Public Prosecutor v Siow Kai Yuan Terence: Sentencing for Outrage of Modesty on Public Transport

The Public Prosecutor appealed against the probation sentence imposed on Siow Kai Yuan Terence by the District Judge for outraging the modesty of a victim on public transport. The High Court, with Sundaresh Menon CJ presiding, allowed the appeal, finding that the respondent had not demonstrated an extremely strong propensity for reform, and imposed a two-week imprisonment term. The court emphasized the importance of deterrence for such offenses, particularly on public transport.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal allowed. The High Court imposed a two-week imprisonment term.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal against probation sentence for outrage of modesty on public transport. The High Court imposed a two-week imprisonment term.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorAppellantGovernment AgencyAppeal AllowedWon
Gail Wong of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Benedict Chan Wei Qi of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Kristy Tan of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Siow Kai Yuan TerenceRespondentIndividualProbation Order ReversedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Sundaresh MenonChief JusticeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Gail WongAttorney-General’s Chambers
Benedict Chan Wei QiAttorney-General’s Chambers
Kristy TanAttorney-General’s Chambers
Raphael LouisRay Louis Law Corporation

4. Facts

  1. The respondent, a 22-year-old university student, touched the victim's thigh on a train.
  2. The respondent followed the victim after she moved away and touched her buttocks on an escalator.
  3. The victim reported the incident to a station officer, and the respondent left the station.
  4. The respondent pleaded guilty to one charge of outraging the victim’s modesty.
  5. The District Judge sentenced the respondent to probation.
  6. The Prosecution appealed against the sentence, arguing for a custodial term.
  7. The High Court found that the respondent had not demonstrated an extremely strong propensity for reform.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Public Prosecutor v Siow Kai Yuan Terence, , [2020] SGHC 82

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Respondent commenced university.
Respondent committed the offences.
Mr. Tan provided a report regarding the Respondent's counselling sessions.
Respondent wrote a letter of apology to the victim.
Respondent consulted Dr. Ko for the first time.
Respondent had a second review with Dr. Ko.
Respondent had a third review with Dr. Ko.
Mr. Tan provided a report stating that the Respondent had stopped consuming pornography.
Submissions made before the DJ on whether probation would be appropriate.
Probation Order stayed pending appeal.
Hearing of the appeal.
Judgment reserved.
Judgment delivered.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Appropriateness of Probation for Adult Offenders
    • Outcome: The court held that the respondent did not demonstrate an extremely strong propensity for reform, making probation inappropriate.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Sentencing for Outrage of Modesty
    • Outcome: The court determined that a two-week imprisonment term was appropriate, considering the low degree of sexual exploitation but the aggravating factor of the offence occurring on public transport.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Custodial Sentence

9. Cause of Actions

  • Outrage of Modesty

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Law
  • Sentencing Guidelines

