Public Prosecutor v UI: Sentencing for Rape of a Minor & Use of Sentencing Precedents

In Public Prosecutor v UI, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal by the Prosecution against the sentence imposed on UI for three charges of rape of his daughter, who was under 14 years of age, under Section 376(2) of the Penal Code. The High Court had sentenced UI to the minimum punishment of eight years' imprisonment for each charge, with two terms running consecutively, totaling 16 years. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, increasing the imprisonment term for each charge to 12 years, with two terms running consecutively, totaling 24 years, emphasizing the importance of sentencing precedents and aggravating factors such as the familial relationship and serial nature of the offenses.

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 Court of Appeal increased the sentence for the rape of a minor, emphasizing the importance of sentencing precedents and aggravating factors.

1.7 Decision Date

4 August 2008

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Public Prosecutor	Appellant	Government Agency	Appeal Allowed	Won	Daniel Koh, Charlene Tay
UI	Respondent	Individual	Sentence Increased	Lost

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Chan Sek Keong	Chief Justice	Yes
Andrew Phang Boon Leong	Justice of the Court of Appeal	No
V K Rajah	Justice of the Court of Appeal	No

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Daniel Koh	Attorney-General's Chambers
Charlene Tay	Attorney-General's Chambers

4. Facts

The Respondent pleaded guilty to three charges of rape of his daughter under the age of 14.
The Respondent agreed to have two other rape charges and five outrage of modesty charges taken into account.
The offences occurred between 2002 and 2006 when the victim was between 10 and 14 years old.
The trial judge sentenced the Respondent to the minimum punishment of 8 years per charge, totaling 16 years.
The Prosecution appealed, arguing the sentence was manifestly inadequate.
The Court of Appeal increased the sentence to 12 years per charge, totaling 24 years.

5. Formal Citations

Public Prosecutor v UI, Cr App 10/2007, [2008] SGCA 35
PP v UI, , [2007] 4 SLR 270

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1984-01-01	Respondent married.
1986-01-01	Respondent had a son.
1990-01-01	Respondent began cohabiting with a former colleague.
1992-01-01	Birth of the Victim.
1997-01-01	Birth of the Victim’s sister.
2002-01-01	Respondent's sexual offences against the Victim began.
2005-01-01	Respondent raped the Victim on at least four occasions.
2006-01-01	Respondent raped the Victim on one occasion.
2006-12-31	Respondent arrested.
2007-08-06	Victim wrote a personal letter to the court.
2007-08-06	Victim's mother wrote a personal letter to the court.
2007-07-17	Victim's mother wrote an e-mail to the Prosecution.
2007-03-14	Victim and her mother wrote a joint letter.
2008-01-07	Victim wrote a letter to the court.
2008-08-05	Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and increased the term of imprisonment.

7. Legal Issues

Sentencing Principles
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal clarified the principles regarding the use of sentencing precedents and the consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Use of sentencing precedents
  - Consideration of outstanding offences
  - Mitigating factors (age, forgiveness)
  - Aggravating factors (familial relationship, serial offences, perversion)
Manifest Inadequacy of Sentence
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal found the original sentence to be manifestly inadequate and increased it.
- Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

Increased Sentence

9. Cause of Actions

Rape under s 376(2) of the Penal Code
Outrage of Modesty under s 354 of the Penal Code

