Sivakumar v PP: Sexual Assault, Impersonation, and Consent

In Sivakumar s/o Selvarajah v Public Prosecutor, the Singapore Court of Appeal heard appeals from both the accused, Sivakumar, and the Public Prosecutor following a High Court decision. Sivakumar was convicted on three sexual offence charges but acquitted of impersonating a public servant. The Court of Appeal dismissed Sivakumar's appeal against his convictions and allowed the Public Prosecutor's appeal, convicting Sivakumar of impersonation. The court found Sivakumar guilty of using criminal force to outrage modesty, sexual assault by penetration, rape, and impersonating a police officer. The court upheld the original sentences for the sexual offences and imposed a concurrent sentence for the impersonation charge.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against acquittal allowed.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore Court of Appeal decision regarding sexual assault, impersonation of a public servant, and the element of consent. Appeal against conviction dismissed, appeal against acquittal allowed.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorRespondent, AppellantGovernment AgencyAppeal against acquittal allowedWon
Ng Yiwen of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Mark Tay of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Tan Soo Tet of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Sivakumar s/o SelvarajahAppellant, RespondentIndividualAppeal against conviction dismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chao Hick TinJustice of the Court of AppealYes
V K RajahJustice of the Court of AppealNo
Tay Yong KwangJudgeNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Ng YiwenAttorney-General’s Chambers
Mark TayAttorney-General’s Chambers
Tan Soo TetAttorney-General’s Chambers
Foo Cheow MingGloria James-Civetta & Co
Amarjit SinghGloria James-Civetta & Co
Gloria JamesGloria James-Civetta & Co

4. Facts

  1. The appellant confronted the victim and her boyfriend in a carpark after observing them engaging in sexual activity.
  2. The appellant claimed to be a police officer and threatened to take the victim to the police station.
  3. The appellant drove the victim to a secluded area and demanded sexual acts in exchange for not reporting her.
  4. The appellant engaged in sexual acts with the victim in his car.
  5. The victim reported the incident to her boyfriend, who advised her to make a police report.
  6. The appellant claimed the victim offered him sex for money, which the court found unbelievable.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Sivakumar s/o Selvarajah v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Appeal Nos 7 & 8 of 2013, [2014] SGCA 17

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Sexual offences and impersonation occurred.
Criminal Appeal Nos 7 & 8 of 2013 were filed.
Court of Appeal delivered its decision.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Consent in Sexual Offences
    • Outcome: The court held that there was no consent if the complainant consented due to fear of injury to her reputation, and the accused knew or had reason to believe that the consent was given in consequence of such fear.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Fear of injury to reputation
      • Coercion
  2. Impersonation of a Public Servant
    • Outcome: The court held that the accused was guilty of impersonating a public servant by pretending to be a police officer and threatening to bring the victim to the police station.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Pretending to hold office
      • Acting under colour of office
  3. Admissibility and Weight of Evidence
    • Outcome: The court found the victim's testimony to be unusually convincing and corroborated by other evidence, while finding the accused's testimony to be internally inconsistent and defying belief.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Corroboration of evidence
      • Credibility of witnesses
      • Inconsistencies in testimony

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Appeal against conviction
  2. Appeal against acquittal

9. Cause of Actions

  • Outrage of Modesty
  • Sexual Assault by Penetration
  • Rape
  • Impersonation of a Public Servant

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Litigation
  • Appeals

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Public Prosecutor v Mohammed Liton Mohammed Syeed MallikCourt of AppealYes[2008] 1 SLR(R) 601SingaporeCited for the principle that an appellate court will not lightly disturb findings of fact of the trial judge unless they are clearly arrived at against the weight of the evidence.
Tang Kin Seng v PPCourt of AppealYes[1996] 3 SLR(R) 444SingaporeCited for the principle that if corroborative evidence is required, the trial judge should first identify the aspect of the evidence which is not so convincing before looking for supporting evidence.
Kwan Peng Hong v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2000] 2 SLR(R) 824SingaporeCited for the principle that if corroborative evidence is required, the trial judge should first identify the aspect of the evidence which is not so convincing before looking for supporting evidence.
R v BaskervilleCourt of Criminal AppealNo[1916] 2 KB 658England and WalesCited for the English common law definition of corroborative evidence.
PP v Christopher s/o M P NathanHigh CourtYes[2000] SGHC 43SingaporeCited as an example where a conviction under section 170 was recorded against an accused who flashed a card with the words “Tanglin Police” on it and said that he worked in a police station.
Sarjit Singh Rapati v PPHigh CourtYes[2005] 1 SLR(R) 638SingaporeCited as an example where the accused falsely represented to be an “immigration officer” and demanded to inspect the work permit of his victim who worked in a restaurant.
Emperor v Aziz-Ud-DinAllahabad High CourtYes[1905] ILR 27 All 294IndiaCited for the principle that it is not necessary for the application of section 170 that the act done under colour of office should be a legal act on the part of the accused.
Biswanath Mukherjee v State of West BengalCalcutta High CourtNo[1966] LNIND 1966 CAL 206IndiaCited for the principle that because of the phrase “under colour of such office” in s 170, the act done, or attempted to be done, must be an act which the accused could legally do under the colour of that office which he pretended to hold.
Tomm Wong v PPFederal CourtYes[1973] 1 MLJ 215MalaysiaCited for the principle that an offence under section 170 is committed whenever any person falsely holds himself out to be a public servant, and does or attempts to do any act whatsoever under colour of such office.
Public Prosecutor v UIHigh CourtYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 500SingaporeCited for the principle that an appellate court will not disturb the sentence imposed by the trial court unless certain conditions are met.
Chia Kim Heng Frederick v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[1992] 1 SLR(R) 63SingaporeCited for the benchmark sentence for rape without any aggravating or mitigating factors.
PP v NFHigh CourtYes[2006] 4 SLR(R) 849SingaporeCited for the categorization of rape offences.
Iskandar bin Abdul Rahim v PPDistrict CourtYes[2001] SGDC 46SingaporeCited as an example of sentencing for impersonation of a police officer.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 170Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 354(1)Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 376(1)(a)Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 375(1)(a)Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 350Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 90Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 44Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 21Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 18Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Consent
  • Impersonation
  • Sexual assault
  • Rape
  • Outrage of modesty
  • Public servant
  • Criminal force
  • Pretence
  • Corroboration
  • Credibility

