Public Prosecutor v Ridhaudin Ridhwan: Rape, Attempted Rape, Sexual Penetration, Outrage of Modesty, Consent, Mistake of Fact

In Public Prosecutor v Ridhaudin Ridhwan bin Bakri and others, the High Court of Singapore heard a case involving Ridhaudin Ridhwan bin Bakri, Muhammad Faris bin Ramlee, and Asep Ardiansyah, who were jointly tried for several sexual offences against a female complainant. The alleged offences occurred on 26 January 2014, in a hotel room. The primary legal issues were whether the complainant had the capacity to consent to the sexual acts and whether she did in fact consent. The court convicted Ridhaudin on all charges, convicted Faris on one charge and acquitted him on another, and convicted Asep on all charges.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Accused 1 convicted on all charges; Accused 2 convicted on one charge and acquitted on another; Accused 3 convicted on all charges.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court judgment involving multiple accused persons charged with sexual offences. The key issues were consent, capacity to consent, and mistake of fact.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorProsecutionGovernment AgencyPartial VictoryPartial
Charlene Tay Chia of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Amanda Chong Wei-zhen of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Sharmila Sripathy-Shanaz of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Tan Soo Tet of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Michael Quilindo of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Asep ArdiansyahDefendantIndividualLostLost
Ridhaudin Ridhwan Bin BakriDefendantIndividualLostLost
Muhammad Faris Bin RamleeDefendantIndividualPartial LossPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Woo Bih LiJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Charlene Tay ChiaAttorney-General’s Chambers
Amanda Chong Wei-zhenAttorney-General’s Chambers
Sharmila Sripathy-ShanazAttorney-General’s Chambers
Tan Soo TetAttorney-General’s Chambers
Michael QuilindoAttorney-General’s Chambers
Sunil SudheesanQuahe Woo & Palmer LLC
Ngiam Hian Theng DianaQuahe Woo & Palmer LLC
Wong Li-Yen DewDew Chambers
Tan Chor Hoon AliceDew Chambers
Low Jian HuiDew Chambers
Mohamed Niroze IdroosI.R.B Law LLP
Ng Joel Yuan-MingQuahe Woo & Palmer LLC
Ng Huiling CherylCLAS
Ahmad FirdausCLAS

4. Facts

  1. The three accused persons and the Complainant met for the first time at a birthday party on 25 January 2014.
  2. The alleged offences occurred in the morning of 26 January 2014, in a hotel room.
  3. The Complainant consumed alcohol at the party and became severely intoxicated.
  4. The Complainant had difficulty standing and vomited before the group planned to go to a nightclub.
  5. The Complainant was brought to the bathroom and later placed on the bed in an unconscious state.
  6. Fadly and Hazly raped the Complainant while she was unconscious and have been convicted and sentenced by another court.
  7. After returning from Zouk, Faris and Asep had sexual encounters with the Complainant in the bathroom.
  8. Ridhwan had penile-vaginal intercourse with the Complainant and sucked her nipples in the living room.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Public Prosecutor v Ridhaudin Ridhwan bin Bakri and others, Criminal Case No 35 of 2016, [2019] SGHC 105

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Accused persons and Complainant met at a birthday party.
Alleged sexual offences occurred in a hotel room.
Complainant filed a police report.
Accused persons were arrested.
Trial began.
Judgment reserved.
Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Consent
    • Outcome: The court determined that the complainant's level of intoxication negated her capacity to consent to the sexual acts.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Capacity to consent
      • Intoxication
      • Anterograde Amnesia
    • Related Cases:
      • [2017] 2 SLR 1015
      • [2013] 1 SLR 1217
  2. Mistake of Fact
    • Outcome: The court found that the accused persons did not establish the defence of mistake of fact on a balance of probabilities.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [1987] SLR(R) 567
  3. Joint Trial
    • Outcome: The court ordered a joint trial for the three accused persons.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [1993] 1 SLR(R) 308
      • [2000] 2 SLR(R) 541
      • [2002] 1 SLR(R) 1
      • [1999] SGHC 252
      • [1997] 2 SLR(R) 569
  4. Admissibility of Police Statements
    • Outcome: The court ruled that the police statements were admissible in evidence.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Voluntariness
      • Oppression
      • Procedural Irregularities
    • Related Cases:
      • [1998] 3 SLR(R) 619
      • [2006] 1 SLR(R) 319
      • [2014] 2 SLR 1189
      • [2011] 3 SLR 1205

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Imprisonment
  2. Fine
  3. Caning

9. Cause of Actions

  • Rape
  • Sexual Assault by Penetration
  • Attempted Rape
  • Outrage of Modesty

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Law
  • Sexual Assault
  • Rape

