Mohamed Ardlee v PP: Aggravated Outrage of Modesty Sentencing Appeal
Mohamed Ardlee Iriandee bin Mohamed Sanip appealed against his conviction and sentence for aggravated outrage of modesty. He was convicted on one charge of aggravated outrage of modesty and pleaded guilty to a second charge of attempted aggravated outrage of modesty. The District Judge sentenced him to an aggregate of seven years and six months’ imprisonment and six strokes of the cane. The High Court dismissed the appeal against conviction and sentence.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Ex Tempore judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal against conviction and sentence for aggravated outrage of modesty. The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal dismissed | Won | Sruthi Boppana of Attorney-General’s Chambers Teo Pei Rong Grace of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Mohamed Ardlee Iriandee bin Mohamed Sanip | Appellant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Vincent Hoong | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Sruthi Boppana | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Teo Pei Rong Grace | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- The appellant was convicted after trial on one charge of aggravated outrage of modesty.
- The appellant pleaded guilty to a second charge of attempted aggravated outrage of modesty.
- The District Judge imposed a sentence of four years and six months’ imprisonment and four strokes of the cane in respect of the First Charge.
- The District Judge imposed a sentence of three years’ imprisonment and two strokes of the cane in respect of the Second Charge.
- The District Judge ordered both sentences to run consecutively, resulting in an aggregate sentence of seven years and six months’ imprisonment and six strokes of the cane.
- The appellant appealed against his conviction and sentence.
- The victim's evidence was found to be cogent as well as internally and externally consistent.
5. Formal Citations
- Mohamed Ardlee Iriandee bin Mohamed Sanip v Public Prosecutor, , [2022] SGHC 172
- Public Prosecutor v Mohamed Ardlee Iriandee bin Mohamed Sanip, , [2021] SGDC 64
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Magistrate’s Appeal No 9864 of 2020 | |
| District Judge’s grounds of decision found at Public Prosecutor v Mohamed Ardlee Iriandee bin Mohamed Sanip [2021] SGDC 64 | |
| Appellant’s Submissions dated 26 May 2022 | |
| Mohamed Muzammil bin Mohamed’s Affidavit dated 28 April 2022 | |
| Judgment delivered |
7. Legal Issues
- Aggravated Outrage of Modesty
- Outcome: The court upheld the conviction for aggravated outrage of modesty.
- Category: Substantive
- Sentencing
- Outcome: The court upheld the sentence imposed by the District Judge.
- Category: Procedural
- Retraction of Guilty Plea
- Outcome: The court found that there was no merit to the appellant’s attempt to retract his plea of guilt to the Second Charge.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2019] 1 SLR 1289
- [2016] 5 SLR 1219
- Inadequate Legal Assistance
- Outcome: The court declined to overturn the appellant’s conviction on the basis that he received inadequate legal assistance.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2020] 1 SLR 907
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Aggravated Outrage of Modesty
- Attempted Aggravated Outrage of Modesty
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yap Giau Beng Terence v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR 656 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court should be slow to overturn the trial judge’s findings of fact, especially where they hinge on the trial judge’s assessment of the credibility and veracity of witnesses. |
| Public Prosecutor v Dinesh s/o Rajantheran | High Court | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 1289 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court will only allow an accused person to retract his guilty plea at the post-sentence stage in exceptional cases. |
| Chng Leng Khim v Public Prosecutor and another matter | High Court | Yes | [2016] 5 SLR 1219 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that disappointment over a sentence different from one that was hoped for is never an acceptable basis for allowing an accused person to seek belatedly to retract his plea of guilt. |
| Mohammad Farid bin Batra v Public Prosecutor and another appeal and other matters | High Court | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 907 | Singapore | Cited for the test to overturn a conviction on the basis that the appellant did not receive adequate legal assistance. |
| Kanagaratnam Nicholas Jens v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2019] 5 SLR 887 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Court may decline to convene a Newton hearing if the case sought to be advanced is absurd or obviously untenable. |
| Public Prosecutor v Siow Kai Yuan Terence | High Court | Yes | [2020] 4 SLR 1412 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the egregiousness and nature of the appellant’s offences would have rendered deterrence the foremost sentencing consideration. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 354A(2)(b) | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 511(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) ss 337(1)(b)(ii) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) ss 337(1)(c) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Aggravated outrage of modesty
- Sentencing
- Retraction of guilty plea
- Inadequate legal assistance
- Premeditation
- Deterrence
- Rehabilitation
15.2 Keywords
- Aggravated Outrage of Modesty
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
- Singapore
- Appeal
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Outrage of Modesty | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Offences | 90 |
| Sentencing | 85 |
| Criminal Procedure | 85 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing