Public Prosecutor v BQD: Sexual Offences Against a Minor - Intra-Familial Abuse

In Public Prosecutor v BQD, the High Court of Singapore convicted BQD on 15 charges of sexual offenses against his biological daughter, V, occurring between 2010 and 2014. The court, presided over by Justice Audrey Lim, found the prosecution had proven the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, rejecting the defendant's claims of inducement and fabrication of statements. BQD was sentenced to 29 years' imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane. The case highlights issues of familial trust, vulnerability of minors, and the long-term impact of sexual abuse.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Guilty verdict on all charges; sentenced to 29 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

BQD was convicted of multiple sexual offenses against his daughter, highlighting issues of familial trust and long-term abuse.

1.7 Decision Date

26 July 2021

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Public Prosecutor	Prosecution	Government Agency	Judgment for Prosecution	Won	Colin Ng Guan Wen of Attorney-General’s Chambers Goh Yi Ling of Attorney-General’s Chambers Eugene Lee Yee Leng of Attorney-General’s Chambers
BQD	Defendant	Individual	Convicted on all charges	Lost	Mohammad Shafiq bin Haja Maideen of Abdul Rahman Law Corporation Abdul Rahman Bin Mohd Hanipah of Abdul Rahman Law Corporation Yamuna Balakrishnan of Abdul Rahman Law Corporation

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Audrey Lim	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Colin Ng Guan Wen	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Goh Yi Ling	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Eugene Lee Yee Leng	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Mohammad Shafiq bin Haja Maideen	Abdul Rahman Law Corporation
Abdul Rahman Bin Mohd Hanipah	Abdul Rahman Law Corporation
Yamuna Balakrishnan	Abdul Rahman Law Corporation

4. Facts

D was charged with 15 counts of sexual offenses against his biological daughter, V, between 2010 and 2014.
The offenses occurred at two locations: the Yishun Flat and the Woodlands Flat.
V was between 10 and 14 years old when the offenses occurred.
V made a police report on 19 November 2017, leading to D's arrest on 21 November 2017.
D claimed the statements he made to the police were induced by promises of station bail.
V disclosed the abuse to her friend M in around 2015.
D admitted to B that he had inserted his finger into V’s private part and ejaculated on her body.

5. Formal Citations

Public Prosecutor v BQD, Criminal Case No 56 of 2019, [2021] SGHC 183

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2010-01-01	Sexual abuse of V by D began at Yishun Flat.
2010-01-01	V was born in 2000.
2010-01-01	D, N, and their children lived in one room in a flat at Yishun.
2010-12-01	D touched V's breasts over her clothes and rubbed her vulva with his finger.
2011-01-01	D and his family moved to Woodlands Flat.
2011-01-01	D penetrated V's vagina with his finger.
2011-01-01	D penetrated V's anus with his penis.
2012-02-01	D and N divorced.
2012-09-01	N remarried Z.
2012-09-01	N lodged a police report against D after witnessing him hugging V inappropriately.
2012-12-01	D, V, and B returned to the Yishun Flat.
2013-12-01	D penetrated V's vagina with his finger.
2013-12-01	D penetrated V's mouth with his penis.
2013-12-01	D penetrated V's anus with his penis.
2013-12-01	V ran away from the Yishun Flat to stay with N and Z.
2013-12-01	V returned to live with D.
2014-01-01	D penetrated V's vagina with his finger.
2014-01-01	D penetrated V's mouth with his penis.
2014-01-01	D penetrated V's anus with his penis.
2014-12-01	V ran away again to stay with N and Z.
2017-11-19	V made a police report stating she had been sexually abused by D.
2017-11-21	D was arrested.
2020-11-17	Trial began.
2021-07-27	Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

Admissibility of Statements
- Outcome: The court found that the Prosecution had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the Statements were given voluntarily and not pre-prepared or fabricated as D claimed.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [2021] 1 SLR 557
Sexual Assault
- Outcome: The court found that the Prosecution had proved beyond a reasonable doubt all 15 charges.
- Category: Substantive
Sentencing
- Outcome: The court sentenced D to a total of 29 years’ imprisonment and the maximum 24 strokes of the cane.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [2018] 5 SLR 799
  - [2018] 3 SLR 1048
  - [2017] 2 SLR 449
  - [2019] 2 SLR 764
  - [2017] 2 SLR 1015
  - [2020] 2 SLR 758
  - [2020] SGHC 14

8. Remedies Sought

Criminal Prosecution
Imprisonment
Caning

9. Cause of Actions

Sexual Assault
Outrage of Modesty

10. Practice Areas

Criminal Law
Sexual Assault
Sentencing

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Sulaiman bin Jumari v PP	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2021] 1 SLR 557	Singapore	Reaffirmed the two-stage test for admissibility of accused's statement.
Muhammad bin Kadar and another v PP	High Court	Yes	[2011] 3 SLR 1205	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court can exclude a voluntary statement if its prejudicial value outweighs its probative value.
AOF v PP	High Court	Yes	[2012] 3 SLR 34	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a complainant's testimony can constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt when it is unusually convincing.
ADF v PP	High Court	Yes	[2010] 1 SLR 874	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a lack of prompt complaint does not invariably lead to the conclusion that the victim cannot be believed.
PP v Raveen Balakrishnan	High Court	Yes	[2018] 5 SLR 799	Singapore	Cited for the general rule that sentences for unrelated offences should run consecutively and for offences that form part of the same transaction should run concurrently.
GBR v PP	High Court	Yes	[2018] 3 SLR 1048	Singapore	Cited in relation to the sentencing framework for the offence of outrage of modesty of a person under 14 years old, under s 354(2) of the Penal Code.
Ng Kean Meng Terence v PP	High Court	Yes	[2017] 2 SLR 449	Singapore	Referred to for the sentencing framework laid out in for cases under s 354(2).
BPH v PP	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2019] 2 SLR 764	Singapore	Endorsed the approach in Ng Kean Meng Terence v PP and held that the Pram Nair sentencing bands applied to all forms of sexual assault by penetration under s 376 of the Penal Code.
Pram Nair v PP	High Court	Yes	[2017] 2 SLR 1015	Singapore	Referred to for the sentencing framework in sexual assault cases.
BSR v PP	Court of Appeal	No	[2020] 2 SLR 758	Singapore	Discussed in relation to the aggravating factors in the present case.
PP v BRH	High Court	No	[2020] SGHC 14	Singapore	Discussed in relation to the aggravating factors in the present case.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Section 354(2) of the Penal Code	Singapore
Section 376(2)(a) of the Penal Code	Singapore
Section 376(4)(b) of the Penal Code	Singapore
Section 376(1)(a) of the Penal Code	Singapore
Section 376(3) of the Penal Code	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2102 Rev Ed)	Singapore
s 23 of the Criminal Procedure Code	Singapore
s 22 of the Criminal Procedure Code	Singapore
s 258(1) of the CPC	Singapore
s 258(3) of the CPC	Singapore
s 328 of the CPC	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Sexual Offences
Digital Penetration
Fellatio
Penile-Anal Penetration
Outrage of Modesty
Familial Abuse
Inducement
Voluntariness of Statement
Credibility of Witness

15.2 Keywords

Sexual Assault
Child Abuse
Singapore
Criminal Law
Sentencing
Familial Abuse

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Sex Crimes	95
Criminal Law	95
Criminal Procedure	90
Sentencing	90
Offences	85
Penal Code	70
Evidence	60

16. Subjects

Criminal Law
Sexual Offences
Child Abuse
Criminal Procedure
Sentencing