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Tse Po Chung Nathan and another v Public ProsecutorCourt of Criminal AppealYes[1993] 1 SLR(R) 308SingaporeCited for the test to determine whether several offences are connected to form the same transaction.
Sharom bin Ahmad and another v Public ProsecutorN/AYes[2000] 2 SLR(R) 541SingaporeCited in support of the test for determining whether several offences are connected to form the same transaction.
Lim Chuan Huat and another v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtNo[2002] 1 SLR(R) 1SingaporeCited as an analogous case regarding the court’s power to order a joint trial.
Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Rahmatullah Maniam bin Abdullah and anotherHigh CourtNo[1999] SGHC 252SingaporeCited for the principle that two accused persons who sexually assaulted the same victim on the same morning and at around the same place could be jointly tried.
Lee Kwang Peng v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtNo[1997] 2 SLR(R) 569SingaporeCited for the principle that the court can order a joinder of charges but analyze the evidence separately if required.
Chai Chien Wei Kelvin v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[1998] 3 SLR(R) 619SingaporeCited for the test of voluntariness of statements.
Lim Thian Lai v Public ProsecutorN/AYes[2006] 1 SLR(R) 319SingaporeCited for the test of voluntariness of statements.
Tey Tsun Hang v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtNo[2014] 2 SLR 1189SingaporeCited for the principle that oppression is rationalized within the framework of threat, inducements or promise.
Muhammad bin Kadar v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealNo[2011] 3 SLR 1205SingaporeCited for the principle that statements taken in deliberate or reckless non-compliance with procedural requirements will generally require more cogent explanation from the Prosecution.
AOF v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealNo[2012] 3 SLR 34SingaporeCited for the principle that a complainant’s testimony can constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt only when it is unusually convincing.
XP v Public ProsecutorN/ANo[2008] 4 SLR(R) 686SingaporeCited for the principle that the “unusually convincing” standard is a cognitive aid and does not change the ultimate standard of proof required of the Prosecution.
Haliffie bin Mamat v Public Prosecutor and other appealsN/ANo[2016] 5 SLR 636SingaporeCited for the principle that the “unusually convincing” standard is a cognitive aid and does not change the ultimate standard of proof required of the Prosecution.
Pram Nair v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2017] 2 SLR 1015SingaporeCited for the principles on the construction and application of s 90(b) of the Penal Code regarding consent.
Ong Mingwee v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtNo[2013] 1 SLR 1217SingaporeCited as a landmark decision on the issue of consent in sexual offences.
Public Prosecutor v Teo Eng Chan and othersN/ANo[1987] SLR(R) 567SingaporeCited for the principle that the accused person bears the burden of showing, on a balance of probabilities, that “by reason of a mistake of fact… in good faith” he believed himself to be justified by law.
Public Prosecutor v Azuar Bin AhamadHigh CourtNo[2014] SGHC 149SingaporeCited for a comprehensive definition of anterograde amnesia.
Public Prosecutor v Yeo Choon PohN/ANo[1993] 3 SLR(R) 302SingaporeCited for the principle that the fact that an accused person has lied may in certain limited circumstances amount to corroboration because it indicates a consciousness of guilt.
R v Lucas (Ruth)N/ANo[1981] QB 720N/ACited for the requirements for a lie to amount to corroboration.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 376(2)(a)Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 376(3)Singapore
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 354(1)Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 511Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 90(b)Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 79Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 52Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 26Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 80Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 33Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 22Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 258(5)Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) ss 143(b)Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) ss 143(c)Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 258(3)Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) ss 8(3)(a)Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) ss 8(3)(b)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Consent
  • Intoxication
  • Anterograde Amnesia
  • Mistake of Fact
  • Voluntariness
  • Oppression
  • Joint Trial
  • Sexual Penetration
  • Rape
  • Outrage of Modesty

15.2 Keywords

  • Rape
  • Sexual Assault
  • Consent
  • Intoxication
  • Singapore
  • Criminal Law

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Criminal Law95
Sexual Offences90
Rape90
Consent85
Attempted Rape80
Sexual assault by penetration80
Outrage of Modesty75
Penal Code70
Intoxication70
Mistake of fact65
Criminal Procedure60
Anterograde Amnesia60
Evidence Law50
Evidence50
Confessions40
Burden of proof40
Admissibility of evidence40
Mens rea40
Credibility of Witness30
Witnesses30
Criminal Revision30
Accident30
Civil Procedure20
Consent of Public Prosecutor10
Newton hearings10
Criminal motions10
Prevention of Human Trafficking Act10
Obstructing, preventing, perverting or defeating course of justice10
Public Prosecutor10
Irregularities in proceedings10
Defective consent of Public Prosecutor10
Curative powers of court10
Consequences of Prosecution’s non-disclosure5
Amendment of Charges5
Prosecution by Attrition5
Prosecution failing to disclose material5
Prosecutorial Misconduct5
Prosecutorial Discretion5
Prosecutorial Powers5

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Sexual Offences
  • Consent
  • Intoxication
  • Criminal Procedure