10. Practice Areas

Criminal Law
Appeals

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
PP v UI	High Court	Yes	[2007] 4 SLR 270	Singapore	The trial judge's decision to impose the minimum sentence for the offence under s 376(2) of the Penal Code, which was appealed by the Prosecution.
PP v Radhakrishna Gnanasegaran	High Court	Yes	PP v Radhakrishna Gnanasegaran Criminal Case No 14 of 1999	Singapore	Cited as a sentencing precedent for aggravated rape, where the offender raped his daughter over a period of ten years.
PP v Peh Thian Hui	High Court	Yes	[2002] 3 SLR 268	Singapore	Cited as a sentencing precedent for aggravated rape, where the offender raped his girlfriend’s daughter over a period of five years.
PP v MW	High Court	Yes	[2002] 4 SLR 912	Singapore	Cited as a sentencing precedent for aggravated rape, where the offender raped his daughter on several occasions.
PP v MV	High Court	Yes	[2002] SGHC 161	Singapore	Cited as a sentencing precedent for aggravated rape, where the offender raped his stepdaughter on several occasions.
PP v MX	High Court	Yes	[2006] 2 SLR 786	Singapore	Cited as a sentencing precedent for aggravated rape, where the offender raped his five daughters.
PP v NF	High Court	Yes	[2006] 4 SLR 849	Singapore	Cited for the four broad categories of rape and the corresponding benchmark sentences.
PP v Mohammed Liton Mohammed Syeed Mallik	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2008] 1 SLR 601	Singapore	Cited for endorsing the categories of rape and benchmark sentences in PP v NF.
Chia Kim Heng Frederick v PP	Court of Criminal Appeal	Yes	[1992] 1 SLR 361	Singapore	Cited for laying down a starting point for sentencing for the offence of rape under s 376(1) of the Penal Code.
PP v Fernando Payagala Waduge Malitha Kumar	High Court	Yes	[2007] 2 SLR 334	Singapore	Cited for the conventional approach of considering the applicable sentencing guidelines or benchmarks and then any aggravating factors and/or mitigating factors present.
R v David Angus Johnson	English Court of Appeal	Yes	R v David Angus Johnson (1994) 15 Cr App R (S) 827	England	Cited for the principle that a judge must pay attention to the guidance given by the Court of Appeal and sentences should be broadly in line with guideline cases.
Abu Syeed Chowdhury v PP	High Court	Yes	[2002] 1 SLR 301	Singapore	Cited for the definition of a 'benchmark' as a sentencing norm ensuring consistency and fairness.
Dinesh Singh Bhatia s/o Amarjeet Singh v PP	High Court	Yes	[2005] 3 SLR 1	Singapore	Cited for the significance, standing, and value of benchmarks and/or tariffs as judicial tools to help achieve consistency and rationality in sentencing practices.
Lowe v The Queen	High Court of Australia	Yes	(1984) 154 CLR 606	Australia	Cited for the importance of consistency in punishment as a fundamental element in a rational and fair system of criminal justice.
Viswanathan Ramachandran v PP	High Court	Yes	[2003] 3 SLR 435	Singapore	Cited for the principle that precedent cases are useful as guidelines for the sentencing court, but every case turns on its own facts.
PP v Siew Boon Leong	High Court	Yes	[2005] 1 SLR 611	Singapore	Cited for the explanation of what is meant by a sentence which is 'manifestly excessive' or 'manifestly inadequate'.
Tan Koon Swan v PP	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1986] SLR 126	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an appellate court will not ordinarily disturb the sentence imposed by the trial court except in specific circumstances.
Ong Ah Tiong v PP	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2004] 1 SLR 587	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an appellate court will not ordinarily disturb the sentence imposed by the trial court except in specific circumstances.
R v Roberts	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1982] 1 WLR 133	England	Cited for setting out the aggravating factors pertinent to sentencing for the offence of rape.
R v Millberry	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[2003] 1 WLR 546	England	Cited for laying down a list of aggravating factors for the offence of rape.
Lim Hock Hin Kelvin v PP	High Court	Yes	[1998] 1 SLR 801	Singapore	Cited for the principle that those who have charge of children cannot abuse their positions for the sake of gratifying their sexual urges.
R v Derek Roy Taylor	English Court of Appeal	Yes	R v Derek Roy Taylor (1977) 64 Cr App R 182	England	Cited for the wide spectrum of guilt covered by the offence of having unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of sixteen.
R v Gary Dean Miles	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[2006] EWCA Crim 256	England	Cited for the way in which the court deals with offences to be taken into consideration depends on context.
Navaseelan Balasingam v PP	High Court	Yes	[2007] 1 SLR 767	Singapore	Cited for the counterbalancing effect of having admitted charges taken into consideration would be that the offender had committed many more similar offences and that fact must aggravate the charges proceeded with.
