Tan Yao Min v Public Prosecutor: Criminal Intimidation, Stalking, and Harassment of Biological Sisters
Tan Yao Min appealed against the sentence imposed by the District Court for criminal intimidation, unlawful stalking, and intentionally causing alarm to two biological sisters. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence necessary for specific deterrence and public protection, given Tan's history of similar offenses and the escalation of his behavior. The court emphasized the impact on the victims and the need for a substantial term of imprisonment.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal against sentence for criminal intimidation, stalking, and harassment. The High Court affirmed the sentence, emphasizing specific deterrence and public protection.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Yang Ziliang of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tan Yao Min | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| See Kee Oon | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Yang Ziliang | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- Appellant was obsessed with two biological sisters, aged 14 and 18.
- Appellant had prior offenses against the sisters in 2010 and 2015.
- Appellant left a note threatening to kill the elder sister.
- Appellant stalked the younger sister by waiting for her, following her, and contacting her on Facebook.
- Appellant placed letters in the flyer box with explicit sexual content.
- Appellant's conduct caused significant psychological distress to the sisters and their family.
- Appellant committed the offenses while on station bail for the proceeded charges.
5. Formal Citations
- Tan Yao Min v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9181 of 2017, [2017] SGHC 311
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant engaged in previous conduct in respect of the sisters. | |
| Appellant was found guilty of mischief, attempted mischief, and wrongful confinement. | |
| Appellant engaged in previous conduct in respect of the sisters. | |
| Appellant was found guilty of making an insulting communication with intent to cause alarm. | |
| Appellant committed criminal intimidation by leaving a threatening note. | |
| Appellant began stalking the younger sister. | |
| Appellant caused alarm by placing threatening letters in the flyer box. | |
| Appellant's stalking of the younger sister ended. | |
| Dr. Cheow Enquan of the Institute of Mental Health issued a report on the appellant. | |
| Dr. Cheow Enquan of the Institute of Mental Health issued a follow-up report on the appellant. | |
| Dr. Cheow Enquan of the Institute of Mental Health issued a follow-up report on the appellant. | |
| High Court heard the parties’ submissions. | |
| High Court dismissed the appeal. |
7. Legal Issues
- Criminal Intimidation
- Outcome: The court upheld the sentence for criminal intimidation, finding the appellant's threat to kill to be a serious offense.
- Category: Substantive
- Unlawful Stalking
- Outcome: The court upheld the sentence for unlawful stalking, finding the appellant's conduct to be intrusive and harmful to the victim.
- Category: Substantive
- Intentionally Causing Alarm
- Outcome: The court upheld the sentence for intentionally causing alarm, finding the appellant's threatening communications to be a serious offense.
- Category: Substantive
- Sentencing of Mentally Disordered Offenders
- Outcome: The court considered the appellant's autism spectrum disorder and immature personality but found that they did not displace the need for specific deterrence and protection of the public.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2014] 4 SLR 1287
- [2015] 3 SLR 222
- [2017] 4 SLR 309
- Appellate Intervention in Sentencing
- Outcome: The court applied the principles for appellate intervention in sentencing and found no reason to disturb the District Judge's sentence.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2008] 4 SLR(R) 500
- Consecutive Sentences
- Outcome: The court found that the one-transaction rule was not violated and upheld the consecutive sentences for the criminal intimidation and stalking charges.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2014] 2 SLR 998
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Criminal Intimidation
- Unlawful Stalking
- Intentionally Causing Alarm
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
- Harassment Law
- Stalking Law
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Tan Yao Min | District Court | Yes | [2017] SGDC 167 | Singapore | Cited as the grounds of decision of the District Judge. |
| Public Prosecutor v UI | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 500 | Singapore | Cited for the principles regarding appeals on sentence. |
| Tan Koon Swan v PP | N/A | Yes | [1985-1986] SLR(R) 976 | Singapore | Cited as authority for the principle that an appellate court will not ordinarily disturb the sentence imposed by the trial court except in specific circumstances. |
| Ong Ah Tiong v PP | N/A | Yes | [2004] 1 SLR(R) 587 | Singapore | Cited as authority for the principle that an appellate court will not ordinarily disturb the sentence imposed by the trial court except in specific circumstances. |
| Public Prosecutor v Siew Boon Loong | N/A | Yes | [2005] 1 SLR(R) 611 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a sentence is only manifestly excessive or inadequate if it requires substantial alterations rather than minute corrections to remedy the injustice. |
| Lim Ghim Peow v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 1287 | Singapore | Cited for the relevant principles in sentencing an offender with a mental disorder falling short of unsoundness of mind. |
| Public Prosecutor v Chong Hou En | High Court | Yes | [2015] 3 SLR 222 | Singapore | Cited for summarizing the principles set out in Lim Ghim Peow regarding sentencing offenders with mental disorders. |
| Chong Yee Ka v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2017] 4 SLR 309 | Singapore | Cited as a contrasting case where the appellant's psychiatric conditions contributed significantly to the commission of the offence, justifying a departure from the sentencing norm. |
| Ramanathan Yogendran v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR(R) 471 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a threat to kill made over a telephone call may be considered less aggravating. |
| Woon Salvacion Dalayon v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [2003] 1 SLR(R) 129 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a threat made in person may not necessarily be a serious one when seen in its context. |
| Public Prosecutor v Luan Yuanxin | N/A | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR(R) 613 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where the victim was alarmed by the threat and feared for her safety, these are aggravating factors to be borne in mind by a sentencing judge. |
| Tay We-Jin v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [2001] SGDC 220 | Singapore | Cited as a sentencing precedent involving threats to compel the victims to engage in sexual acts. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ang Chee Hian | N/A | Yes | [2006] SGDC 151 | Singapore | Cited as a sentencing precedent involving threats to compel the victims to engage in sexual acts. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mok Wai Lun Calvin | N/A | Yes | [2015] SGDC 306 | Singapore | Cited as a sentencing precedent for intentionally causing alarm under the POHA. |
| Public Prosecutor v Moh Yan Chung | N/A | Yes | [2017] SGDC 46 | Singapore | Cited as a sentencing precedent for unlawful stalking under the POHA. |
| Mohamed Shouffee bin Adam v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 998 | Singapore | Cited for the application of the one-transaction rule and the totality principle in determining consecutive sentences. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lee Cheow Loong Charles | N/A | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 961 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that distinct offences should be treated as forming part of a single transaction or whether they call for multiple punishments. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 506 | Singapore |
| Protection from Harassment Act (Cap 256A, 2015 Rev Ed) s 7(1) | Singapore |
| Protection from Harassment Act (Cap 256A, 2015 Rev Ed) s 7(6) | Singapore |
| Protection from Harassment Act (Cap 256A, 2015 Rev Ed) s 3(1)(b) | Singapore |
| Protection from Harassment Act (Cap 256A, 2015 Rev Ed) s 3(2) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 307(1) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Criminal Intimidation
- Unlawful Stalking
- Protection from Harassment Act
- Specific Deterrence
- Public Protection
- Victim Impact Statement
- Autism Spectrum Disorder
- Recalcitrant
- Harassment
- Threat to Kill
- Threatening Communication
- Course of Conduct
15.2 Keywords
- criminal intimidation
- stalking
- harassment
- sentencing
- mental disorder
- protection from harassment act
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Protection from Harassment | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Offences | 80 |
| Sentencing | 75 |
| Criminal Procedure | 70 |
| Statutory Interpretation | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Harassment
- Stalking
- Sentencing