Winston Lee v PP: Outraging Modesty & Criminal Force in Medical Exam

Dr. Winston Lee Siew Boon appealed to the High Court of Singapore against his conviction and sentence for two counts of using criminal force to outrage the modesty of a patient. The charges stemmed from incidents on 8 June 2011 and 30 October 2011 at his clinic. The High Court, Chan Seng Onn J, dismissed the appeal, finding the complainant's evidence unusually convincing and the sentence appropriate.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Dr. Lee was convicted of outraging modesty by using criminal force during medical exams. The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorRespondentGovernment AgencyAppeal DismissedWon
Tai Wei Shyong of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Parvathi Menon of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Sarah Ong Hui'en of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Winston Lee Siew BoonAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chan Seng OnnJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Tai Wei ShyongAttorney-General’s Chambers
Parvathi MenonAttorney-General’s Chambers
Sarah Ong Hui'enAttorney-General’s Chambers
Davinder SinghDrew & Napier LLC
Pardeep Singh KhosaDrew & Napier LLC
Tham Yeying MelissaDrew & Napier LLC
Tony Tan Soon YongDrew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

  1. Dr. Lee was a general practitioner running his own clinic since 1973.
  2. The complainant consulted Dr. Lee on four occasions in 2011.
  3. The complainant alleged Dr. Lee touched her breast during examinations on 8 June and 30 October 2011.
  4. The complainant testified she felt confused and violated after the incidents.
  5. The complainant contacted her boss and another doctor to verify the appropriateness of Dr. Lee's actions.
  6. The complainant lodged a police report on 31 October 2011.
  7. Dr. Lee admitted to touching the complainant's breast but claimed it was unintentional.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Winston Lee Siew Boon v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate's Appeal No 111 of 2014, [2015] SGHC 186
  2. Winston Lee Siew Boon v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 21 of 2015, [2015] SGCA 67

6. Timeline

DateEvent
First incident of criminal force to outrage modesty
Complainant visited the appellant’s clinic
Complainant visited the appellant’s clinic
Second incident of criminal force to outrage modesty
Complainant lodged a police report
Appellant's first statement recorded
Appellant called IO Sabaran after polygraph test
Appellant's second statement recorded
Appellant was charged
Complainant first saw Dr. Joshua Kua
High Court decision
Appeal to this decision was dismissed by the Court of Appeal

7. Legal Issues

  1. Outraging Modesty
    • Outcome: The court found the appellant guilty of outraging modesty.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Use of criminal force
      • Intention to outrage modesty
  2. Prosecution's Duty of Disclosure
    • Outcome: The court found that the prosecution had not breached its duty of disclosure.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Disclosure of unused material
      • Materiality and relevance of evidence
  3. Appellate Intervention
    • Outcome: The court found that the trial judge was not plainly wrong in his findings of fact.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Findings of fact
      • Credibility of witnesses

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Appeal against conviction
  2. Appeal against sentence

