Ng Kum Weng v Public Prosecutor: Outrage of Modesty & Insulting Modesty
Ng Kum Weng appealed to the High Court of Singapore against his conviction in the District Court for three charges of using criminal force with intent to outrage modesty under section 354(1) of the Penal Code and one charge of insulting the modesty of a woman under section 509 of the Penal Code. The charges stemmed from his interactions with waitresses at a music lounge. Kannan Ramesh J dismissed the appeal, finding that the District Judge did not err in his assessment of the evidence and witness credibility.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Ng Kum Weng appealed against his conviction for outrage of modesty and insulting modesty. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ng Kum Weng | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Derek Kang Yu Hsien, Lulla Ammar Khan |
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Judgment Upheld | Won | Gail Wong, Samyata Ravindran |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Kannan Ramesh | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Derek Kang Yu Hsien | Cairnhill Law LLC |
| Lulla Ammar Khan | Cairnhill Law LLC |
| Gail Wong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Samyata Ravindran | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- The appellant was charged with four offences related to interactions with three waitresses at a music lounge.
- Three charges were for using criminal force with intent to outrage modesty under s 354(1) of the Penal Code.
- One charge was for insulting the modesty of a woman under s 509 of the Penal Code.
- The offences occurred in the early hours of 12 December 2015 at [B] Lounge.
- CCTV footage from the lounge was used as evidence.
- The District Judge convicted the appellant on all four charges.
- The appellant appealed against the conviction.
5. Formal Citations
- Ng Kum Weng v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9066 of 2019/01, [2021] SGHC 100
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Offences occurred at B Lounge | |
| Charges filed against Ng Kum Weng | |
| District Judge's written grounds of decision | |
| Hearing of appeal | |
| Hearing of appeal | |
| Hearing of appeal | |
| Appeal dismissed |
7. Legal Issues
- Outrage of Modesty
- Outcome: The court upheld the conviction for outrage of modesty.
- Category: Substantive
- Insulting the Modesty of a Woman
- Outcome: The court upheld the conviction for insulting the modesty of a woman.
- Category: Substantive
- Assessment of Witness Credibility
- Outcome: The court found that the District Judge did not err in his assessment of the credibility of the witnesses.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2001] 3 SLR(R) 592
- Sentencing
- Outcome: The court found that the sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2018] 4 SLR 580
- Judicial Bias
- Outcome: The court found the appellant’s submission of prejudgment and apparent bias without basis.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Using criminal force with intent to outrage modesty
- Insulting the modesty of a woman
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- Hospitality
- Entertainment
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Ng Kum Weng | District Court | Yes | [2020] SGDC 49 | Singapore | Cited as the District Judge’s written grounds of decision. |
| Kunasekaran s/o Kalimuthu Somasundara v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 580 | Singapore | Cited for the applicable sentencing framework for offences under section 354(1) of the Penal Code. |
| Browne v Dunn | N/A | Yes | (1893) 6 R 67 | N/A | Cited for the rule that any contradiction in a witness’s evidence ought to be put to him so that he may explain. |
| Farida Begam d/o Mohd Artham v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR(R) 592 | Singapore | Cited for the principles on determining witness credibility. |
| PP v GCK and another matter | N/A | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 486 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the “unusually convincing” standard only applied where the witness’s uncorroborated testimony formed the sole basis for conviction. |
| Teo Keng Pong v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [1996] 2 SLR(R) 890 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the “unusually convincing” standard only applied where the witness’s uncorroborated testimony formed the sole basis for conviction. |
| Haliffie bin Mamat v Public Prosecutor and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 5 SLR 636 | Singapore | Cited for the role of the appellate court in reassessing evidence. |
| Pram Nair v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 1015 | Singapore | Cited for the role of the appellate court in reassessing evidence. |
| Ng Chiew Kiat v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR(R) 927 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that some imperfection in recollection did not mean that a witness was untruthful. |
| Public Prosecutor v Abdul Rahman Bin Sultan Ahmat | Singapore District Court | Yes | [2005] SGDC 246 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that some imperfection in recollection did not mean that a witness was untruthful. |
| Public Prosecutor v Cao Shengliang | Singapore District Court | Yes | [2020] SGDC 160 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that some imperfection in recollection did not mean that a witness was untruthful. |
| Liza bte Ismail v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [1997] 1 SLR(R) 555 | Singapore | Cited for the rule in Browne v Dunn. |
| Parti Liyani v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2020] SGHC 187 | Singapore | Cited for the rationale of the rule in Browne v Dunn. |
| AOF v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 3 SLR 34 | Singapore | Cited for the two possible meanings of “collusion”. |
| Regina v H | N/A | Yes | [1995] 2 AC 596 | N/A | Cited for the two possible meanings of “collusion”. |
| BOI v BOJ | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 1156 | Singapore | Cited for the test for apparent bias. |
| Lim Young Sien v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [1994] 1 SLR(R) 920 | Singapore | Cited for the procedure for cross-examination. |
| Public Prosecutor v Siew Boon Loong | N/A | Yes | [2005] 1 SLR(R) 611 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of manifestly excessive sentence. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mohammed Liton Mohammed Syeed Mallik | N/A | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 601 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the prerogative to correct sentences should be tempered by a certain degree of deference to the sentencing judge’s exercise of discretion. |
| Angliss Singapore Pte Ltd v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 653 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the prerogative to correct sentences should be tempered by a certain degree of deference to the sentencing judge’s exercise of discretion. |
| Public Prosecutor v Marcus Ong Yong Qiang | N/A | Yes | N/A | Singapore | Cited as a sentencing precedent. |
| Public Prosecutor v Yujiro Tomita | N/A | Yes | N/A | Singapore | Cited as a sentencing precedent. |
| Public Prosecutor v Thompson, Matthew | High Court | Yes | [2018] 5 SLR 1108 | Singapore | Cited as a sentencing precedent. |
| Public Prosecutor v Adaikkalam Sivagnanam | Singapore Magistrate Court | Yes | [2018] SGMC 43 | Singapore | Cited as a sentencing precedent. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mohd Taufik bin Abu Bakar and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2019] SGHC 90 | Singapore | Cited as a case that was distinguishable. |
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 (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 509 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) s 147 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 258A | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Outrage of modesty
- Insulting modesty
- Criminal force
- CCTV footage
- Witness credibility
- Sentencing framework
- Manifestly excessive
- Judicial bias
- Collusion
15.2 Keywords
- Outrage of modesty
- Insulting modesty
- Criminal law
- Singapore
- Appeal
- Waitress
- Music lounge
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Sentencing
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure and Sentencing