Iskandar bin Muhamad Nordin v PP: Appeal Against Sentence for Outrage of Modesty
In Iskandar bin Muhamad Nordin v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by Iskandar bin Muhamad Nordin against the sentence imposed by the District Court for an outrage of modesty offence under Section 354 of the Penal Code. The High Court, presided over by Chief Justice Yong Pung How, dismissed the appeal and enhanced the sentence to 24 months’ imprisonment with nine strokes of the cane, citing the appellant's lack of contrition and prior criminal history.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed and sentence enhanced to 24 months’ imprisonment with nine strokes of the cane.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Iskandar bin Muhamad Nordin appeals against his sentence for outrage of modesty. The High Court dismissed the appeal and enhanced the sentence, citing aggravating factors.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Iskandar bin Muhamad Nordin | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Sentence Enhanced | Won | Christina Koh |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Christina Koh | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
4. Facts
- Appellant pleaded guilty to one charge of outrage of modesty.
- The victim informed the police that she had been molested by the appellant.
- Appellant grabbed the victim's left breast with his right hand.
- The victim shouted at the appellant who fled the scene but was detained.
- Appellant is an eighteen-year-old male with an Intelligence Quotient of 58.
- Appellant had previous convictions for theft.
- Appellant committed the offence on the day of his release from prison.
5. Formal Citations
- Iskandar bin Muhamad Nordin v Public Prosecutor, MA 90/2005, [2005] SGHC 207
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant convicted for theft and sentenced to two weeks’ imprisonment. | |
| Appellant charged under s 354 of the Penal Code for one count of outrage of modesty. | |
| Appellant allowed to compound the outrage of modesty offence and given a discharge amounting to an acquittal. | |
| Appellant arrested for two offences of theft in dwelling. | |
| Appellant committed the present offence of outrage of modesty. | |
| High Court dismissed the appeal and enhanced the sentence. |
7. Legal Issues
- Appeal against sentence for outrage of modesty
- Outcome: Appeal dismissed; sentence enhanced.
- Category: Substantive
- Whether mitigating factors warranting reduction in sentence existing
- Outcome: Court found no mitigating factors warranting reduction in sentence.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PP v Rozman bin Jusoh | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR 317 | Singapore | Reaffirmed that low intellect is not a defense to a criminal charge and an educationally subnormal person can be criminally culpable for his actions. |
| Chou Kooi Pang v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR 593 | Singapore | Reaffirmed the principle that low intellect does not diminish criminal responsibility. |
| PP v Huang Rong Tai | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2003] 2 SLR 43 | Singapore | Reaffirmed the principle that low intellect does not diminish criminal responsibility. |
| Chandresh Patel v PP | N/A | Yes | [1995] 1 CLAS News 323 | Singapore | Established the benchmark sentence for offences under s 354 of the Penal Code where the victim’s private parts or sexual organs have been intruded upon is nine months’ imprisonment with caning. |
| Ng Chiew Kiat v PP | N/A | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR 370 | Singapore | Established the benchmark sentence for offences under s 354 of the Penal Code where the victim’s private parts or sexual organs have been intruded upon is nine months’ imprisonment with caning. |
| Balasubramanian Palaniappa Vaiyapuri v PP | N/A | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR 314 | Singapore | Established the benchmark sentence for offences under s 354 of the Penal Code where the victim’s private parts or sexual organs have been intruded upon is nine months’ imprisonment with caning. |
| Tok Kok How v PP | District Court | Yes | [1995] 1 SLR 735 | Singapore | Reiterated the sentencing benchmark for offences under s 354 of the Penal Code. |
| PP v Tan Fook Sum | N/A | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR 523 | Singapore | Followed the four classical pillars of sentencing – retribution, deterrence, prevention and rehabilitation. |
| Chua Tiong Tiong v PP | N/A | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR 425 | Singapore | Followed the four classical pillars of sentencing – retribution, deterrence, prevention and rehabilitation. |
| PP v Ng Bee Ling Lana | N/A | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR 635 | Singapore | A longer term of imprisonment would represent a longer period of protection for society from his depredations |
| Tan Eng Chye v The Director of Prisons | N/A | Yes | [2004] 2 SLR 640 | Singapore | The law is not without compassion; only those found to be fit to undergo caning will be caned. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Section 354 Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Outrage of Modesty
- Appeal against Sentence
- Mitigating Factors
- Aggravating Factors
- Intellectual Disability
- Caning
- Recalcitrant Offender
15.2 Keywords
- outrage of modesty
- criminal law
- sentencing
- appeal
- Singapore
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
- Criminal Procedure
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Sentencing
- Criminal Law