GDC v Public Prosecutor: Outrage of Modesty Charge Amendment and Sentencing
GDC appealed against his conviction and sentence for aggravated outrage of modesty. Sundaresh Menon CJ of the High Court of Singapore allowed the appeal in part, amending the charge to outrage of modesty of a person under 14 years of age under s 354(1) read with s 354(2) of the Penal Code. The court set aside the original sentence of four years and six months’ imprisonment and six strokes of the cane, and imposed a sentence of two years’ imprisonment and three strokes of the cane. The court provided guidance on relevant considerations that apply when considering whether to amend a charge on appeal and set out some observations on the appropriate sentence for offences under s 354(2) of the Penal Code.
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
Appeal regarding an outrage of modesty charge. The court amended the charge and adjusted the sentence, providing guidance on charge amendments and sentencing.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Original Charge Amended | Neutral | Tay Jia En of Attorney-General’s Chambers Winston Man of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| GDC | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Allowed in Part | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Tay Jia En | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Winston Man | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- The appellant was the boyfriend of the victim’s mother and the father of the victim’s younger half-brother.
- The victim was 12 years old at the time of the incident.
- The incident occurred in the early hours of 28 August 2019.
- The victim testified that the appellant touched her left breast under her bra and pulled her hair towards his groin.
- The appellant slapped the victim twice ten minutes after the initial acts of outrage of modesty.
- The victim told her school counsellor about the incident and wrote a report (Exhibit P10).
- The appellant denied committing the offence and claimed the victim was lying.
5. Formal Citations
- GDC v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9057 of 2020, [2020] SGHC 241
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Incident occurred in the early hours | |
| Appellant filed a notice of appeal against the sentence | |
| Appellant filed a petition of appeal | |
| Appellant filed submissions challenging his conviction | |
| First hearing | |
| Second hearing | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Amendment of Charge on Appeal
- Outcome: The court has the power to frame an altered charge if there is sufficient evidence, but must ensure no prejudice to the defence.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Prejudice to the accused
- Sufficiency of evidence
- Related Cases:
- [2016] 5 SLR 207
- Aggravated Outrage of Modesty
- Outcome: The act of hurt must be committed in order to commit or facilitate the commission of the outrage of modesty.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Nexus between act of hurt and outrage of modesty
- Voluntarily causing hurt
- Related Cases:
- [1992] 2 SLR(R) 379
- [2008] 1 SLR(R) 601
- Sentencing for Outrage of Modesty
- Outcome: The court must consider offence-specific and offender-specific factors to determine the appropriate sentence.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Offence-specific aggravating factors
- Offender-specific aggravating factors
- Related Cases:
- [2020] 1 SLR 849
- [2018] 3 SLR 1048
- [2019] 2 SLR 764
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Outrage of Modesty
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Tan Peng Khoon | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 713 | Singapore | Cited regarding the appellate court's discretion under s 380(1) of the CPC to permit an appeal. |
| Lim Hong Kheng v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [2006] 3 SLR(R) 358 | Singapore | Cited regarding the factors the court should consider when exercising its discretion under s 380(1) of the CPC. |
| Public Prosecutor v Wee Teong Boo and other appeal and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 533 | Singapore | Cited regarding the standard of evidence required in cases concerning sexual offences where the Prosecution relies substantially on the victim’s testimony. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mohd Ariffan bin Mohd Hassan | Unknown | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 490 | Singapore | Cited regarding the standard of evidence required in cases concerning sexual offences where the Prosecution relies substantially on the victim’s testimony. |
| Public Prosecutor v GDC | District Court | Yes | [2020] SGDC 57 | Singapore | The District Judge's decision that is being appealed in the present case. |
| Public Prosecutor v Chia Poh Yee | High Court | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR(R) 379 | Singapore | Cited regarding the issue of whether hurt was caused in order to commit the index offence. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mohammed Liton Mohammed Syeed Mallik | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 601 | Singapore | Cited regarding whether a charge of rape simpliciter should be amended to a charge of aggravated rape. |
| Li Weiming v Public Prosecutor and other matters | Unknown | Yes | [2013] 2 SLR 1227 | Singapore | Cited regarding the essential ingredients of the alleged offence. |
| Chua Siew Peng v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Unknown | Yes | [2017] 4 SLR 1247 | Singapore | Cited regarding the rule that an offender cannot be punished for offences for which no charges have been brought. |
| Vasentha d/o Joseph v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 122 | Singapore | Cited regarding the rule that an offender cannot be punished for offences for which no charges have been brought. |
| Public Prosecutor v Bong Sim Swan, Suzanna | Unknown | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 1001 | Singapore | Cited regarding the facts that a sentencing court can and should consider. |
| GBR v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Unknown | Yes | [2018] 3 SLR 1048 | Singapore | Cited regarding the issue of prejudice. |
| Seow Fook Thiam v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR(R) 887 | Singapore | Cited as a precedent where momentary acts of restraint had been relied on to convict an accused person of an offence of aggravated outrage of modesty. |
| Public Prosecutor v Thangavelu v Tamilselvam | District Court | Yes | [2010] SGDC 479 | Singapore | Cited as a precedent where momentary acts of restraint had been relied on to convict an accused person of an offence of aggravated outrage of modesty. |
| Public Prosecutor v Sng Boon Teck | District Court | Yes | [2001] SGDC 303 | Singapore | Cited as a precedent where momentary acts of restraint had been relied on to convict an accused person of an offence of aggravated outrage of modesty. |
| BRJ v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 849 | Singapore | Cited regarding the sentencing framework set out in GBR. |
| BPH v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 764 | Singapore | Cited regarding sentencing for s 354(2) offences. |
| Pram Nair v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 1015 | Singapore | Cited regarding calibrating individual sentences downwards to ensure that the aggregate sentence was not excessive. |
| Muhammad Nabill bin Mohd Fuad v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 984 | Singapore | Cited regarding the Prosecution's duty to the court and to the wider public. |
| Muhammad bin Kadar and another v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 1205 | Singapore | Cited regarding the Prosecution's duty to the court and to the wider public. |
| K Saravanan Kuppusamy v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [2016] 5 SLR 88 | Singapore | Cited regarding the Prosecution's duty to the court and to the wider public. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 354 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 354A | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 390(4) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 380(1) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Outrage of modesty
- Aggravated outrage of modesty
- Amendment of charge
- Sentencing framework
- Wrongful restraint
- Sexual exploitation
- Abuse of trust
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Penal Code
15.2 Keywords
- Outrage of modesty
- Criminal law
- Sentencing
- Charge amendment
- Singapore
- Appeal
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Outrage of Modesty | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Sentencing | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 90 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Sentencing