Public Prosecutor v BNO: Outrage of Modesty and Fellatio of a Minor

In Public Prosecutor v BNO, the High Court of Singapore heard a case against BNO, who was charged with outrage of modesty and two counts of fellatio against a nine-year-old boy. The incidents allegedly occurred during a sleepover at BNO's residence. The court found BNO guilty on all three charges and sentenced him to 14 years' imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Accused convicted and sentenced to 14 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

BNO was convicted of outrage of modesty and fellatio against a 9-year-old boy. The High Court sentenced BNO to 14 years' imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorProsecutionGovernment AgencyWonWon
Christina Koh of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Nicholas Lai of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Raja Mohan of Attorney-General’s Chambers
BNODefendantIndividualLostLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
See Kee OonJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Christina KohAttorney-General’s Chambers
Nicholas LaiAttorney-General’s Chambers
Raja MohanAttorney-General’s Chambers
Selva K NaiduLiberty Law Practice LLP

4. Facts

  1. The Victim was a nine-year-old boy and a schoolmate of the Accused’s youngest son.
  2. The Accused invited the Victim for a trick-or-treat party and sleepover on 31 October 2015.
  3. The Victim testified that the Accused touched his penis and performed fellatio on him without consent.
  4. The Accused denied all allegations, claiming he was not in the room at the time of the alleged incidents.
  5. The Accused claimed he suffered from a spinal injury that would have made the alleged acts difficult.
  6. The Victim told his father about the incidents immediately after leaving the Accused's residence.
  7. The Victim's father confronted the Accused, who denied the allegations.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Public Prosecutor v BNO, Criminal Case No 68 of 2017, [2018] SGHC 243

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Victim and E were classmates.
First sleepover at Accused's residence.
Second sleepover at Accused's residence.
After-school playdate at Accused's residence.
Trick-or-treat party and sleepover at Accused's residence; alleged offences occurred.
Victim's mother contacted teacher JR.
Victim's father contacted counsellor CF.
Victim stopped being friends with E.
Police report lodged.
Forensic examination report produced.
Annex C served on the Accused.
Trial commenced.
See Kee Oon J heard the case.
Defence was called.
Counsel for the Accused applied for a copy of the Victim’s statement recorded by the Police on 2 November 2015.
AW remembered that the time was 10.58pm when one of R’s friends was reminded that he had two minutes to get home.
E testified that during the second sleepover, none of his friends, including the Victim, took a shower.
E then fell asleep.
Dr Yegappan Muthukaruppan testified that the Accused had nerve impingements at his lower back and neck and that his condition had been getting progressively worse.
Frances Chu testified that the reformatting process would not completely erase the data in the hard disk in his laptop.
Neo Poh Eng testified on the stand that the Prosecution would not be adducing Annex C of the forensic examination report.
Neo Poh Eng was recalled as a rebuttal witness by the Prosecution to prove that all the data in the Accused’s laptop was completely wiped out pursuant to the total reformat.
See Kee Oon J heard the case.
Accused convicted.
Accused sentenced.
Judgment issued.
Judgment date.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Outrage of Modesty
    • Outcome: The court found the accused guilty of outrage of modesty.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Fellatio
    • Outcome: The court found the accused guilty of two counts of fellatio.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Admissibility of Evidence
    • Outcome: The court dismissed the Prosecution’s application to adduce Annex C as rebuttal evidence.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [1997] 3 SLR(R) 467
      • [2011] 3 SLR 1205
      • [2008] 2 SLR(R) 239
      • [1980] 1 AC 402
      • [1921] 3 KB 464
  4. Disclosure of Witness Statements
    • Outcome: The court dismissed the Accused’s application for the disclosure of the Victim’s statement recorded on 2 November 2015.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [2011] 3 SLR 1205
      • [2015] 4 SLR 1184
      • [2012] 3 SLR 34
  5. Corroboration of Evidence
    • Outcome: The court found that the Victim’s contemporaneous complaint to B was corroborative evidence.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [1916] 2 KB 658
      • [1950] MLJ 33
      • [2012] 3 SLR 34
      • [1995] 2 SLR(R) 591
  6. Sentencing for Sexual Offences
    • Outcome: The court sentenced the Accused to 14 years’ imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [2017] 2 SLR 449
      • [2017] 2 SLR 1015
      • [2018] 3 SLR 1048
      • [2018] SGCA 32

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Criminal Prosecution
  2. Imprisonment
  3. Caning

