Asep Ardiansyah v Public Prosecutor: Attempted Rape & Sexual Penetration of Intoxicated Complainant
Asep Ardiansyah appealed to the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore against his conviction by the High Court for sexual assault by penetration and attempted rape of the complainant. The incident occurred at a hotel room after a birthday party where the complainant became heavily intoxicated. The Court of Appeal, comprising Judith Prakash JA, Tay Yong Kwang JA, and Belinda Ang Saw Ean J, dismissed the appeal, holding that the complainant lacked the capacity to consent to the sexual acts due to her severe intoxication. The court found that the evidence supported the conclusion that the complainant was close to unconsciousness and therefore unable to give valid consent.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Asep Ardiansyah appeals conviction for sexual penetration and attempted rape of an intoxicated complainant. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the complainant lacked capacity to consent.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Judgment Upheld | Won | Ng Yiwen of Attorney-General’s Chambers Gregory Gan of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Asep Ardiansyah | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Judith Prakash | Judge of Appeal | Yes |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge of Appeal | No |
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Ng Yiwen | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Gregory Gan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Sanjiv Rajan | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Cheryl Ng | Intelleigen Legal LLC |
| Thangavelu | Trident Law Corporation |
| Leonard Cheng | Trident Law Corporation |
4. Facts
- The complainant was invited to a birthday party at a hotel room.
- The complainant consumed several alcoholic drinks at the party.
- The complainant had difficulty standing and collapsed on the floor.
- The complainant was taken to the bathroom where she vomited.
- The complainant was placed on the bed in an unconscious state.
- The appellant returned to the hotel room after an altercation.
- The appellant found the complainant in the bathroom.
- The appellant inserted his penis into the complainant's mouth.
- The appellant attempted to insert his penis into the complainant's vagina but could not sustain an erection.
5. Formal Citations
- Asep Ardiansyah v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Appeal No 32 of 2019, [2020] SGCA 74
- Public Prosecutor v Ridhaudin Ridhwan bin Bakri and others, , [2019] SGHC 105
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Complainant invited to Mr. Elmi’s birthday party. | |
| Complainant arrived at the hotel room after midnight. | |
| Complainant collapsed on the ground of the first floor. | |
| Mr. Fadly and Mr. Hazly took a photograph of themselves with the complainant partially undressed. | |
| Mr. Elmi returned to the hotel room. | |
| Mr. Fadly and Mr. Hazly raped the complainant. | |
| Appellant returned to the hotel room. | |
| Mr. Faris had sexual intercourse with the complainant. | |
| Appellant inserted his penis into the complainant’s mouth and attempted to insert his penis into her vagina. | |
| First statement recorded from the appellant. | |
| Second statement given by the appellant to the police. | |
| High Court judge convicted the appellant. | |
| Criminal Appeal No 32 of 2019 filed. | |
| Court of Appeal heard the appeal. | |
| Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. |
7. Legal Issues
- Capacity to Consent
- Outcome: The court held that the complainant lacked the capacity to consent due to her severe intoxication.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Intoxication
- Anterograde Amnesia
- Related Cases:
- [2017] 2 SLR 1015
- Mistake of Fact
- Outcome: The court rejected the defense of mistake of fact, finding that the appellant's belief that the complainant had consented was not held in good faith.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2017] 2 SLR 1015
- [1987] SLR(R) 567
- Attempted Rape
- Outcome: The court held that the charge for attempted rape had been established beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Impossible Attempts
- Intention to Commit a Criminal Act
- Related Cases:
- [2020] 1 SLR 649
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against Conviction
9. Cause of Actions
- Sexual Assault by Penetration
- Attempted Rape
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- Hospitality
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Ridhaudin Ridhwan bin Bakri and others | High Court | Yes | [2019] SGHC 105 | Singapore | Cited as the decision of the High Court judge convicting the appellant, providing the background and context for the appeal. |
| Eu Lim Hoklai v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 167 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the benefit of the doubt has to be given to the accused person where the court cannot decide with any degree of certainty between alternative case theories. |
| Han Fang Guan v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 649 | Singapore | Cited for the framework for impossible attempts, specifically in relation to the charge for attempted rape. |
| Pram Nair v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 1015 | Singapore | Cited for the relevant general principles regarding the capacity to consent under section 90(b) of the Penal Code. |
| Public Prosecutor v Teo Eng Chan and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1987] SLR(R) 567 | Singapore | Cited for the burden on the appellant to show, on a balance of probabilities, that “by reason of a mistake of fact”, he had, “in good faith” believed that the complainant had consented to the relevant sexual acts. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 376(1)(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 511 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 90(b) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 79 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Sexual Penetration
- Attempted Rape
- Intoxication
- Capacity to Consent
- Mistake of Fact
- Anterograde Amnesia
- Confabulation
- Sedation
15.2 Keywords
- Sexual Assault
- Rape
- Intoxication
- Consent
- Criminal Law
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Sexual Offences | 95 |
| Attempted Rape | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Sexual Penetration | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Sexual Offences
- Intoxication
- Consent