9. Cause of Actions

  • Outrage of Modesty
  • Use of Criminal Force

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Litigation

11. Industries

  • Healthcare

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Tang Kin Seng v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[1996] 3 SLR(R) 444SingaporeCited for the applicable law in cases involving sexual misconduct.
Public Prosecutor v Mohammed Liton Muhammed Syeed MallikCourt of AppealYes[2008] 1 SLR(R) 601SingaporeCited for the applicable law in cases involving sexual misconduct and the threshold for appellate intervention.
Farida Begam d/o Mohd Artham v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2001] 3 SLR(R) 592SingaporeCited for the approach in assessing the credibility of witnesses.
Khoo Kwoon Hain v PPHigh CourtYes[1995] 2 SLR(R) 591SingaporeCited for the rule that in sexual offences, the evidence of the complainant must be 'unusually convincing'.
Teo Keng Pong v PPHigh CourtYes[1996] 2 SLR(R) 890SingaporeCited to clarify what 'unusually convincing' means.
Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Farid bin Mohd YusopCourt of AppealYes[2015] 3 SLR 16SingaporeCited for observations on the threshold of appellate intervention.
Woolmington v The Director of Public ProsecutionsHouse of LordsYes[1935] AC 462England and WalesCited for the fundamental principle that the prosecution bears the legal burden of establishing the guilt of an accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
AOF v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2012] 3 SLR 34SingaporeCited for the requirement of unusually convincing evidence in sexual misconduct cases and principles of corroboration.
XP v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2008] 4 SLR 686SingaporeCited for the requirement of unusually convincing evidence in sexual misconduct cases and the ultimate rule that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Sivakumar s/o Selvarajah v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2014] 2 SLR 1142SingaporeCited for the need for corroborative evidence if the complainant's evidence is not unusually convincing.
R v BaskervilleCourt of Criminal AppealYes[1916] 2 KB 658England and WalesCited for the traditional common law definition of corroborative evidence, which is not strictly applied in Singapore.
Ng Chee Chuan v Ng Ai Tee (administratrix of the estate of Yap Yoon Moi, deceased)Court of AppealYes[2009] 2 SLR(R) 918SingaporeCited for the principle that the court should draw inferences from objective contemporaneous records.
Brown v DunnNot AvailableYes[1984] 6 R 67Not AvailableCited for the rule in Brown v Dunn regarding cross-examination of witnesses.
Muhammad bin Kadar and another v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2011] 3 SLR 1205SingaporeCited for the prosecution's duty of disclosure of unused material.
Muhammad bin Kadar and another v Public Prosecutor and another matterCourt of AppealYes[2011] 4 SLR 791SingaporeCited for the clarification of the prosecution's duty of disclosure of unused material.
Selvarajan James v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2000] 2 SLR(R) 946SingaporeCited for the proposition that the court lacks power to compel prosecutorial disclosure, which was overturned in Kadar I.
Tan Khee Koon v PPHigh CourtYes[1995] 3 SLR(R) 404SingaporeCited for the court's power under s 58(1) of the CPC to compel the production of any document or thing necessary or desirable for the purposes of trial.
PP v IC Automation (S) Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[1996] 2 SLR(R) 799SingaporeCited for the principle that s 58(1) cannot be used in relation to a 'general demand' for an unspecified class of documents.
PP v Ho So MuiHigh CourtYes[1993] 1 SLR(R) 57SingaporeCited for the inherent jurisdiction of the court to prevent injustice or an abuse of process.
Salwant Singh s/o Amer Singh v PPHigh CourtYes[2005] 1 SLR(R) 632SingaporeCited for the inherent jurisdiction of the court to prevent injustice or an abuse of process.
Lee Kwang Peng v PPHigh CourtYes[1997] 2 SLR(R) 569SingaporeCited for the application of s 159 of the Evidence Act to the facts in that case.
Cheong Chun Yin v Attorney-GeneralHigh CourtYes[2014] 3 SLR 1141SingaporeCited for the principle that the courts should proceed on the basis that the PP exercises his power in accordance with law unless shown otherwise.
Muhammad Ridzuan bin Mohd Ali v Attorney-GeneralHigh CourtYes[2014] 4 SLR 773SingaporeCited for the principle that the courts should proceed on the basis that the PP exercises his power in accordance with law unless shown otherwise.
Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-GeneralCourt of AppealYes[2012] 2 SLR 49SingaporeCited for the principle that the acts of high officials of state should be accorded a presumption of legality or regularity.
Muthusamy v Public ProsecutorNot AvailableYes[1948] MLJ 57MalaysiaCited for the procedure used in relation to impeachment under s 122(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed).
