AKD v Public Prosecutor: Outraging Modesty of Domestic Worker - Appeal Against Conviction Allowed
AKD appealed to the High Court against his conviction in the District Court on four charges of outraging the modesty of his Indonesian domestic worker. The High Court, presided over by Lee Seiu Kin J, allowed the appeal, finding the complainant's testimony improbable and unsafe for conviction. The court cited inconsistencies and logical errors in the complainant's account, particularly regarding the physical feasibility of the alleged acts and the complainant's behavior following the incidents.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal against conviction allowed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal against conviction for outraging modesty. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding the complainant's testimony improbable and unsafe for conviction.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AKD | Appellant | Individual | Appeal allowed | Won | M Ravi |
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | David Khoo |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lee Seiu Kin | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| M Ravi | L F Violet Netto |
| David Khoo | Attorney-General's Chambers |
4. Facts
- The appellant was charged with four counts of outraging the modesty of his Indonesian domestic worker.
- The complainant alleged four separate incidents of molest in the appellant's home.
- The appellant denied all charges and challenged the reliability of the complainant's accusations.
- The District Court convicted the appellant on all four charges.
- The High Court found the complainant's version of events to be highly improbable and inconsistent.
- The High Court noted the lack of corroborative evidence and the complainant's delay in reporting the incidents.
5. Formal Citations
- AKD v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate's Appeal No 341 of 2009, [2010] SGHC 233
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Complainant began working in the appellant's household. | |
| Complainant began her employment in the appellant’s household. | |
| First alleged incident of outraging modesty. | |
| Second alleged incident of outraging modesty. | |
| Third alleged incident of outraging modesty. | |
| Fourth alleged incident of outraging modesty. | |
| Complainant passed a letter to Indonesian embassy staff. | |
| Complainant left the appellant's flat and sought shelter at the embassy. | |
| Magistrate's Appeal No 341 of 2009 | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Sufficiency of Evidence
- Outcome: The court found that there was insufficient evidence to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Credibility of witness testimony
- Inconsistencies in evidence
- Lack of corroborating evidence
- Related Cases:
- [1995] 2 SLR(R) 591
- [2008] 4 SLR(R) 686
- [2002] 2 SLR(R) 420
- [1950] MLJ 33
- [1996] 3 SLR(R) 444
- Outraging Modesty
- Outcome: The court did not make a determination on whether the acts constituted outraging modesty, as it found the evidence to be insufficient.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Acquittal
9. Cause of Actions
- Outraging Modesty
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
11. Industries
- Domestic Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Khoo Kwoon Hain v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR(R) 591 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the complainant's evidence should be 'unusually convincing' or corroborated by independent witnesses. |
| XP v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 686 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that courts cannot convict based on suspicion. |
| Bala Murugan a/l Krishnan v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2002] 2 SLR(R) 420 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court can disturb the findings of the trial court if the findings were clearly wrong or the balance of evidence was against the conclusion reached. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mardai | High Court | Yes | [1950] MLJ 33 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that it is unsafe to convict in cases of this kind unless either the evidence of the complainant is unusually convincing or there is some corroboration of the complainant's story. |
| Tang Kin Seng v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1996] 3 SLR(R) 444 | Singapore | Cited for the approach to analyse the evidence for the Prosecution and for the Defence, and decide whether the complainant's evidence is so reliable that a conviction based solely on it is not unsafe. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 354 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 73 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 73(2) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Outraging modesty
- Domestic worker
- Reasonable doubt
- Credibility
- Corroboration
- Inconsistencies
- Improbable
- Testimony
15.2 Keywords
- Outraging modesty
- Domestic worker
- Criminal law
- Singapore
- Appeal
- Conviction
- Evidence
- Testimony
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Sexual Offences
- Evidence
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Law
- Evidence Law
- Sexual Offences