Public Prosecutor v Ong Soon Heng: Rape and Abduction Case

In Public Prosecutor v Ong Soon Heng, the High Court of Singapore convicted Ong Soon Heng of rape and abduction. The charges stemmed from an incident on 24 July 2014, where Ong Soon Heng drove the victim, who was severely intoxicated and unconscious, from Zouk nightclub to his residence and had sexual intercourse with her. The court, presided over by Aedit Abdullah J, found that the victim lacked the capacity to consent due to her intoxicated state and that Ong Soon Heng had compelled her movement by force. Ong Soon Heng was sentenced to a global imprisonment term of 13 years and 6 months, 12 strokes of the cane, and a compensation order of $76.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Accused convicted on both charges.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Ong Soon Heng was convicted of rape and abduction. The victim was unconscious due to intoxication and lacked the capacity to consent.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorProsecutionGovernment AgencyJudgment for ProsecutionWon
Sellakumaran Sellamuthoo of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Siti Adrianni Marhain of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Ong Soon HengDefendantIndividualConvictedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Aedit AbdullahJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Sellakumaran SellamuthooAttorney-General’s Chambers
Siti Adrianni MarhainAttorney-General’s Chambers
Sunil SudheesanQuahe Woo & Palmer LLC
Peter Keith FernandoLeo Fernando
Diana NgiamQuahe Woo & Palmer LLC

4. Facts

  1. The victim consumed alcoholic beverages at Zouk nightclub and appeared to lose consciousness.
  2. The accused drove the victim to his residence at Hume Heights.
  3. The accused had sexual intercourse with the victim at his residence.
  4. The victim had no recollection of the events between losing consciousness at Zouk and waking up at the accused's residence.
  5. The victim's boyfriend tracked her location to the accused's residence using a mobile application.
  6. The victim's blood alcohol concentration was 62mg/100ml at 12:45 pm on 24 July 2014.
  7. CCTV footage showed the victim being carried out of Zouk in a fireman's lift while limp and unresponsive.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Public Prosecutor v Ong Soon Heng, Criminal Case No 29 of 2017, [2018] SGHC 58

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Victim and Accused visited Zouk nightclub.
Accused drove Victim to his residence.
Accused had sexual intercourse with Victim.
Trial began.
Trial continued.
Trial continued.
Trial continued.
Trial continued.
Trial continued.
Trial continued.
Trial continued.
Trial continued.
Trial continued.
Trial continued.
Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Rape
    • Outcome: The court found that the victim lacked the capacity to consent due to intoxication, and the accused was convicted of rape.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Lack of consent due to intoxication
    • Related Cases:
      • [2012] 3 SLR 34
      • [2017] 2 SLR 1015
      • [2017] 2 SLR 449
  2. Abduction
    • Outcome: The court found that the accused had compelled the victim's movement by force, even though she was unconscious, and the accused was convicted of abduction.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Mistake of Fact
    • Outcome: The court found that the defence of mistake of fact was not made out.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [1987] SLR(R) 567
      • [2017] 2 SLR 1015

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Imprisonment
  2. Caning
  3. Compensation

9. Cause of Actions

  • Rape
  • Abduction

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Law
  • Rape
  • Abduction

11. Industries

  • Hospitality

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
AOF v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2012] 3 SLR 34SingaporeCited for the principle that in sexual assault cases, the complainant’s evidence must be unusually convincing or corroborated by evidence for the charge to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Public Prosecutor v BLVHigh CourtYes[2017] SGHC 154SingaporeCited to show the modern judicial tendency appears to lean in favour of relying more heavily on the internal and external consistency of evidence rather than an assessment of the complainant’s demeanour.
Public Prosecutor v MardaiUnknownYes[1950] MLJ 33MalaysiaCited for the principle that subsequent statements by the complainant himself or herself constitute corroboration so long as those statements implicating the accused were made at the first reasonable opportunity after the commission of the offence.
XP v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 686SingaporeCited for the principle that the unusually convincing standard is the cognitive aid that helps untie the “evidential Gordian knot… if proof is to be founded solely from the complainant’s testimony against the accused”.
Haliffie bin Mamat v Public Prosecutor and other appealsCourt of AppealYes[2016] 5 SLR 636SingaporeCited for the principle that the unusually convincing standard is the cognitive aid that helps untie the “evidential Gordian knot… if proof is to be founded solely from the complainant’s testimony against the accused”.
Public Prosecutor v Pram NairHigh CourtYes[2016] 4 SLR 880SingaporeCited regarding expert evidence on the victim’s estimated blood alcohol concentration at the material time.
Pram Nair v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2017] 2 SLR 1015SingaporeCited regarding the defence of mistake of fact.
Public Prosecutor v Teo Eng Chan and othersUnknownYes[1987] SLR(R) 567SingaporeCited regarding the defence of mistake of fact.
Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2017] 2 SLR 449SingaporeCited for the sentencing framework for rape offenders.
Public Prosecutor v NFHigh CourtYes[2006] 4 SLR(R) 849SingaporeCited regarding abuse of position as an aggravating factor.
Ng Jun Xian v PPUnknownYes[2017] 3 SLR 933SingaporeCited as an example of premeditation.
PP v Lee Ah ChoyUnknownYes[2016] 4 SLR 1300SingaporeCited as an example of premeditation.
PP v Sim Wei Liang BenjaminHigh CourtYes[2015] SGHC 240SingaporeCited as an example of premeditation.
Public Prosecutor v Chee Cheong Hin ConstanceHigh CourtYes[2006] 2 SLR(R) 707SingaporeCited regarding sentencing considerations for kidnapping offences.
Soh Meiyun v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2014] 3 SLR 299SingaporeCited regarding the purpose of compensation orders.
Public Prosecutor v Donohue EniliaHigh CourtYes[2005] 1 SLR(R) 220SingaporeCited regarding the requirements for making a compensation order.
Public Prosecutor v AOBHigh CourtYes[2011] 2 SLR 793SingaporeCited regarding the purpose of compensation orders.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 375(1)(a)Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 375(2)Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 362Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 363ASingapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 90(b)Singapore
Penal Code s 79Singapore
Penal Code s 52Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) s 8(3)Singapore
Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) s 153(1)Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 359(1)Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 359(2)Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 360(1)(d)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Intoxication
  • Consent
  • Abduction
  • Rape
  • Vulnerability
  • Blood Alcohol Concentration
  • Mistake of Fact
  • Unusually Convincing Standard

15.2 Keywords

  • Rape
  • Abduction
  • Intoxication
  • Consent
  • Singapore
  • Criminal Law

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Abduction95
Criminal Law95
Rape95
Criminal Procedure90
Offences90
Sexual Offences90
Sentencing85

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Sexual Offences
  • Criminal Procedure
  • Sentencing