PP v Mok Ping Wuen Maurice	High Court	Yes	[1999] 1 SLR 138	Singapore	Cited for the principle that ultimately, it is the court’s discretion whether to consider the TIC offence or not.
R v Billam	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1986] 1 WLR 349	England	Cited for the fact that the victim had been subjected to further sexual indignities or perversions constituted an additional aggravating factor.
PP v Lim Beng Cheok	High Court	Yes	[2003] SGHC 54	Singapore	Cited as an example of a case where the offender had turned to homosexuality after being sexually assaulted by his neighbour as a boy.
R v William John Buchanan	English Court of Appeal	Yes	(1980) 2 Cr App R (S) 13	England	Cited to demonstrate that the victim’s forgiveness of the offender should not prevent the court from meting out what would otherwise be the appropriate sentence.
Attorney-General’s Reference No 18 of 1993	English Court of Appeal	Yes	(1994) 15 Cr App R (S) 800	England	Cited to demonstrate that the victim’s forgiveness of the offender should not prevent the court from meting out what would otherwise be the appropriate sentence.
R v Adam John Nunn	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1996] 2 Cr App R (S) 136	England	Cited for the opinion that the victim’s views should generally have no impact on sentencing.
R v Gerard Martin Roche	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1999] 2 Cr App R (S) 105	England	Cited for referring to the passage from Nunn with approval.
R v Palu	New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal	Yes	[2002] 134 A Crim R 174	Australia	Cited for the principle that the attitude of the victim cannot be allowed to interfere with a proper exercise of the sentencing discretion.
R v James Kevin Hutchinson	English Court of Appeal	Yes	(1994) 15 Cr App R (S) 134	England	Cited for the exception that forgiveness may be taken into account to moderate the punishment in situations where the victim’s forgiveness provided evidence that his or her psychological and/or mental suffering as a result of the offender’s criminal conduct must be very much less than would normally be the case.
Krishan Chand v PP	High Court	Yes	[1995] 2 SLR 291	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the mature age of the offender does not warrant a moderation of the punishment to be meted out.
Angliss Singapore Pte Ltd v PP	High Court	Yes	[2006] 4 SLR 653	Singapore	Cited for the principle that whether an early plea of guilt is to be given any mitigating value depends on whether it is indicative of genuine remorse.
R v Hester	Supreme Court of Victoria	Yes	[2007] VSCA 298	Australia	Cited for the observation that in domestic violence cases, it was common for the perpetrators of domestic violence to express penitence and persuade their victims to reconcile.
R v James Benjamin Perks	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[2001] 1 Cr App R (S) 19	England	Cited for referring to the passage from Nunn with approval.
R v Christopher Webster	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[2001] EWCA Crim 389	England	Cited for referring to the passage from Nunn with approval.
R v James Arthur O’Brien	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[2001] 1 Cr App R (S) 22	England	Cited for referring to the passage from Nunn with approval.
Attorney-General’s Reference No 11 of 1998	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1999] 1 Cr App R (S) 145	England	Cited for referring to the passage from Nunn with approval.
R v Stuart Brown Matthews	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[2003] 1 Cr App R (S) 26	England	Cited for referring to the passage from Nunn with approval.
R v Emrah Joseph Thompson	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[2000] 1 Cr App R (S) 85	England	Cited for referring to the passage from Nunn with approval.
R v Huynh	Supreme Court of New South Wales	Yes	[2003] NSWSC 1066	Australia	Cited for applying the passage from R v Palu.
R v Newman	Supreme Court of New South Wales	Yes	(2004) 145 A Crim R 361	Australia	Cited for applying the passage from R v Palu.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 376(2)	Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 376(1)	Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 354	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 178	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 18	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code s 231(c)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Sentencing Precedents
Aggravated Rape
Mitigating Factors
Aggravating Factors
Manifest Inadequacy
Familial Relationship
Serial Offences
Minimum Sentence
Restorative Justice
Forgiveness

15.2 Keywords

Rape
Sentencing
Criminal Law
Singapore
Appeal
Minor
Aggravated Rape
Sentencing Precedents

16. Subjects

Criminal Law
Sentencing
Rape
Abuse

17. Areas of Law

Criminal Procedure
Sentencing
Criminal Law
Rape Law