GCM v Public Prosecutor: Sexual Offences Against Minors & Sentencing

GCM pleaded guilty to three charges under s 376A(3) of the Penal Code for sexual penetration of a minor under 14 years of age. The Prosecution and the accused cross-appealed the District Judge's aggregate sentence of 24 months' imprisonment. The High Court dismissed the accused's appeal and allowed the Prosecution's appeal, enhancing the sentence to an aggregate of 33 months' imprisonment, emphasizing deterrence and retribution.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal by the accused dismissed. Appeal by the Prosecution allowed; sentences enhanced.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Cross-appeals concerning the sentencing of GCM for sexual penetration of a minor. The High Court enhanced the sentence to 33 months' imprisonment.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorAppellant, RespondentGovernment AgencyAppeal AllowedWon
Sruthi Boppana of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Teo Pei Rong Grace of Attorney-General’s Chambers
GCMAppellant, RespondentIndividualAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Aedit AbdullahJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Sruthi BoppanaAttorney-General’s Chambers
Teo Pei Rong GraceAttorney-General’s Chambers
Anand GeorgeBR Law Corporation
Radakrishnan s/o Kannusammy SomalingamBR Law Corporation

4. Facts

  1. The accused pleaded guilty to three charges under s 376A(3) of the Penal Code.
  2. The charges involved sexual penetration of a minor under 14 years of age.
  3. The accused was 22 years old, and the victim was 13 years old at the time of the offences.
  4. The offences occurred on three separate occasions.
  5. The offences included digital, oral, and penile penetration.
  6. The accused initially denied the allegations before admitting them during police investigations.
  7. The accused deleted chats and photographs with the victim after being confronted.
  8. The victim experienced flashbacks and difficulty sleeping after the incidents.

5. Formal Citations

  1. GCM v Public Prosecutor and another appeal, , [2021] SGHC 18
  2. Public Prosecutor v GCM, , [2020] SGDC 101

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Accused digitally penetrated the vagina of the victim at his residence.
Accused penetrated the mouth of the victim with his penis at his university hostel.
Accused penetrated the vagina of the victim with his penis at his residence.
Victim confided in her form teacher about what had happened with the accused.
Accused pleaded guilty to the charges.
Hearing date.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Sentencing
    • Outcome: The High Court held that deterrence and retribution were the dominant sentencing principles and enhanced the sentence.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Dominant sentencing principle
      • Propensity for reform
      • Deterrence
      • Retribution

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Increased Sentence
  2. Dismissal of Appeal

