PP v Chow Yee Sze: Sentencing Appeal for Outrage of Modesty under Penal Code s 354
The Public Prosecutor appealed against the sentences imposed on Chow Yee Sze by the District Judge for two charges of outrage of modesty under section 354 of the Penal Code. The High Court, presided over by Steven Chong J, allowed the appeals, finding that the District Judge had unjustifiably departed from established sentencing benchmarks. The court increased the sentence for the first charge (DAC 36095/2008) from a $6,000 fine to nine months' imprisonment and the sentence for the second charge (DAC 36097/2008) from four months' imprisonment to nine months' imprisonment.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
High Court allows prosecution's appeal, increasing sentences for outrage of modesty, emphasizing adherence to sentencing benchmarks and aggravating factors.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Appellant | Government Agency | Appeal Allowed | Won | Adrian Loo of Attorney-General’s Chambers Kan Shuk Weng of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Chow Yee Sze | Respondent | Individual | Sentence Increased | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Steven Chong | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Adrian Loo | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Kan Shuk Weng | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- Respondent molested V1, who was unwell and resting in a pub office.
- Respondent stroked V1's head, kissed her cheek, and touched her body over her clothes.
- Respondent reached into V1's shirt to touch her breast.
- V1 woke up and told the Respondent to leave.
- Respondent contacted V2 for a modelling interview.
- Respondent asked V2 to remove her clothes in the toilet.
- Respondent caressed V2's breast under her brassiere after she refused to remove her undergarments.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Chow Yee Sze, Magistrate's Appeals Nos 149 and 178 of 2010, [2010] SGHC 259
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Respondent contacted V2 for an interview. | |
| Respondent committed an act of molest against V2. | |
| Respondent committed an act of molest against V2. | |
| Respondent molested V1 at a pub. | |
| DAC 36095/2008 and DAC 36097/2008 charges filed. | |
| Trial began. | |
| IMH report prepared by Dr. Tomita. | |
| District Judge found the Respondent guilty. | |
| Oral decision delivered, sentences increased. | |
| Reasons for increasing sentences given. |
7. Legal Issues
- Appropriateness of Sentence
- Outcome: The High Court held that the District Judge had unjustifiably departed from established sentencing benchmarks and increased the sentences accordingly.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Departure from sentencing benchmarks
- Mitigating factors
- Aggravating factors
- Related Cases:
- [2008] 4 SLR(R) 500
- [2010] 2 SLR 976
- [1995] 1 CLAS News 323
- [2010] 1 SLR 954
8. Remedies Sought
- Increased Sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Outrage of Modesty
- Criminal Intimidation
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
- Sentencing Guidelines
11. Industries
- Hospitality
- Modelling
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v UI | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 500 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that trial judges should not depart from established sentencing precedents without cogent reasons. |
| Public Prosecutor v Hirris anak Martin | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 2 SLR 976 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that trial judges should not depart from established sentencing precedents without cogent reasons. |
| Public Prosecutor v Chow Yee Sze | District Court | Yes | [2010] SGDC 223 | Singapore | Refers to the District Judge's decision in the case, which is being appealed. |
| Public Prosecutor v Heng Swee Weng | Unknown | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 954 | Singapore | Cited for relevant factors in deciding the appropriate sentence for a conviction under s 354 of the Penal Code. |
| Chandresh Patel v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [1995] 1 CLAS News 323 | Singapore | Cited as establishing the sentencing benchmark of nine months' imprisonment with caning for molest or outrage of modesty under s 354 of the Penal Code where a victim’s private parts or sexual organs were intruded. |
| Yu Eng Chin v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2009] SGHC 57 | Singapore | Cited as a case where the benchmark in Chandresh Patel was referred to and the sentences of 12 months and 18 months were not found manifestly excessive. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ho Ah Hoo Steven | District Court | Yes | [2007] SGDC 162 | Singapore | Cited for its survey of sentencing precedents for convictions under s 354 of the Penal Code. |
| Kwan Peng Hong v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR(R) 824 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that touching a private part of the body by itself would typically attract a custodial sentence, even if it was a fleeting touch and where no force was used. |
| Teo Keng Pong v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [1996] 2 SLR(R) 890 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case where a fine sufficed because the act of molest was a relatively minor one. |
| Soh Yang Tick v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR(R) 209 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case where a fine was imposed for slapping a secretary’s buttock lightly on the spur of the moment. |
| Luong Thi Trang Hoang Kathleen v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 707 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that judges should not blindly apply any sentencing principle without considering all the circumstances of the case at hand, especially the culpability of the accused in that particular case. |
| Public Prosecutor v Tan Fook Sum | Unknown | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR(R) 1022 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the fact that the offender is a first offender is in itself a neutral factor as it is not necessarily positive evidence of good character. |
| Md Anverdeen Basheer Ahmed and Others v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2004] SGHC 233 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the presence of antecedents would often lead to an enhanced sentence. |
| Wong Hoi Len v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [2009] 1 SLR(R) 115 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case where the starting benchmark ought to be a custodial sentence given the nature of the offence. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mok Ping Wuen Maurice | Unknown | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 439 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that TIC charges would generally result in an enhanced sentence particularly where the TIC offences and the offences proceeded with are similar in nature as they would show that the offender was recalcitrant. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed), s 354 | Singapore |
| Penal Code, s 506 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Outrage of Modesty
- Sentencing Benchmark
- Aggravating Factors
- Mitigating Factors
- CCTV Recording
- Victim Vulnerability
- Lack of Remorse
- TIC Charges
15.2 Keywords
- Outrage of Modesty
- Sentencing
- Criminal Law
- Singapore
- Appeal
- Molestation
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Outrage of Modesty | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Penal Code | 85 |
| Offences | 80 |
| Sentencing Principles | 75 |
| Criminal Procedure | 70 |
| Criminal Revision | 60 |
| Personal Injury | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
- Sexual Offences