Public Prosecutor v BOX: Sentencing for Sexual Assault and Outrage of Modesty Against Minors
In Public Prosecutor v BOX, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore sentenced BOX to 17 years' imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane for nine offences committed from 2012 to 2017 against two victims, V1 and V2, who were under 14 years of age. BOX pleaded guilty to four charges: two charges of aggravated sexual assault by penetration and two charges of aggravated outrage of modesty. The court considered the accused's mitigation plea, aggravating factors, sentencing precedents, and five other charges taken into consideration for sentencing. The judge, Valerie Thean J, ordered the terms of imprisonment for the 2nd, 3rd and 6th Charges to run consecutively, with the term of imprisonment for the 1st Charge to run concurrently.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Accused sentenced to 17 years’ imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
BOX was sentenced to 17 years' imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane for sexual offences against two minors. The charges included aggravated sexual assault and outrage of modesty.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Prosecution | Government Agency | Judgment for Prosecution | Won | Nicholas Lai Yi Shin, Rebecca Wong Pei Xian |
| BOX | Defendant | Individual | Convicted and Sentenced | Lost | Ramesh Chandr Tiwary |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Valerie Thean | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Nicholas Lai Yi Shin | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Rebecca Wong Pei Xian | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ramesh Chandr Tiwary | Ramesh Tiwary |
4. Facts
- The accused was charged with nine offences committed from 2012 to 2017.
- The offences involved two victims, V1 and V2, who were under 14 at the material times.
- V1 and V2 are sisters.
- The accused pleaded guilty to four charges: two of aggravated sexual assault and two of aggravated outrage of modesty.
- The accused admitted to five other charges to be taken into consideration for sentencing.
- The offences against V1 took place from 2012 to 2015, when she was between 10 and 14 years old.
- The abuse of V2 lasted from 2014 to 2017, when she was between 8 and 11 years old.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v BOX, Criminal Case No 79 of 2018, [2021] SGHC 147
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Accused began relationship with the victims’ mother. | |
| First aggravated sexual assault offence against V1. | |
| First outrage of modesty offence against V1. | |
| Accused began abusing V2. | |
| Outrage of modesty offence against V2. | |
| Ninth offence committed. | |
| V2 reported the matter in school. | |
| Accused remanded. | |
| Prosecution's Sentencing Submissions dated. | |
| Accused pleaded guilty and was convicted. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Sentencing for Aggravated Sexual Assault
- Outcome: The court applied the two-step sentencing framework from Terence Ng and Pram Nair to determine the appropriate sentence for the aggravated sexual assault charges.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2017] 2 SLR 449
- [2017] 2 SLR 1015
- [2019] 2 SLR 764
- Sentencing for Aggravated Outrage of Modesty
- Outcome: The court applied the sentencing framework from GBR to determine the appropriate sentence for the aggravated outrage of modesty charges.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2018] 3 SLR 1048
- Use of TIC Charges in Sentencing
- Outcome: The court considered the TIC charges as an aggravating factor in sentencing.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Imprisonment
- Caning
9. Cause of Actions
- Aggravated Sexual Assault by Penetration
- Aggravated Outrage of Modesty
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
- Sexual Assault
- Child Abuse
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 449 | Singapore | Cited for the two-step sentencing framework for the offence of rape, involving the use of sentencing bands. |
| Pram Nair v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 1015 | Singapore | Cited for transposing the two-step framework in Terence Ng to the offence of digital penetration and calibrating the sentencing bands downwards. |
| BPH v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 764 | Singapore | Cited for affirming that the Pram Nair framework is applicable to all forms of sexual assault by penetration. |
| Ng Jun Xian v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2017] 3 SLR 933 | Singapore | Cited as an example of premeditation in sexual offences. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lee Ah Choy | High Court | Yes | [2016] 4 SLR 1300 | Singapore | Cited as an example of premeditation in sexual offences. |
| Public Prosecutor v Sim Wei Liang Benjamin | High Court | Yes | [2015] SGHC 240 | Singapore | Cited as an example of premeditation in sexual offences. |
| Public Prosecutor v BNO | High Court | Yes | [2018] SGHC 243 | Singapore | Cited for the presence of a significant amount of deliberation and premeditation in the offender’s conduct. |
| Gan Chai Bee Anne v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 4 SLR 838 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that premeditation demonstrates a high degree of conscious choice and enlivens the need for a sentence that deters the offender specifically from repeating such conduct. |
| Public Prosecutor v Law Aik Meng | High Court | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 814 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that premeditation demonstrates a high degree of conscious choice and enlivens the need for a sentence that deters the offender specifically from repeating such conduct. |
| BSR v Public Prosecutor and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 758 | Singapore | Cited for recognizing the risk of sexually transmitted diseases as an aggravating factor. |
| Chang Kar Meng v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 68 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that offenders who plead guilty to sexual offences ought ordinarily to be given at least some credit for having spared the victim additional suffering. |
| Public Prosecutor v BSR | High Court | Yes | [2020] 4 SLR 335 | Singapore | Cited as a reported decision relating to the offence of sexual assault by penetration. |
| GBR v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 3 SLR 1048 | Singapore | Cited for the sentencing framework for the offence of aggravated outrage of modesty. |
| Public Prosecutor v Kwong Kok Hing | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 684 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that criminal law is the public’s expression of communitarian values to be promoted, defended and preserved. |
| Mohamed Shouffee bin Adam v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 998 | Singapore | Cited for the totality principle, that the aggregate sentence must not be crushing, but be proportionate to the accused’s overall criminality. |
| Luong Thi Trang Hoang Kathleen v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 707 | Singapore | Cited for the danger of placing undue reliance on unreported cases. |
| Keeping Mark John v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2017] 5 SLR 627 | Singapore | Cited for the danger of placing undue reliance on unreported cases. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 376(1)(a) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 376(4)(b) of the Penal Code | Singapore |
| s 354(2) of the Penal Code | Singapore |
| Children and Young Persons Act (Cap 38, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 7(b) of the Children and Young Persons Act (Cap 38, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| ss 328(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| ss 328(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Aggravated Sexual Assault
- Outrage of Modesty
- Penile-Oral Penetration
- Abuse of Trust
- Premeditation
- Sentencing Framework
- TIC Charges
- Totality Principle
15.2 Keywords
- sexual assault
- outrage of modesty
- child abuse
- sentencing
- criminal law
- Singapore
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
- Sexual Offences
- Child Abuse
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
- Sexual Offences