Lim Cher Foong v Public Prosecutor: Appeal Against Conviction for Carnal Intercourse
Lim Cher Foong appealed to the High Court of Singapore against his conviction in the lower court on five charges of committing carnal intercourse against the order of nature. The High Court, presided over by MPH Rubin J, dismissed the appeal on February 2, 2005, upholding the trial judge's findings that the appellant did engage in carnal intercourse with the victims. The court found the testimonies of the victims and a witness credible and the appellant's defenses unpersuasive.
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
Lim Cher Foong appeals against his conviction for carnal intercourse. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Conviction Upheld | Won | Christopher Ong Siu Jin of Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Lim Cher Foong | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| MPH Rubin | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Christopher Ong Siu Jin | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| M Ravi | M Ravi and Co |
| Manicka Vasagam | Manicka and Co |
4. Facts
- The appellant was convicted of five charges of committing carnal intercourse against the order of nature.
- The first charge pertained to a single act of anal intercourse committed by the appellant on V1 on 1 April 2003.
- The subsequent charges were derived from four separate instances where the appellant committed acts of anal intercourse on V2.
- P3 conspired with the appellant to induce V1 and V2 into engaging in anal intercourse with him.
- V1 and V2 gave detailed accounts of the circumstances leading to the accused having committed carnal intercourse on them.
- The appellant denied any collusion with P3 and asserted that the commission of the various acts against the two victims never took place.
5. Formal Citations
- Lim Cher Foong v Public Prosecutor, MA 98/2004, [2005] SGHC 27
- , , [2004] SGDC 197
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Acts of anal intercourse committed on V2 over the months of January and February. | |
| P3 informed V2 that a friend of his required money to repay some debts. | |
| V2 and P3 visited the appellant’s residence and V2 stole money from the appellant’s wallet. | |
| Appellant committed a single act of anal intercourse on V1. | |
| V1 lodged a police report against the appellant. | |
| Appellant lodged a Magistrate’s Complaint against Lim Hock Gin. | |
| Case Number MA 98/2004 | |
| High Court dismissed the appeal. |
7. Legal Issues
- Voluntariness of Statements
- Outcome: The court held that the trial judge did not err in not conducting a voir dire, as the appellant's counsel had expressly informed the court that the appellant was not challenging the voluntariness of his police statements.
- Category: Procedural
- Corroboration of Witnesses
- Outcome: The court held that there was no need for the lower court to issue a corroboration warning when it received the evidence of V1, V2 and P3.
- Category: Evidence
- Inconsistencies in Testimony
- Outcome: The court held that the inconsistencies in the Prosecution's witnesses' evidence did not undermine the strength of the collective evidence of the Prosecution's witnesses.
- Category: Evidence
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal Against Conviction
9. Cause of Actions
- Carnal Intercourse Against the Order of Nature
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tang Kin Seng v PP | High Court | Yes | [1997] 1 SLR 46 | Singapore | Cited for the correct approach in dealing with the evidence, especially the testimony of the complainants, in cases involving sex offences. |
| Lim Ah Poh v PP | High Court | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR 713 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court will not disturb findings of fact unless they are clearly against the weight of the evidence. |
| PP v Yeoh Choon Poh | High Court | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR 867 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an impression as to the demeanour of the witness ought not to be adopted by a trial judge without testing it against the whole of his evidence. |
| PP v Victor Rajoo | High Court | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR 417 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in determining credibility, it is the duty of the trial court to test the witness’s testimony against the objective facts and independent evidence. |
| Yap Giau Beng Terence v PP | High Court | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR 656 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court should generally be slow in overturning findings of fact which hinge on the trial judge’s assessment of the credibility and veracity of the witnesses. |
| Lee Kwang Peng v PP | High Court | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR 278 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there exists no special principle requiring a court to issue a corroboration warning where a “child” is concerned. |
| Osman bin Ramli v PP | High Court | Yes | [2002] 4 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that all that is required is that the trial judge be satisfied that the “child” witness is “mature and reliable”, such that the testimony given may be accepted without any corroboration. |
| B v PP | High Court | Yes | [2003] 1 SLR 400 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court will treat the evidence of a “child” no differently from that of an adult complainant. |
| Chai Chien Wei Kelvin v PP | High Court | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR 25 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that whether or not the evidence of an accomplice was unworthy of credit and thus needed to be treated with caution was entirely discretionary. |
| Balasundaram s/o Suppiah v PP | High Court | Yes | [2003] SGHC 182 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the presence of minor inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses does not lead to the inescapable conclusion that the Prosecution has failed to satisfy its burden of proof. |
| Ng Kwee Leong v PP | High Court | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR 942 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court is entitled to reject certain parts of a witness’s testimony so long as it does not detract from the witness’s evidence on the material aspects of the Prosecution’s case. |
| Lee Weng Sang v PP | High Court | Yes | [1978] 1 MLJ 168 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that it is incumbent upon the trial judge to conduct a voir dire when the testimony of the appellant indicates that an objection is in effect being made to the admissibility of such statements. |
| Teo Yeow Chuah v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] 2 SLR 563 | Singapore | Cited for endorsing the principle that it is incumbent upon the trial judge to conduct a voir dire when the testimony of the appellant indicates that an objection is in effect being made to the admissibility of such statements. |
| Ajodha v The State | Privy Council | Yes | [1982] AC 204 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principles that trial judges must remain, at all times, vigilant to the likelihood of controversies of this nature and therefore ought to ensure that statements sought to be admitted in evidence by the Prosecution are indeed given voluntarily without threat, inducement, promise or any form of oppression or coercion. |
| Ang Sunny v PP | High Court | Yes | [1965–1968] SLR 67 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a court is entitled to convict an accused on the sole basis of circumstantial evidence so long as all the evidence leads inevitably and inexorably to the accused’s guilt. |
| PP v Oh Laye Koh | High Court | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR 385 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a court is entitled to convict an accused on the sole basis of circumstantial evidence so long as all the evidence leads inevitably and inexorably to the accused’s guilt. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 377 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Carnal intercourse
- Anal intercourse
- Voluntariness
- Corroboration
- Inconsistencies
- Statements to the police
- Voir dire
- Accomplice
- Conspiracy
- Extortion
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal law
- Sexual offences
- Singapore
- High Court
- Appeal
- Conviction
- Carnal intercourse
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Sexual Offences | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Penal Code | 85 |
| Evidence Law | 80 |
| Criminal Procedure | 75 |
| Voluntariness of Statements | 70 |
| Corroboration Warning | 65 |
| Inconsistencies in Testimony | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Sexual Offences
- Evidence
- Criminal Procedure