Public Prosecutor v BAB: Statutory Interpretation of Penal Code s 376A(1)(b) and Interpretation Act s 9A
In Public Prosecutor v BAB, the High Court of Singapore, on April 12, 2016, addressed whether a woman could be charged under section 376A(1)(b) of the Penal Code for sexual penetration of a minor. The Accused faced 20 charges under this section and one under section 7(a) of the Children and Young Persons Act. After the Accused pleaded guilty to some charges, the court questioned the applicability of section 376A(1)(b) to women. The court acquitted the Accused on the section 376A(1)(b) charges, holding that the provision does not cover women as offenders, but sentenced her to eight months imprisonment for the offence under s 7 CYPA.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Accused acquitted of charges under section 376A(1)(b) of the Penal Code.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court examined whether a woman could be charged under s 376A(1)(b) of the Penal Code for sexual penetration of a minor. The court acquitted the accused, holding the provision does not apply to women.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Prosecution | Government Agency | Partial Loss | Partial | John Lu of Attorney-General’s Chambers Dwayne Lim of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| BAB | Defendant | Individual | Partial Loss | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Kan Ting Chiu | Senior Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| John Lu | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Dwayne Lim | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| N Sudha Nair | M/s Lexcompass LLC |
4. Facts
- The Accused was charged with 20 offences under s 376A(1)(b) of the Penal Code and one charge under s 7(a) of the CYPA.
- The charges under s 376A(1)(b) involved using a dildo and fingers to penetrate G’s vagina.
- The Accused pleaded guilty to six charges under s 376A(1)(b) and the charge under s 7(a) of the CYPA.
- The Accused passed herself off as a male from a young age.
- G and her family stayed in a flat two doors from the Accused’s flat.
- The Accused kissed G on the lips and licked her breasts.
- The Accused suffers from Gender Dysphoria.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v BAB, Criminal Case No 41 of 2015, [2016] SGHC 61
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Section 376A(1)(b) of the Penal Code enacted. | |
| Accused and G became acquainted. | |
| Accused committed an obscene act on G. | |
| G and her siblings began spending time at the Accused’s flat. | |
| Last charge under s 376A(1)(b) occurred. | |
| G underwent a medical examination at Singapore General Hospital. | |
| Criminal Case No 41 of 2015 filed. | |
| Hearing date. | |
| Judgment delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Construction of Statute
- Outcome: The court held that section 376A(1)(b) of the Penal Code does not apply to women.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Literal interpretation
- Purposive approach
- Related Cases:
- [2003] 2 SLR(R) 67
- [2007] 4 SLR(R) 183
- [2013] 3 SLR 354
- [2015] 5 SLR 482
8. Remedies Sought
- Imprisonment
9. Cause of Actions
- Sexual Offences
- Obscene Act
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Statutory Interpretation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comfort Management Pte Ltd v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2003] 2 SLR(R) 67 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that courts should not impose a meaning on a statutory provision if the word is capable of only one meaning. |
| Public Prosecutor v Low Kok Heng | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 183 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that statutory provisions should not be construed in a manner that goes against all possible and reasonable interpretation of the express literal wording of the provision. |
| Dorsey James Michael v World Sport Group Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 354 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a court can consider the purposes of an Act in determining whether there is more than one possible construction. |
| Citiwall Safety Glass Pte Ltd v Mansource Interior Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 482 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where a statutory provision is grammatically capable of one meaning only, the legal meaning corresponds to the grammatical meaning of the provision. |
| AQW v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | AQW v Public Prosecutor [2015] 4 SLR 150 | Singapore | Referred to by the prosecution regarding sentencing for offences under s 7 CYPA. |
| Public Prosecutor v ABJ | Court of Appeal | Yes | Public Prosecutor v ABJ [2010] 2 SLR 377 | Singapore | Referred to by the prosecution regarding sentencing for offences under s 7 CYPA. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 376A(1)(b) | Singapore |
| Children and Young Persons Act (Cap 38, 2001 Rev Ed) s 7(a) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 228(4) | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 1997 Rev Ed) s 9A | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Penetration
- Gender neutrality
- Statutory interpretation
- Purposive approach
- Literal interpretation
- Gender Dysphoria
- Obscene act
15.2 Keywords
- Penal Code
- Sexual Offences
- Statutory Interpretation
- Singapore
- High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Statutory Interpretation | 90 |
| Penal Code | 85 |
| Statutory offences | 80 |
| Criminal Law | 75 |
| Children and Young Persons Act | 70 |
| Sentencing | 60 |
| Public Prosecutor | 50 |
| Gender Dysphoria | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Statutory Interpretation