CCG v Public Prosecutor: Appeal Against 23-Year Sentence for Sexual Assault and Outrage of Modesty
CCG appealed to the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore against a 23-year imprisonment term imposed by the High Court for two charges of sexual assault by penetration and one charge of outrage of modesty. The Court of Appeal, comprising Andrew Phang Boon Leong JCA, Judith Prakash JCA, and Steven Chong JCA, dismissed the appeal, finding no basis for appellate intervention. CCG had pleaded guilty to the charges, and the appeal was based on claims of offender-specific mitigating factors.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Ex Tempore Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
CCG appeals a 23-year sentence for sexual assault and outrage of modesty. The Court of Appeal dismisses the appeal, finding no basis for intervention.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Andre Ong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Nicholas Lai of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| CCG | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Judith Prakash | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Steven Chong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Andre Ong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Nicholas Lai | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- CCG pleaded guilty to two charges of sexual assault by penetration and one charge of outrage of modesty.
- The victim in the sexual assault charges was aged between ten and 12 years at the time of the offences.
- The victim in the outrage of modesty charge was aged 17 at the time of the offence.
- CCG was sentenced to an aggregate of 23 years’ imprisonment.
- CCG had prior convictions for voluntarily causing hurt, trafficking in a controlled drug, doing a rash act, and criminal intimidation.
- CCG claimed to have a dependent wife and children.
- CCG argued that his age would make reintegration into society difficult after serving the sentence.
5. Formal Citations
- CCG v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Appeal No 22 of 2021, [2022] SGCA 19
- Public Prosecutor v CCG, , [2021] SGHC 207
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| CCG placed in remand | |
| CCG's plea of guilt was recorded | |
| CCG was sentenced | |
| Judgment delivered |
7. Legal Issues
- Appropriateness of Sentence
- Outcome: The court found no basis for appellate intervention and upheld the sentence.
- Category: Substantive
- Mitigating Factors
- Outcome: The court rejected the mitigating factors presented by the appellant.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Reduction of Sentence
- Concurrent Sentences
9. Cause of Actions
- Sexual Assault by Penetration
- Outrage of Modesty
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Kwong Kok Hing | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 684 | Singapore | Cited for the four grounds of appeal |
| Lai Oei Mui Jenny v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1993] 2 SLR(R) 406 | Singapore | Established that an offender’s financial circumstances alone would not ordinarily amount to a mitigating factor. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ridhaudin Ridhwan bin Bakri | High Court | Yes | [2020] 4 SLR 790 | Singapore | Affirmed that an offender’s financial circumstances alone would not ordinarily amount to a mitigating factor. |
| Purwanti Parji v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 2 SLR(R) 220 | Singapore | Observed that although it is typical to impose a more lenient sentence on first-time offenders, such a discount is not to be given mechanistically. |
| Yap Ah Lai v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 180 | Singapore | Stated that an offender’s age may be a relevant mitigatory consideration in the sense that, where a person of mature age commits a first offence, some credit can be given for the fact that he passed most of his life with a clean record. |
| BPH v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | N/A | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 764 | Singapore | Referred to by the Judge in questioning the Prosecution on the sentencing position they had taken. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) ss 376(2)(a) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) ss 376(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 376(4)(b) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 354(1) | Singapore |
| Liquor Control (Supply and Consumption) Act 2015 s 14(2)(b)(i) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Sexual Assault
- Outrage of Modesty
- Sentencing
- Mitigating Factors
- Consecutive Sentences
- Aggregate Sentence
- Appellate Intervention
15.2 Keywords
- sexual assault
- outrage of modesty
- sentencing
- criminal appeal
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Sentencing | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 90 |
| Sexual Offences | 85 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing