PP v Chong Hou En: Voyeurism, Mental Disorder & Penal Code s 509 Sentencing
In Public Prosecutor v Chong Hou En, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by the prosecution against the sentence of probation imposed on Chong Hou En, who pleaded guilty to five charges under s 509 of the Penal Code and one charge under s 30(1) of the Films Act for voyeuristic acts, including filming women and children in the shower and possessing obscene films. The High Court, Chan Seng Onn J, allowed the appeal, finding the probation manifestly inadequate and substituted it with a term of imprisonment, emphasizing the need for deterrence and considering the aggravating factors of planning, multiple victims, and the use of recording devices.
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
Appeal against probation for Chong Hou En, convicted under Penal Code s 509 and Films Act s 30(1) for voyeurism. The High Court substituted probation with imprisonment.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Appellant | Government Agency | Appeal Allowed | Won | Wong Kok Weng of Attorney-General’s Chambers Tang Shangjun of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Chong Hou En | Respondent | Individual | Sentence of Probation Substituted with Imprisonment | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Seng Onn | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Wong Kok Weng | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tang Shangjun | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Narayanan Vijay Kumar | Vijay and Co |
4. Facts
- The respondent pleaded guilty to five charges under s 509 of the Penal Code and one charge under s 30(1) of the Films Act.
- The respondent purchased a mini-camera and attached it to his shoe to film "Up Skirt" videos at a shopping mall.
- The respondent filmed his girlfriend's family members showering in their home using a camera disguised as a lighter.
- The respondent possessed 10,574 obscene video films on his computer and hard drive.
- The district judge initially ordered a probation order, prioritizing rehabilitation due to the respondent's voyeurism.
- The prosecution appealed against the sentence, arguing it was manifestly inadequate and sought a custodial sentence.
- Expert testimony was presented regarding the nature of voyeurism and its impact on an individual's self-control.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Chong Hou En, Magistrate's Appeal No 290 of 2013, [2015] SGHC 69
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Respondent arrested at IMM shopping mall | |
| Magistrate's Appeal No 290 of 2013 | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Manifest Inadequacy of Sentence
- Outcome: The High Court found the sentence of probation to be manifestly inadequate, considering the aggravating factors and the need for deterrence.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Overriding of deterrence principles
- Insufficient weight given to aggravating factors
- Related Cases:
- [2000] 2 SLR(R) 778
- [2008] 4 SLR(R) 500
- Relevance of Mental Disorder in Sentencing
- Outcome: The High Court determined that the respondent's voyeurism did not deprive him of self-control and that deterrence should not be overridden by rehabilitation in this case.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Causal link between mental disorder and offense
- Impact of mental disorder on offender's ability to control actions
- Balancing rehabilitation with deterrence and retribution
- Related Cases:
- [2014] 4 SLR 1287
- [2008] 1 SLR(R) 824
- Interpretation of Films Act s 30(1)
- Outcome: The High Court held that s 30(1) of the Films Act has a specified minimum sentence, making probation unavailable as a sentencing option for the respondent.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Whether s 30(1) prescribes a specified minimum sentence
- Availability of probation as a sentencing option
- Related Cases:
- [2015] 1 SLR 1145
8. Remedies Sought
- Custodial Sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Insulting the Modesty of a Woman
- Possession of Obscene Films
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PP v Tay Beng Guan Albert | High Court | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR(R) 778 | Singapore | Cited as a precedent for custodial sentences in cases involving the use of recording devices to intrude upon the privacy of victims. |
| Public Prosecutor v UI | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 500 | Singapore | Cited for the principles regarding appeals on sentence. |
| Lim Ghim Peow v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 1287 | Singapore | Cited for the principles applicable when sentencing an offender with a mental disorder. |
| PP v Goh Lee Yin | High Court | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 824 | Singapore | Cited for the paradox of sentencing the mentally ill and the tension between deterrence and rehabilitation. |
| Ng So Kuen Connie v PP | High Court | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR(R) 178 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that general deterrence may be given less weight if the offender was suffering from a mental disorder causally related to the offence. |
| PP v Kwong Kok Hing | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 684 | Singapore | Cited to illustrate that rehabilitation does not necessarily dictate a lighter sentence and can occur in prison. |
| Lim Hock Hin Kelvin v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR(R) 37 | Singapore | Cited for the court's assessment of paedophilia and the rejection of diminished responsibility. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mohammed Liton Mohammed Syeed Mallik | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 601 | Singapore | Cited as an established benchmark for sentencing in cases involving the use of modern technology to record a victim's private moments. |
| Lui Chang Soon v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR(R) 229 | Singapore | Cited regarding sentencing for possession of obscene videotapes under the Films Act. |
| Public Prosecutor v Tan Hiap Hua | District Court | Yes | [2010] SGDC 322 | Singapore | Cited regarding sentencing for possession of obscene films under the Films Act. |
| Public Prosecutor v Yang Qiuyu | District Court | Yes | [2010] SGDC 51 | Singapore | Cited regarding sentencing for possession of films without a valid certificate and obscene films under the Films Act. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mohamad Hanafi Bin Abdol Hamid | District Court | Yes | [2007] SGDC 247 | Singapore | Cited regarding sentencing for possession of obscene films under the Films Act. |
| Public Prosecutor v Chandran s/o Natesan | District Court | Yes | [2013] SGDC 33 | Singapore | Cited regarding sentencing for possession of obscene films under the Films Act. |
| Public Prosecutor v Azuar Bin Ahamad | High Court | Yes | [2014] SGHC 149 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court is entitled to reduce the weight attributed to remorse as a mitigating factor if unmeritorious Newton hearings are done such that time and costs are wasted. |
| Mohamed Shouffee bin Adam v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 998 | Singapore | Cited for the principles of the one-transaction rule and the totality principle in sentencing. |
| Mohamad Fairuuz bin Saleh v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 1145 | Singapore | Cited for the interpretation of 'sentence fixed by law,' 'mandatory minimum sentence,' and 'specified minimum sentence' in the context of the Probation of Offenders Act. |
| Tan Pin Seng v PP | High Court | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR(R) 494 | Singapore | Cited as a case where a fine was imposed on an offender who was convicted of an offence under s 509 of the Penal Code for peeping at a lady taking a bath through a hole he had made in the bathroom door. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 509 | Singapore |
| Films Act (Cap 107, 1998 Rev Ed) s 30(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 392(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 307 | Singapore |
| Probation of Offenders Act (Cap 252, 1985 Rev Ed) s 5 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Voyeurism
- Paraphilia
- Mental Disorder
- Self-Control
- Deterrence
- Rehabilitation
- Obscene Films
- Recording Device
- Privacy
- Sentencing Principles
15.2 Keywords
- Voyeurism
- Obscene Films
- Mental Disorder
- Sentencing
- Criminal Law
- Singapore
- Appeal
- Probation
- Imprisonment
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Voyeurism | 90 |
| Sentencing | 80 |
| Criminal Law | 75 |
| Sentencing Principles | 70 |
| Criminal Procedure | 60 |
| Psychiatry | 50 |
| Evidence Law | 20 |
| Administrative Law | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
- Mental Health
- Privacy
- Obscenity