PP v Yap Weng Wah: Sexual Offences Against Minors, Penal Code Section 376A
In Public Prosecutor v Yap Weng Wah, the High Court of Singapore addressed charges against Yap Weng Wah for sexual offences against minors under Section 376A of the Penal Code and Section 7(b) of the Children and Young Persons Act. Yap pleaded guilty to 12 charges involving offences against 12 boys aged between 11 and 15. The court sentenced Yap to 30 years' imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane, considering 64 other charges for sentencing purposes.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Accused sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Yap Weng Wah faced charges under s 376A of the Penal Code for sexual offences against minors. The High Court sentenced him to 30 years' imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Prosecution | Government Agency | Judgment for Prosecution | Won | David Khoo of Public Prosecutor Raja Mohan of Public Prosecutor |
| Yap Weng Wah | Defendant | Individual | Convicted and Sentenced | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Woo Bih Li | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| David Khoo | Public Prosecutor |
| Raja Mohan | Public Prosecutor |
| Daniel Koh | Eldan Law LLP |
| Favian Kang | Eldan Law LLP |
4. Facts
- Yap faced 76 charges, including 75 under s 376A of the Penal Code and one under s 7(b) of the CYPA.
- The offences were committed against 30 boys aged between 11 and 15 over two and a half years.
- Yap befriended victims on Facebook, portraying himself as an elder brother or mentor.
- Yap met victims under various pretexts and committed sexual offences in different locations.
- Yap filmed the sexual acts and uploaded the videos on his laptop.
- The offences came to light after one victim lodged a police report.
- Yap was diagnosed with hebephilia and assessed to have a high risk of sexual reoffending.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Yap Weng Wah, Criminal Case No 7 of 2014, [2015] SGHC 76
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Offences began | |
| Offences ended | |
| Yap remanded | |
| Institute of Mental Health report issued | |
| Medical report prepared by Dr Tommy Tan | |
| Further report prepared by Dr Saluja | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Sentencing for Sexual Offences Against Minors
- Outcome: The court determined the appropriate sentence, considering aggravating and mitigating factors, and imposed 30 years' imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Aggravating factors
- Mitigating factors
- Consecutive sentencing
- Caning
- Application of Sentencing Principles
- Outcome: The court emphasized prevention, deterrence, and retribution as the dominant sentencing principles.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Prevention
- Deterrence
- Retribution
- Rehabilitation
8. Remedies Sought
- Imprisonment
- Caning
9. Cause of Actions
- Sexual Offences
- Breach of Trust
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lim Hock Hin Kelvin v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR(R) 37 | Singapore | Established principles for sentencing diagnosed paedophiles who commit sexual offences against young victims. |
| PP v Tan Ah Kit | High Court | Yes | [2000] SGHC 254 | Singapore | Accused sentenced to 30 years’ imprisonment for three charges under the previous s 377 involving anal intercourse and fellatio with a young boy. |
| Adam bin Darsin v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 1 SLR(R) 709 | Singapore | Confirmed that fellatio by the accused on his victim stood at the bottom of the scale of gravity of the three forms of carnal intercourse. |
| ADF v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 874 | Singapore | Outlined circumstances where more than two sentences should run consecutively. |
| Chia Kim Heng Frederick v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR(R) 63 | Singapore | Generally, the court will not impose a sentence of caning unless violence has been used. |
| Public Prosecutor v BDO | District Court | Yes | [2012] SGDC 449 | Singapore | No caning was imposed as the accused was more than 50 years of age at the time of sentencing. |
| Public Prosecutor v Soh Song Soon | High Court | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 857 | Singapore | No caning was imposed as the accused was more than 50 years of age at the time of sentencing. |
| Public Prosecutor v Loqmanul Hakim bin Buang | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR 753 | Singapore | The concept of retribution operates on the commonsensical notion that the punishment meted out to an offender should reflect the degree of harm and culpability that has been occasioned by such conduct. |
| Public Prosecutor v Goh Lee Yin and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 824 | Singapore | Rehabilitation may still be a relevant consideration, but such rehabilitation may very well have to take place in an environment where the offender is prevented from recommitting similar offences. |
| Mohamed Shouffee bin Adam v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 998 | Singapore | A distinction should be drawn between aggravating factors that are considered at the first stage of sentencing and the second stage. |
| Public Prosecutor v Hue An Li | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 661 | Singapore | Singling out vulnerable classes could result in double-counting where the Prosecution has framed the charge(s) by reference to the harm actually caused. |
| Public Prosecutor v Syamsul Hilal bin Ismail | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 1 SLR 973 | Singapore | The use of the internet is a relevant sentencing consideration in that there is a strong public interest to deter potential offenders from using that medium to reach a large number of potential victims. |
| Chen Weixiong Jerriek v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2003] 2 SLR(R) 334 | Singapore | The voluntary surrender by an offender and a plea of guilt by him in court are factors that can be taken into account in mitigation as evidence of remorse, their relevance and the weight to be placed on them must depend on the circumstances of the case. |
| Public Prosecutor v Leong Wai Nam | High Court | Yes | [2010] 2 SLR 284 | Singapore | A clean record may be effective in showing that what an accused did on one or two isolated occasions was totally out of character but carries hardly any mitigating force when an accused person is convicted of a string of offences committed over a spectrum of time. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ong Ker Seng | High Court | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR(R) 134 | Singapore | Ill health will only be a mitigating factor in the most exceptional circumstances when judicial mercy may be exercised. |
| Lim Kay Han Irene v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 3 SLR 240 | Singapore | Judicial mercy has been exercised in two types of cases: (a) where the offender suffered from a terminal illness and (b) where the offender was so ill that a sentence of imprisonment would carry a high risk of endangering his life. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lim Li Ling | State Courts | Yes | [2006] SGMC 8 | Singapore | Depression is a condition that can be treated during incarceration and that the prison wardens will be able to arrest any suicidal tendencies which an accused may harbour or display. |
| Public Prosecutor v ABJ | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 2 SLR 377 | Singapore | Concerns an appeal against the sentence imposed by the High Court, the accused was charged with various offences against one female victim, over a continuous period of about seven years. |
| Public Prosector v Lim Beng Cheok | High Court | Yes | [2003] SGHC 54 | Singapore | In those cases, the accused persons had been sentenced to five years’ imprisonment and six years’ imprisonment respectively for each s 377 charge. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 376A | Singapore |
| Children and Young Persons Act (Cap 38, 2001 Rev Ed) s 7(b) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 377 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 328(6) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Sexual penetration
- Minor
- Hebephilia
- Anal intercourse
- Fellatio
- Sentencing
- Aggravating factors
- Mitigating factors
- Prevention
- Deterrence
- Retribution
- Rehabilitation
15.2 Keywords
- Sexual offences
- Minors
- Penal Code
- Sentencing
- Singapore
- Criminal law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Criminal Law | 95 |
| Sexual Offences | 95 |
| Children and Young Persons Act | 90 |
| Sentencing | 80 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
- Sexual Offences Against Children