R v HHouse of LordsYes[2004] 2 AC 134England and WalesCited for the principle that the trial process is not well served if the defence are permitted to make general and unspecified allegations and then seek far-reaching disclosure in the hope that material may turn up to make them good.
Regina v H and othersCourt of AppealYes[2003] 1 WLR 3006England and WalesCited for the principle that the trial process is not well served if the defence are permitted to make general and unspecified allegations and then seek far-reaching disclosure in the hope that material may turn up to make them good.
Regina v KeaneCourt of AppealYes[1994] 1 WLR 746England and WalesCited for the principle that the prosecution must identify the documents and information which are material, according to the criteria set out above.
Azman Bin Jamaludin v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2012] 1 SLR 615SingaporeCited for the principle that an 'order' has to have an element of finality it.
Knight Glenn Jeyasingam v PPHigh CourtYes[1998] 3 SLR(R) 196SingaporeCited for the principle that an 'order' has to have an element of finality it.
Maleb bin Su v Public ProsecutorNot AvailableYes[1984] 1 MLJ 311MalaysiaCited for the principle that an 'order' has to have an element of finality it.
Public Prosecutor v Hoo Chang ChwenNot AvailableYes[1962] MLJ 284MalaysiaCited for the principle that an 'order' has to have an element of finality it.
Public Prosecutor v Siew Boon LoongHigh CourtYes[2005] 1 SLR(R) 611SingaporeCited for the definition of 'manifestly excessive'.
Chan Kum Hong Randy v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 1019SingaporeCited for the proposition that if there has been an inordinate delay in prosecution, the sentence imposed should 'reflect the fact the matter has been held in abeyance for some time'.
Chng Yew Chin v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2006] 4 SLR(R) 124SingaporeCited for the principle that serious medical problems of the appellant are not of such severity as to warrant the exercise of judicial mercy.
Public Prosecutor v Chow Yee SzeHigh CourtYes[2011] 1 SLR 481SingaporeCited for the benchmark of nine months’ imprisonment and three strokes of the cane for an offence under s 354 of the Penal Code which involved intrusion on a victim’s private parts or sexual organs.
Public Prosecutor v Ho Ah Hoo StevenDistrict CourtYes[2007] SGDC 162SingaporeCited as a guide for the appropriate sentence in this case.
Chow Dih v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[1990] 1 SLR(R) 53SingaporeCited for the principle that abusing a position of trust cannot be tolerated without the public's confidence in the medical profession being undermined.
Juma’at bin Samad v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[1993] 2 SLR(R) 327SingaporeCited for the position taken in respect of applications to admit fresh evidence at the appeal stage.
Dennis Reid v The QueenPrivy CouncilYes[1980] AC 343United KingdomCited for the factors to be considered when deciding whether to order a retrial.
HKSAR v Lee Meng Tee & Securities and Futures Commission (Intervener)Hong Kong Court of Final AppealYes(2003) 6 HKCFAR 336Hong KongCited for the principle that non-disclosure to the defence of relevant material, even if not attributable to any breach by the prosecutor of his duty to disclose, can result in material irregularity and an unsafe conviction.
Lee Yuan Kwang v PPHigh CourtYes[1995] 1 SLR(R) 778SingaporeCited for the principle that a failure by the Prosecution to discharge its duty of disclosure in a timely manner should not cause a conviction to be overturned if such an irregularity can be considered to be a material irregularity that occasions a failure of justice, or, put in another way, renders the conviction unsafe.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 354(1)Singapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) s 157(c)Singapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) s 159Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 235(1)Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 374(1)Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 122(2)Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 241Singapore
Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) Art 35(8)Singapore
Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (c 25) (UK) s 8(2)United Kingdom

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Outraging modesty
  • Criminal force
  • Medical examination
  • Duty of disclosure
  • Unusually convincing evidence
  • Appellate intervention
  • Credibility of witnesses
  • Post-traumatic stress disorder
  • Voluntary statement
  • Treatment card

15.2 Keywords

  • Outrage of modesty
  • Criminal force
  • Medical examination
  • Doctor
  • Patient
  • Appeal
  • Conviction
  • Sentence

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Outrage of Modesty95
Penal Code90
Offences80
Criminal Law75
Criminal Procedure60
Family Violence30
Personal Injury25

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Sexual Offences
  • Medical Law
  • Evidence
  • Procedure