PP v Lee Chee Soon Peter: Application of Similar Fact Evidence in Sexual Offence Case

In Public Prosecutor v Lee Chee Soon Peter, the High Court of Singapore heard a case involving five charges against the accused, Peter Lee Chee Soon, for sexual offences against a boy and two girls. The Prosecution applied for a joint trial and sought to admit similar fact evidence. Kan Ting Chiu J ruled against the joint trial of all charges and ultimately acquitted the accused due to inconsistencies and doubts in the evidence presented by the prosecution witnesses.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Accused found not guilty and acquitted.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

High Court case regarding sexual offences against children. The court acquitted the accused due to inconsistencies in evidence and doubts about the alleged acts.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorProsecutionGovernment AgencyCase DismissedLost
Isaac Tan of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Shahla Iqbal of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Christine Liu of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Cassandra Cheong of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Lee Chee Soon PeterDefenseIndividualAcquittedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Kan Ting ChiuJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Isaac TanAttorney-General’s Chambers
Shahla IqbalAttorney-General’s Chambers
Christine LiuAttorney-General’s Chambers
Cassandra CheongAttorney-General’s Chambers
Wee Pan LeeWee, Tay & Lim LLP

4. Facts

  1. The accused was charged with sexual offences against a boy and two girls.
  2. The alleged offences occurred between 1994 and 2006.
  3. The victims were children of the Accused’s close friends.
  4. The Prosecution applied for a joint trial of the five charges.
  5. The Prosecution sought to admit similar fact evidence from the girls.
  6. The Boy's descriptions of the Offence varied over time.
  7. The Accused maintained his innocence throughout the police investigations.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Public Prosecutor v Lee Chee Soon Peter, Criminal Case No 12 of 2010, [2010] SGHC 311

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Alleged offence against Girl 1 occurred.
Alleged offence against Girl 1 occurred.
Alleged offence against Girl 2 occurred.
Alleged offence against Girl 2 occurred.
Boy allegedly complained to his father about the offence.
Boy allegedly complained to his mother about the offence.
Full-month party at Girl 1’s home.
Girl 1 and Girl 2 made police reports.
Boy’s Mother lodged a police report.
Dr. Cai interviewed the Boy and his Father.
Trial began.
Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Admissibility of Similar Fact Evidence
    • Outcome: The court admitted the similar fact evidence initially but ultimately found it to be weak and wanting in credibility.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [1996] 2 SLR(R) 178
      • [1975] AC 421
      • [1991] 3 All ER 337
  2. Sufficiency of Evidence for Conviction
    • Outcome: The court found that the Prosecution had not proved its case against the Accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [1996] 3 SLR(R) 444
  3. Joinder of Charges
    • Outcome: The court ruled against the joinder of all five charges, finding that it would cause prejudice to the Accused.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Conviction
  2. Imprisonment

9. Cause of Actions

  • Carnal intercourse against the order of nature
  • Outrage of modesty

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Lee Kwang Peng v Public Prosecutor and another appealHigh CourtYes[1997] 2 SLR(R) 569SingaporeCited for the rule of practice that evidence given by a child witness is not to be accepted at face value without some measure of corroboration.
Chao Chong v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[1960] MLJ 238MalaysiaCited to explain that children find it difficult to distinguish between reality and fantasy.
Tang Kin Seng v PPCourt of AppealYes[1996] 3 SLR(R) 444SingaporeCited for the principle that it is dangerous to convict on the words of the complainant alone in cases involving sexual offences where the evidence is uncorroborated.
Tan Meng Jee v PPCourt of AppealYes[1996] 2 SLR(R) 178SingaporeCited for the law on the admissibility of similar fact evidence.
Director of Public Prosecutions v BoardmanHouse of LordsYes[1975] AC 421United KingdomCited as authority for the proposition that evidence must have a striking similarity to the facts in issue to be regarded as similar fact evidence.
R v PHouse of LordsYes[1991] 3 All ER 337United KingdomCited for refining the position on similar fact evidence, stating that the probative force of the evidence must be sufficiently great to make it just to admit the evidence.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Penal Code, Chapter 224, 1985 Rev EdSingapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed)Singapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Similar fact evidence
  • Joinder of charges
  • Carnal intercourse
  • Outrage of modesty
  • Corroboration
  • Probative value
  • Prejudicial effect
  • Reasonable doubt

15.2 Keywords

  • sexual offences
  • similar fact evidence
  • criminal law
  • Singapore
  • High Court
  • acquittal
  • child witness

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Fellatio90
Criminal Law90
Sexual Offences85
Outrage of Modesty80
Carnal Intercourse75
Criminal Procedure70
Evidence Law60

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Evidence
  • Sexual Offences
  • Criminal Procedure