lee | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| S Radakrishnan | Arthur Loke Bernard Rada & Lee |
| Adelia Maler James | Arthur Loke Bernard Rada & Lee |
4. Facts
- The appellant was accused of squeezing the victim's genitals in a public toilet.
- The victim was a police national serviceman.
- The incident occurred on 6 August 2002 at Ngee Ann City.
- The appellant denied touching the victim.
- The victim reported the incident to his girlfriend and a security guard.
- The appellant apologized to the victim and his girlfriend.
- The trial judge found the victim to be a truthful and credible witness.
5. Formal Citations
- Goh Han Heng v Public Prosecutor, MA 73/2003, [2003] SGHC 226
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Incident occurred at Ngee Ann City toilet. | |
| Appellant tendered a letter to the investigating officer. | |
| Appeal dismissed. |
7. Legal Issues
- Reliability and Veracity of Witness Testimony
- Outcome: The court deferred to the trial judge's assessment of the witness's credibility, finding no reason to overturn the decision.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Assessment of witness credibility
- Consistency of evidence
- Related Cases:
- [1998] 2 SLR 704
- Corroboration of Evidence
- Outcome: The court found that the victim's testimony was corroborated by independent evidence, but cautioned against relying solely on post-incident distress as corroboration.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Independent evidence
- Post-incident distress
- Related Cases:
- [1995] 2 SLR 767
- [2000] 4 SLR 96
- [1997] 1 SLR 46
- [1996] 3 SLR 329
- [1998] 2 SLR 42
- (1979) 58 Cr App R 304
- [1962] 46 Cr App R 319
- Motive to Falsely Implicate Accused
- Outcome: The court held that the accused must adduce sufficient evidence of a motive to falsely implicate him before the burden shifts to the prosecution to disprove that motive.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Burden of proof
- Reasonable doubt
- Related Cases:
- [1995] 2 SLR 767
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against Conviction
9. Cause of Actions
- Outrage of Modesty
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
- Criminal Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Azman bin Abdullah | High Court | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR 704 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court will generally defer to the trial judge's findings of fact and credibility of witnesses. |
| Khoo Kwoon Hain v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR 767 | Singapore | Cited regarding the weight of corroboration by a recent complaint and the burden of proving a lack of motive to falsely implicate the accused. |
| Kwan Peng Hong v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [2000] 4 SLR 96 | Singapore | Cited regarding the danger of convicting on the uncorroborated evidence of a complainant in a sexual offence case. |
| Tang Kin Seng v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [1997] 1 SLR 46 | Singapore | Cited regarding the danger of convicting on the uncorroborated evidence of a complainant in a sexual offence case. |
| Teo Keng Pong v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [1996] 3 SLR 329 | Singapore | Cited regarding the danger of convicting on the uncorroborated evidence of a complainant in a sexual offence case. |
| Soh Yang Tick v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR 42 | Singapore | Cited regarding the danger of convicting on the uncorroborated evidence of a complainant in a sexual offence case. |
| R v Wilson | Court of Appeal | Yes | (1979) 58 Cr App R 304 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the guarded approach courts must adopt before treating evidence of post-incident distress as corroborative evidence. |
| R v Redpath | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1962] 46 Cr App R 319 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the exception to the guarded approach when dealing with evidence of post-incident distress where the victim did not know he was being observed. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224) s 354 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Outrage of modesty
- Corroboration
- Motive
- Credibility
- Witness testimony
- Actus reus
- Mens rea
15.2 Keywords
- Outrage of Modesty
- Criminal Law
- Singapore
- Appeal
- High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Outrage of Modesty | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Offences | 85 |
| Evidence | 80 |
| Criminal Procedure | 75 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Procedure
- Sentencing
- Evidence