15.2 Keywords

  • Sexual assault
  • Impersonation
  • Consent
  • Criminal law
  • Singapore
  • Court of Appeal

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Penal Code95
Sexual Offences95
Impersonating a police officer95
Sexual assault by penetration95
Criminal Law90
Criminal Procedure60
Evidence40
Consent of Public Prosecutor30
Statutory Interpretation30
Public Prosecutor30
Confessions20
Obstructing, preventing, perverting or defeating course of justice20
Prosecution by Attrition10
Constitutionality10
Identification Evidence10
Witness gating10
Eyewitness testimony10
Elements of crime10
Retraction of Plea10
Mitigation Plea10
Reopening of concluded criminal appeal10
Standard of Proof for Fraud10
Legitimate expectations10
Attempted Murder10
Affray10
Pathology10
Voluntary Intoxication10
Mischief10
Community-based sentencing options10
Corruption10
Ill-treatment of child or young person10
Confession and avoidance defence10
Drug Possession10
Forfeiture Order10
Drug Importation10
Wrongful Retention10
Disqualification10
Drunk driving10
National Service Offences10
Actus Reus10
Voluntariness of Statements10
Paediatrics10
Psychiatric Evidence10
Illegal importation of controlled drugs10
Private Defence10
Principles on forfeiture10
Show cause hearing10
Kidnapping10
Misconduct10
Electricity Act10
Mental Disability10
Double Identity10
Sexual Penetration of Minor10
Criminal References10
Drug Offences10
Illegally importing controlled drugs10
Sexual Grooming10
Instant messaging10
Recantation evidence10
Abnormality of Mind10
Drug Consumption10
Suffocation10
Drug Overdose10
Road Safety10
Dishonest Intention10
Wrongful Loss10
Wrongful Gain10
Benchmark Sentences10
Judicial Mercy10
Polygamous Marriage10
School Bullying10
Cyberbullying10
Match-fixing10
Tax Evasion10
Building Regulations10
Rash Act10
Primary School Admission10
Sentencing Precedents10
Traffic Lights10
Inconsiderate Driving10
Betting Act10
Prosecution’s duty to assist the court in respect of sentencing10
Dishonestly receiving stolen property10
Personal Cost Order10
Romantic Relationship10
Illegitimate Children10
Nullity Suit10
False Information10
Risk Assessment10
Enhanced Punishments10
Share Ownership10
Open justice10
Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act10
Review of Detention10
Arsenic Poisoning10
Flight Risk10
Malicious Prosecution of Civil Proceedings10
Prostitution Law10
Chinese Customary Law10
Witness Tampering10
Attempt to Pervert the Course of Justice10
Human Rights10
Extortion10
Rash Driving10
Dissolution of Marriage10
Exceptional Hardship10
Exceptional Depravity10
Personal Protection Order10
Major Depressive Disorder10
Commercial Sex10
Re-sentencing10
Judicial Immunity10
Traffic Death Cases10
Negligent Driving10
Probation10
Motor Traffic Accident10
Bereavement10
Funeral Expenses10
Drug-related Sexual Assault10
Legal Representation10
Learning Disorder10
Dishonest receipt of stolen property10
Road Traffic Offences10
Road Accident10
Driving without a valid license10
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder10
Drink-driving Offence10
Directional Offence10
Dispute Resolution10
Law of Pleadings10
Clang of the prison gates principle10
Prosecutorial Misconduct10
Prima Facie Case10
Reasonable Suspicion10
Search and Seizure10
Privilege10
Legal Professional Privilege10
Documents10
Amendment of Charges10

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Sexual Offences
  • Impersonation
  • Consent