Sim Kang Wei v Public Prosecutor: Unlawful Stalking and Theft under POHA and Penal Code
Sim Kang Wei appealed to the High Court of Singapore against his sentence for theft and unlawful stalking. He was convicted of theft of an iPhone and unlawful stalking under the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) for recording up-skirt videos, hacking social media accounts, and unsubscribing the victim from university courses. The High Court, while upholding the conviction, found the original sentence of 10 months for unlawful stalking to be manifestly excessive and reduced it to 5 months, with the 3-day sentence for theft to run concurrently. The appeal was heard by Justice Chua Lee Ming.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal allowed in part.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Sim Kang Wei appeals against his sentence for theft and unlawful stalking, involving up-skirt videos and hacking. The High Court reduces his sentence for stalking.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal partially unsuccessful | Partial | Kang Jia Hui of Attorney-General’s Chambers Nicholas Khoo of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Sim Kang Wei | Appellant | Individual | Appeal allowed in part | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chua Lee Ming | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Kang Jia Hui | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Nicholas Khoo | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Raphael Louis | Ray Louis Law Corporation |
| Kenii Takashima | Ray Louis Law Corporation |
4. Facts
- Appellant took 53 up-skirt videos of the victim between January and March 2015.
- Appellant stole the victim’s handphone from her bag on 7 March 2015.
- Appellant extracted usernames and passwords from the victim's phone.
- Appellant accessed the victim’s Hotmail, Facebook, Gmail, Instagram, and Telegram accounts.
- Appellant de-registered the victim from two SMU modules.
- Appellant created a fake Instagram account with the victim’s photograph and sexual innuendos.
- Appellant initially lied to SMU and the police about his involvement.
5. Formal Citations
- Sim Kang Wei v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9337 of 2018, [2019] SGHC 129
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant became acquainted with the victim. | |
| Appellant and victim stopped communicating. | |
| Appellant and victim enrolled in SMU. | |
| Appellant started taking up-skirt videos of the victim. | |
| Appellant stole the victim’s handphone. | |
| Appellant de-registered victim from one SMU module. | |
| Appellant logged into victim’s ex-boyfriend’s Facebook account. | |
| Appellant wrote to SMU claiming he was de-registered from a module. | |
| SMU confronted the appellant. | |
| Victim made a police report about the appellant paying the 'harasser'. | |
| Appellant pleaded guilty and was convicted. | |
| High Court hearing. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Unlawful Stalking
- Outcome: The High Court found the original sentence of 10 months' imprisonment to be manifestly excessive and reduced it to 5 months.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Taking up-skirt videos
- Gaining unauthorized access to email and social media accounts
- Making unauthorized modifications to email and social media accounts
- Unsubscribing victim from courses
- Related Cases:
- [2019] SGHC 99
- [2017] 2 SLR 449
- [2018] 3 SLR 1134
- Theft
- Outcome: The High Court upheld the sentence of three days' imprisonment.
- Category: Substantive
- Sentencing
- Outcome: The High Court reduced the sentence for unlawful stalking, finding the original sentence manifestly excessive and giving more weight to mitigating factors.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Rehabilitation vs. Deterrence
- Manifestly Excessive Sentence
- Mitigating Factors
- Related Cases:
- [2019] SGHC 99
- [2017] 2 SLR 449
- [2018] 5 SLR 1289
- [2016] 1 SLR 334
- [2018] 4 SLR 1294
- [2018] 3 SLR 1134
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Theft
- Unlawful Stalking
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
- Stalking
- Theft
11. Industries
- Education
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lim Teck Kim v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2019] SGHC 99 | Singapore | Discusses and declines to adopt a sentencing framework for unlawful stalking offences under s 7 of POHA. |
| Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 449 | Singapore | Enunciates a sentencing framework that requires a court to identify offence-specific aggravating factors and determine the sentencing band. |
| Pram Nair v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 1015 | Singapore | Cited in relation to the sentencing framework. |
| Angliss Singapore Pte Ltd v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 653 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the maximum sentence is meant for the worst conceivable case. |
| A Karthik v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [2018] 5 SLR 1289 | Singapore | Discusses the consideration of rehabilitation in sentencing adult offenders. |
| Public Prosecutor v Koh Wen Jie Boaz | Unknown | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 334 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the focus on rehabilitation can be diminished by considerations such as deterrence or retribution. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lim Chee Yin Jordon | Unknown | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 1294 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the focus on rehabilitation can be diminished by considerations such as deterrence or retribution. |
| Tan Yao Min v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2018] 3 SLR 1134 | Singapore | Discusses precedents for sentencing in unlawful stalking cases and distinguishes the present case. |
| Public Prosecutor v Tan Yao Min | District Court | Yes | [2017] SGDC 167 | Singapore | Details the charges and sentences in the Tan Yao Min case. |
| Public Prosecutor v Sim Kang Wei | District Court | Yes | [2019] SGMC 4 | Singapore | The District Judge’s grounds of decision in the present case. |
| Public Prosecutor v Moh Yan Chung | District Court | Yes | [2017] SGDC 46 | Singapore | Cited as a precedent for sentencing in unlawful stalking cases. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 379 | Singapore |
| Protection from Harassment Act 2014 (Cap 265A, 2014 Rev Ed) s 7(1) | Singapore |
| Protection from Harassment Act 2014 (Cap 265A, 2014 Rev Ed) s 7(6) | Singapore |
| Films Act (Cap 107, 1998 Rev Ed) s 30(1) | Singapore |
| Films Act s 21(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 509 | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 511 | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 506 | Singapore |
| Protection from Harassment Act s 3(1)(b) | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 426 | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 342 | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 376B(1) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Up-skirt videos
- Unlawful stalking
- Hacking
- Protection from Harassment Act
- Sentencing
- Rehabilitation
- Deterrence
- Mitigating factors
- Manifestly excessive
- Remorse
15.2 Keywords
- Unlawful stalking
- Theft
- Protection from Harassment Act
- Sentencing
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Protection from Harassment | 95 |
| Unlawful stalking | 90 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Statutory offences | 85 |
| Sentencing | 80 |
| Criminal Procedure | 80 |
| Theft | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Harassment
- Theft
- Sentencing