9. Cause of Actions

  • Sexual Penetration of a Minor

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Law

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
AQW v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2015] 4 SLR 150SingaporeCited for the framework for sentencing under s 376A of the Penal Code, emphasizing the vulnerability of the minor and the degree of exploitation.
Public Prosecutor v Siow Kai Yuan TerenceHigh CourtYes[2020] 4 SLR 1412SingaporeCited for the multi-factorial approach in determining whether an offender has an extremely strong propensity for reform.
Public Prosecutor v Lim Cheng Ji AlvinHigh CourtYes[2017] 5 SLR 671SingaporeCited to establish that there is no presumption that rehabilitation is the dominant sentencing consideration for adult offenders.
Public Prosecutor v Lim Chee Yin JordonHigh CourtYes[2018] 4 SLR 1294SingaporeCited to establish that it is the exception rather than the norm for adult offenders to be sentenced to probation.
A Karthik v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2018] 5 SLR 1289SingaporeCited to support the principle that rehabilitation is the operative consideration when sentencing adult offenders if the offender demonstrates an extremely strong propensity for reform and/or there are exceptional circumstances warranting the grant of probation.
Public Prosecutor v Koh Wen Jie BoazHigh CourtYes[2016] 1 SLR 334SingaporeCited for the principle that an extremely strong propensity for reform can be diminished or eclipsed by considerations such as deterrence or retribution where the circumstances warrant.
Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2017] 2 SLR 449SingaporeCited for the principle that a plea of guilt in the context of sexual crimes helps ensure that the trauma suffered by the victim need not be amplified by having the victim recount the incident in court.
Praveen s/o Kirshnan v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2018] 3 SLR 1300SingaporeCited for the principle that contrition, in and of itself, is insufficient to signify real change, and that some change in behaviour from before the offence to after the offence should be demonstrated.
GCO v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2019] 3 SLR 1402SingaporeCited for the principle that amenability to rehabilitative measures does suggest that the offender is desirous of and committed to reform, but something more than mere assertions of amenability is required.
Public Prosecutor v Abdul Qayyum bin Abdul Razak and another appealHigh CourtYes[2020] SGHC 57SingaporeCited as an example of an external source of motivation for reform.
Public Prosecutor v Raveen BalakrishnanHigh CourtYes[2018] 5 SLR 799SingaporeCited for the principle that the availability of positive avenues for the accused to channel his energy should not be double-counted.
Public Prosecutor v Law Aik MengHigh CourtYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 814SingaporeCited for the principle that general deterrence is engaged in the context of offences against vulnerable victims.
Public Prosecutor v BLVHigh CourtYes[2020] 3 SLR 166SingaporeCited for the principle that retribution is directly relevant to cases involving serious sexual assault.
Public Prosecutor v BVZHigh CourtYes[2019] SGHC 83SingaporeCited for the principle that retribution is directly relevant to cases involving serious sexual assault.
Public Prosecutor v Tan Fook SumHigh CourtYes[1999] 1 SLR(R) 1022SingaporeCited for the principle that the punishment must reflect and befit the seriousness of the crime.
Public Prosecutor v UIHigh CourtYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 500SingaporeCited for the principle that if there are taken into consideration offences, the sentence which the court would otherwise have imposed for the offences proceeded with would be increased.
Stansilas Fabian Kester v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2017] 5 SLR 755SingaporeCited for the principle that any offender who urges the court that his past record bears well on his potential for rehabilitation will have to demonstrate the connection between his record and his capacity and willingness for reform, if this is to have any bearing.
Tang Ling Lee v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2018] 4 SLR 813SingaporeCited for the principle that summaries of unreported cases are of limited precedential value because they are unreasoned, but can nonetheless be helpful in sketching a broad view of relevant sentencing trends.
Public Prosecutor v Yap Weng WahHigh CourtYes[2015] 3 SLR 297SingaporeCited for the principle that the higher maximum sentence under s 376A(3) of the Penal Code serves to reflect Parliament’s view that sexual abuse against victims below the age of 14 must be regarded more seriously.
BPH v Public Prosecutor and another appealHigh CourtYes[2019] 2 SLR 764SingaporeCited for the principle that penile-vaginal penetration is deemed the gravest of the sexual offences given the risk of an unwanted pregnancy.
Public Prosecutor v AOMHigh CourtYes[2011] 2 SLR 1057SingaporeCited for the principle that girls below 16 years of age are, due to their inexperience and presumed lack of sexual and emotional maturity, considered to be vulnerable and susceptible to coercion and hence incapable of giving informed consent.
Public Prosecutor v Ong Jack HongHigh CourtYes[2016] 5 SLR 166SingaporeCited for the principle that counsel should always be mindful of the importance of ensuring the appropriateness and relevance of any submission that he or she is making, and this is especially so where such a submission impugns the character or integrity of a person who is not only not on trial but is in fact the victim of the crime in question.
Ng Jun Xian v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2017] 3 SLR 933SingaporeCited for the principle that counsel should refrain from making baseless submissions that disparage the character, integrity or morality of a victim in an attempt to shift blame to the latter.
Law Society of Singapore v Wong Sin YeeCourt of Three JudgesYes[2018] 5 SLR 1261SingaporeCited for the principle that cross-examination which involves questions asked without reasonable grounds, and which were instead indecent, scandalous, and calculated to insult or annoy, infringed the prohibitions in the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (S 706/2015) r 14(7)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 376A(3)Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 376A(1)(b)Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 376A(1)(a)Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 292(a)Singapore
Children and Young Persons Act (Cap 38, 2001 Rev Ed ) s 7(b)Singapore
Films Act (Cap 107, 1998 Rev Ed)Singapore
Probation of Offenders Act (Cap 252, 1985 Rev Ed) s 5(1)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Sexual penetration
  • Minor
  • Sentencing
  • Deterrence
  • Rehabilitation
  • Victim Impact Statement
  • Propensity for reform
  • Retribution

15.2 Keywords

  • Sexual offences
  • Sentencing
  • Minor
  • Singapore
  • Criminal law

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Sentencing95
Sexual Offences95
Sexual Offences against Minors95
Criminal Law90
Criminal Procedure90
Children and Young Persons Act70

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Sentencing
  • Sexual Offences