PP v Tan Kok Leong: Doctor Convicted of Outrage of Modesty and Drug Administration for Sexual Offenses
In Public Prosecutor v Tan Kok Leong, the High Court heard appeals from both the Public Prosecutor and Tan Kok Leong, an aesthetic doctor. Tan Kok Leong was initially acquitted on one charge of outrage of modesty but convicted on three counts of outrage of modesty and two counts of causing hurt by administering stupefying drugs with intent to commit outrage of modesty. The Public Prosecutor appealed the acquittal and sought enhanced sentences, while Tan Kok Leong appealed his convictions and sentences. The High Court allowed the Prosecution’s appeal, convicting Tan Kok Leong on the first charge and increasing the sentences for all charges, resulting in a total sentence of 54 months' imprisonment.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Accused's appeals against conviction and sentence were dismissed and the Prosecution’s appeals were allowed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Tan Kok Leong, a doctor, was convicted of outrage of modesty and administering stupefying drugs to commit outrage of modesty against his patient.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Appellant, Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Allowed in part | Partial | Thiagesh Sukumaran of Attorney-General’s Chambers Alan Loh of Attorney-General’s Chambers Victoria Ting of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tan Kok Leong | Respondent, Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| See Kee Oon | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Thiagesh Sukumaran | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Alan Loh | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Victoria Ting | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Edmond Pereira | Edmond Pereira Law Corporation |
| Vickie Tan | Edmond Pereira Law Corporation |
4. Facts
- The accused, Tan Kok Leong, was the victim's aesthetic doctor and business partner.
- The accused performed liposuction procedures on the victim on 6 June and 5 July 2013.
- The accused touched the victim's genital area under a surgical drape during the first liposuction procedure.
- The accused booked a hotel room for the victim to recuperate after the second liposuction.
- The accused administered Dormicum and Rosiden intravenously to the victim in the hotel room on 5 and 6 July 2013.
- The accused took photographs of the victim's penis and genital area while the victim was sedated.
- The accused did not inform the victim about the photographs or seek his consent to take them.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Tan Kok Leong and another appeal, Magistrate’s Appeals No 9148 and 9171 of 2016, [2017] SGHC 188
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| First liposuction procedure performed on the victim. | |
| Victim sent a WhatsApp message to the accused. | |
| Second liposuction procedure performed on the victim. | |
| Accused administered Dormicum and Rosiden to the victim at Oasia Hotel. | |
| Accused administered Dormicum and Rosiden to the victim at Oasia Hotel. | |
| The complainant and the accused left Singapore for Johor Bahru. | |
| The complainant and the accused returned to Singapore. | |
| The complainant made a police report. | |
| Brief oral grounds for decision rendered. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Outrage of Modesty
- Outcome: The court found the accused guilty of outrage of modesty.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Touching of genital area
- Lack of consent
- Administering Stupefying Drugs with Intent to Commit Outrage of Modesty
- Outcome: The court found the accused guilty of administering stupefying drugs with intent to commit outrage of modesty.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Use of Dormicum and Rosiden
- Lack of medical justification
- Sedation in a non-clinical environment
- Consent
- Outcome: The court found that the victim did not provide informed consent for the procedures or the taking of photographs.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Informed consent for medical procedure
- Consent to taking photographs
- Sentencing
- Outcome: The court enhanced the sentences due to the aggravating factors and the need for deterrence.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Aggravating factors
- Mitigating factors
- Deterrence
8. Remedies Sought
- Conviction
- Imprisonment
9. Cause of Actions
- Outrage of Modesty
- Causing Hurt by Administering Stupefying Drugs with Intent to Commit Outrage of Modesty
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
- Medical Malpractice
11. Industries
- Healthcare
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Tan Kok Leong | District Court | Yes | [2016] SGDC 327 | Singapore | Cited for the District Judge’s findings in the initial trial. |
| Mohamed Shouffee Bin Adam v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 998 | Singapore | Cited for guidance on the one-transaction rule and the totality principle in sentencing. |
| Chandresh Patel v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [1995] 1 CLAS News 323 | Singapore | Cited as a well-established sentencing benchmark for offences under Section 354 of the Penal Code. |
| Public Prosecutor v Chow Yee Sze | N/A | Yes | [2011] 1 SLR 481 | Singapore | Cited as affirming the sentencing benchmark in Chandresh Patel v Public Prosecutor for offences under Section 354 of the Penal Code. |
| Lee Siew Boon Winston v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [2015] 4 SLR 1184 | Singapore | Cited for the retributive element in sentencing for medical professionals who abuse their position of trust. |
| Winston Lee Siew Boon v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2015] SGHC 186 | Singapore | Cited for the full judgment in Winston Lee Siew Boon v Public Prosecutor, regarding abuse of trust by medical professionals. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ho Ah Hoo Steven | District Court | Yes | [2007] SGDC 162 | Singapore | Cited for the retributive element in sentencing for medical professionals who abuse their position of trust. |
| Zeng Guoyuan v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR(R) 556 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a guise of playing doctor does not excuse criminal conduct. |
| Zeng Guoyuan v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR(R) 556 | Singapore | Cited for the retributive element in sentencing for medical professionals who abuse their position of trust. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 354(1) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 328 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 325(2) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Outrage of modesty
- Stupefying drugs
- Sedation
- Liposuction
- Penile curvature correction
- Informed consent
- Doctor-patient relationship
- Abuse of trust
- Hotel room
- Photographs
15.2 Keywords
- Outrage of modesty
- Stupefying drugs
- Doctor
- Patient
- Sedation
- Conviction
- Appeal
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Outrage of Modesty | 90 |
| Sentencing | 75 |
| Criminal Procedure | 75 |
| Criminal Law | 60 |
| Medical Ethics | 50 |
| Breach of Professional Ethics | 40 |
| Personal Injury | 20 |
| Medical Negligence | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Medical Law
- Sexual Offences