11. Industries

  • Transportation

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Public Prosecutor v Abdul Qayyum bin Abdul Razak and another appealHigh CourtYes[2020] SGHC 57SingaporeCited to contrast with the present case, highlighting that the rehabilitative goals of the criminal justice system are indifferent to the economic, educational or other status of those who come before the court.
Praveen s/o Krishnan v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2018] 3 SLR 1300SingaporeCited for the principle that academic qualifications are merely one indicator of rehabilitative capacity and that the relevant question is whether the offender has demonstrated a positive desire to change.
Kunasekaran s/o Kalimuthu Somasundara v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2018] 4 SLR 580SingaporeCited for the offence-specific and offender-specific factors that are relevant when sentencing for outrage of modesty offences under s 354(1) of the Penal Code and that general deterrence ought to be the predominant sentencing consideration when such offences are committed in the public transport network.
Public Prosecutor v Lim Chee Yin JordonHigh CourtYes[2018] 4 SLR 1294SingaporeCited for the principle that even if the adult offender is found to have demonstrated an “extremely strong propensity for reform”, this “can be eclipsed or diminished by considerations of deterrence or retribution if the circumstances warrant”.
Public Prosecutor v Lim Cheng Ji AlvinHigh CourtYes[2017] 5 SLR 671SingaporeCited for the observation that while the law takes a presumptive view that rehabilitation is the dominant sentencing consideration for offenders aged 21 or under, this is not the case for offenders above the age of majority.
A Karthik v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2018] 5 SLR 1289SingaporeCited for the principle that rehabilitation would typically not be the operative concern for offenders above the age of majority unless the particular offender concerned happens to demonstrate an extremely strong propensity for reform or there exist other exceptional circumstances.
GCO v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2019] 3 SLR 1402SingaporeCited for the principle that deterrence will be the operative sentencing consideration in cases involving the outrage of modesty by an adult offender and that the need to demonstrate an extremely strong propensity for reform to justify displacing deterrence as the primary sentencing consideration.
Goh Lee Yin v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2006] 1 SLR(R) 530SingaporeCited for the need to demonstrate an extremely strong propensity for reform to justify displacing deterrence as the primary sentencing consideration.
Sim Kang Wei v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2019] 5 SLR 405SingaporeCited for the principle that the assessment of an offender’s propensity for reform is necessarily a multi-factorial inquiry, which focuses more on the traits of the offender rather than on aspects of the offence.
Leon Russel Francis v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2014] 4 SLR 651SingaporeCited for the factors to be relevant in determining a young drug offender’s capacity for rehabilitation.
Public Prosecutor v Mohammad Al-Ansari bin BasriHigh CourtYes[2008] 1 SLR(R) 449SingaporeCited for the principle that the crucial questions for the sentencing judge concern the perceived needs of the offender, not the gravity of the offence committed.
Public Prosecutor v Mok Ping Wuen MauriceHigh CourtYes[1998] 3 SLR(R) 439SingaporeCited for the principle that rehabilitation is the key sentencing consideration for a young offender.
Ng So Kuen Connie v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2003] 3 SLR(R) 178SingaporeCited for the principle that rehabilitation is the key sentencing consideration for an offender who was belabouring under a serious psychiatric condition at the time of the offence.
Public Prosecutor v Koh Wen Jie BoazHigh CourtYes[2016] 1 SLR 334SingaporeCited for the principle that even if the adult offender demonstrates an extremely strong propensity for reform, the significance of rehabilitation as the dominant sentencing consideration in such circumstances may be displaced, for instance, by a persistent need for deterrence and even retribution because of the gravity of the offence.
Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2017] 2 SLR 449SingaporeCited for the principle that a plea of guilt can be a “subjective expression of genuine remorse and contrition”.
Public Prosecutor v Justin Heng Zheng HaoDistrict CourtYes[2012] SGDC 219SingaporeCited for the principle that it was considered relevant that the offender had co-operated fully with the police and admitted his guilt from the outset.
Public Prosecutor v Wong Jia YiDistrict CourtYes[2003] SGDC 53SingaporeCited for the principle that the offender was found to have displayed “sincere remorse”, which “was evident in her candour during the pre-sentence interviews, when she had not sought to hide the fact of her previous involvement in selling ketamine to other buyers”.
Public Prosecutor v Teo Chang HengHigh CourtYes[2018] 3 SLR 1163SingaporeCited for the principle that an offender’s “hitherto clean record and otherwise unexceptional conduct and temperament” may be relevant in so far as it shows that the offences committed were “out of character”, and were likely an aberration.
Ang Peng Tiam v Singapore Medical Council and another matterHigh CourtYes[2017] 5 SLR 356SingaporeCited for the principle that such conduct in the past could be given modest weight if it fairly allows the court to infer that the offender’s actions in committing the offence was “out of character”, and that he is therefore unlikely to re-offend.
Idya Nurhazlyn bte Ahmad Khir v Public Prosecutor and another appealHigh CourtYes[2014] 1 SLR 756SingaporeCited for the principle that situational anxiety, while common, is generally not a relevant sentencing consideration.
Public Prosecutor v UIHigh CourtYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 500SingaporeCited for the principle that there are two TIC charges in this case which, while not as severe as the proceeded charge, are of a similar nature, thereby justifying some increase in the sentence.
Public Prosecutor v Hue An LiHigh CourtYes[2014] 4 SLR 661SingaporeCited for the principle that the degree of harm suffered by two different victims may also vary, and this may affect the eventual sentence, given the “intuitive moral sense that outcomes do matter”.
Mohd Akebal s/o Ghulam Jilani v Public Prosecutor and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2020] 1 SLR 266SingaporeCited for the principle that sentencing guidelines are “not meant to yield a mathematically perfect graph that identifies a precise point for the sentencing court to arrive at in each case. Rather, they are meant to guide the court towards the appropriate sentence in each case using a methodology that is broadly consistent”.
R v MillberryCourt of AppealYes[2003] 1 WLR 546England and WalesCited for the principle that guideline judgments are intended to assist the judge to arrive at the correct sentence. They do not purport to identify the correct sentence. Doing so is the task of the sentencing judge.
Public Prosecutor v Terence Siow Kai YuanState CourtYes[2019] SGMC 69SingaporeGrounds of decision of the District Judge.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 354(1)Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Outrage of Modesty
  • Probation
  • Deterrence
  • Rehabilitation
  • Propensity for Reform
  • Public Transport
  • Sentencing
  • Custodial Sentence

15.2 Keywords

  • Outrage of Modesty
  • Probation
  • Sentencing
  • Public Transport
  • Singapore
  • Criminal Law

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Sentencing95
Criminal Law90
Outrage of Modesty85

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Sentencing
  • Criminal Procedure