9. Cause of Actions

  • Outrage of Modesty
  • Sexual Assault by Penetration

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Law
  • Sexual Offences

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Public Prosecutor v Bridges ChristopherUnknownYes[1997] 3 SLR(R) 467SingaporeCited for the threshold for allowing rebuttal evidence.
The King v BaskervilleUnknownYes[1916] 2 KB 658United KingdomCited as the strict approach to corroboration that Singapore courts have rejected.
Public Prosecutor v MardaiUnknownYes[1950] MLJ 33MalaysiaCited for the more liberal approach to corroboration.
AOF v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2012] 3 SLR 34SingaporeCited for reiterating the endorsement of the more liberal approach to corroboration and for the conclusion that the failure to meet the strict standards of Baskerville corroboration does not rule out the relevance of evidence.
Khoo Kwoon Hain v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[1995] 2 SLR(R) 591SingaporeCited for the caution that the court should bear in mind the fact that corroboration by virtue of Section 159 alone is not corroboration by independent evidence because it is self-serving.
Osman bin Ali v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[1971–1973] SLR(R) 503SingaporeCited as an example where rebuttal evidence was allowed in relation to the defence of diminished responsibility, for which the burden of proof was on the defendant.
Muhammad bin Kadar and another v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2011] 3 SLR 1205SingaporeCited for confirming the court's discretion to exclude any evidence that had more prejudicial effect than probative value and for setting out the materials that the Prosecution must disclose to the Defence.
Law Society of Singapore v Tan Guat Neo PhyllisUnknownYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 239SingaporeCited for the holding that the court has a discretion to exclude any evidence that had more prejudicial effect than probative value.
R v SangUnknownYes[1980] 1 AC 402United KingdomCited for the principle that a trial judge in a criminal trial always has a discretion to refuse to admit evidence if in his opinion its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value.
Lee Siew Boon Winston v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2015] 4 SLR 1184SingaporeCited for the presumption that the Prosecution has complied with the disclosure obligation and this presumption is only displaced if the court has sufficient reason to doubt that the Prosecution has complied with the disclosure obligation.
R v Henry BeechamCourt of Criminal AppealYes[1921] 3 KB 464EnglandCited for the principle that evidence given by an accused during cross-examination as to his alleged good disposition or reputation in response to questions posed by the Prosecution cannot be considered a lowering of his character shield.
XP v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 686SingaporeCited as an example where the court found that the complainant had failed altogether to mention a crucial detail which was stated in the charge that was proceeded with at trial.
Haliffie bin Mamat v Public Prosecutor and other appealsCourt of AppealYes[2016] 5 SLR 636SingaporeCited for the principle that where there is a lack of corroborative evidence, the testimony of a victim of a sexual assault must be 'unusually convincing'.
PP v Mohammed Liton Mohammed Syeed MallikUnknownYes[2008] 1 SLR(R) 601SingaporeCited for the definition of 'unusually convincing' testimony.
Chean Siong Guat v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[1969] 2 MLJ 63MalaysiaCited for the principle that sometimes what appears to be discrepancies are in reality different ways of describing the same thing, or it may happen that the witnesses who are describing the same thing might have seen it in different ways and at different times.
Goh Han Heng v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[2003] 4 SLR(R) 374SingaporeCited for the principle that the Prosecution would only bear the burden of proving a lack of motive to falsely implicate the appellant if an accused is able to adduce sufficient evidence of such a motive so as to raise a reasonable doubt in the Prosecution’s case.
Public Prosecutor v Ilechukwu Uchechukwu ChukwudiUnknownYes[2015] SGCA 33SingaporeCited for the principle that the evidence of a witness who is demonstrably economical with the truth without any good reason ought to be treated with a healthy level of caution.
Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2017] 2 SLR 449SingaporeCited for the two-step sentencing band approach for sentencing rape offences.
Pram Nair v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2017] 2 SLR 1015SingaporeCited for the sentencing bands for digital penetration.
GBR v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[2018] 3 SLR 1048SingaporeCited for introducing a sentencing framework for outrage of modesty of persons under 14 years of age.
Loh Khoon Hai v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[1996] 2 SLR 321SingaporeCited for the principle that in the process of testimony, minor inconsistencies were often inevitable, so the crux was whether the totality of the evidence was believable.
Mohamed Shouffee bin Adam v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[2014] 2 SLR 998SingaporeCited for laying down the applicable principles pertaining to the totality principle in sentencing where a judge is obliged to impose consecutive sentences.
Public Prosecutor v Chua Hock LeongCourt of AppealYes[2018] SGCA 32SingaporeCited as a useful comparator because it involved a claim-trial situation, a young and vulnerable victim and psychological harm to the victim as a result of the offender’s acts.
Chang Kar Meng v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[2017] 2 SLR 68SingaporeCited for the principle that victims of sexual offences are made to relive the trauma of their sexual assault when they have to attend court to give evidence and be cross-examined on it.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Section 354(2) of the Penal Code, Chapter 224 (2008 Rev. Ed.)Singapore
Section 376(1)(b) of the Penal Code, Chapter 224 (2008 Rev. Ed.)Singapore
Section 376(4)(b) of the Penal Code, Chapter 224 (2008 Rev. Ed.)Singapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed)Singapore
Oaths and Declarations Act (Cap 211, 2001 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Outrage of Modesty
  • Fellatio
  • Sexual Assault
  • Corroboration
  • Credibility
  • Victim
  • Accused
  • Sleepover
  • Penal Code
  • Evidence Act
  • Criminal Procedure Code

15.2 Keywords

  • Criminal Law
  • Sexual Offences
  • Outrage of Modesty
  • Fellatio
  • Child Abuse
  • Singapore
  • High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Sexual Offences95
Outrage of Modesty90
Criminal Law90
Fellatio85
Criminal Procedure80
Offences75
Penal Code70

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Sexual Offences
  • Child Abuse