GCO v Public Prosecutor: Appeal Against Sentence for Outrage of Modesty and Insulting Modesty
GCO appealed to the High Court of Singapore against his sentences for outrage of modesty and insulting the modesty of a woman. The District Judge had sentenced him to eight months' imprisonment and three strokes of the cane for the outrage of modesty offence, and one month's imprisonment for the insulting modesty offence, to run consecutively. See Kee Oon J allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the caning for the outrage of modesty offence and substituting the one-month imprisonment for the insulting modesty offence with a fine of $2,000, in default two weeks' imprisonment.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed in Part
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
GCO appeals against his sentence for outrage of modesty and insulting modesty. The court allows the appeal in part, setting aside caning and reducing the sentence for insulting modesty.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GCO | Appellant | Individual | Appeal allowed in part | Partial | Tan Hee Joek |
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal partially unsuccessful | Partial | Raja Mohan |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| See Kee Oon | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Tan Hee Joek | Tan See Swan & Co |
| Raja Mohan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- The appellant pleaded guilty to outrage of modesty and insulting modesty.
- The appellant intruded into a female toilet and peeped at the first victim while she was showering.
- The appellant touched the second victim's vagina area while she was sleeping.
- The appellant had received a conditional warning for a similar offence prior to committing the outrage of modesty.
- The second victim was sleeping when the outrage of modesty was committed.
- The appellant apologized to the second victim after being confronted.
5. Formal Citations
- GCO v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9232 of 2018, [2019] SGHC 31
- Public Prosecutor v GCO, , [2018] SGMC 54
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Insulting modesty offence committed | |
| Appellant served with a 12-month conditional warning | |
| Outrage of modesty offence committed | |
| Institute of Mental Health psychiatrist prepared a memo | |
| Institute of Mental Health report issued | |
| Hearing date | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Sentencing
- Outcome: The court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the caning sentence for the outrage of modesty offence and substituting the imprisonment sentence with a fine for the insulting modesty offence.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Manifestly excessive sentence
- Appropriateness of probation
- Application of Kunasekaran framework
- Appropriateness of imprisonment for insulting modesty
- Related Cases:
- [2018] 4 SLR 580
- [2015] 3 SLR 222
- [2018] 4 SLR 1294
- [2016] 5 SLR 207
- [2006] 1 SLR(R) 530
- [2016] 1 SLR 334
- [2016] 1 SLR 1370
- [2018] 5 SLR 799
- [2006] 4 SLR 10
- [2008] 1 SLR(R) 601
- [1997] 3 SLR(R) 494
- Outrage of Modesty
- Outcome: The court upheld the imprisonment sentence but set aside the caning sentence.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Intrusion upon private parts
- Degree of sexual exploitation
- Vulnerability of victim
- Related Cases:
- [2018] 4 SLR 580
- Insulting Modesty
- Outcome: The court substituted the imprisonment sentence with a fine.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Premeditation
- Sentencing precedents
- Related Cases:
- [2008] 1 SLR(R) 601
- [1997] 3 SLR(R) 494
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against sentence
- Probation
- Mandatory Treatment Order
9. Cause of Actions
- Outrage of Modesty
- Insulting the Modesty of a Woman
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- Education
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Chong Hou En | High Court | Yes | [2015] 3 SLR 222 | Singapore | Cited to support the view that voyeurism is a clinical description for a perverse behavioral option that does not deprive a person of self-control. |
| Kunasekaran s/o Kalimuthu Somasundara v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 580 | Singapore | Cited for the sentencing framework for outrage of modesty offences. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lim Chee Yin Jordon | High Court | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 1294 | Singapore | Cited for the principles concerning when probation should be ordered. |
| Sim Wen Yi Ernest v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2016] 5 SLR 207 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that older offenders might be more receptive to probation. |
| Goh Lee Yin v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 530 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an offender must demonstrate an extremely strong propensity for reform, or that there be exceptional circumstances warranting the grant of probation. |
| Public Prosecutor v Koh Wen Jie Boaz | High Court | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 334 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that even if the appellant were found to possess some potential for rehabilitation, it would be eclipsed or significantly outweighed by deterrence in the present case because the offence is a serious one. |
| Wham Kwok Han Jolovan v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 1370 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a warning is not binding on its recipient such that it affects his legal rights, interests or liabilities. |
| Public Prosecutor v Raveen Balakrishnan | High Court | Yes | [2018] 5 SLR 799 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a stern or conditional warning issued by the relevant authorities in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion is incomparable with a judicial determination of guilt or a judicially determined sentence. |
| Tan Kay Beng v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR 10 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it is an aggravating factor for an offender to have committed an offence of a similar nature to the one for which he is presently being charged, because it may reflect a pattern or tendency for repeat offending. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mohammed Liton Mohammed Syeed Mallik | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 601 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the norm for a section 509 offence is a fine of $1,000 to $2,000. |
| Tan Pin Seng v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR(R) 494 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a fine of $1,000 to $2,000 is the norm for a section 509 offence. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 354(1) | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 509 | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 447 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 337(1)(c) | Singapore |
| Registration of Criminals Act (Cap 268, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Outrage of modesty
- Insulting modesty
- Conditional warning
- Voyeurism
- Fetishism
- Sentencing framework
- Premeditation
- Mitigation
- Aggravation
15.2 Keywords
- outrage of modesty
- insulting modesty
- sentencing
- appeal
- criminal law
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
- Appeals
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
- Criminal Procedure
- Appeals