Public Prosecutor v BVR: Aggravated Rape of Minors & Sentencing

In Public Prosecutor v BVR, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore sentenced BVR to 45 years' imprisonment on 27 June 2022 (with written grounds issued on 18 August 2022) for six charges of aggravated rape against eight victims. The victims, some as young as five years old, were sexually abused over 16 years. BVR exploited his position as a tutor and family friend. The court considered the severity and premeditation of the crimes, the vulnerability of the victims, and the need for both retribution and deterrence.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Accused sentenced to an aggregate of 45 years’ imprisonment.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

BVR was sentenced to 45 years' imprisonment for aggravated rape of eight victims, some as young as five, abusing his position as a tutor.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorProsecutionGovernment AgencyJudgment for ProsecutionWon
Yvonne Poon of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Andre Ong of Attorney-General’s Chambers
BVRDefendantIndividualConvicted and SentencedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Ang Cheng HockJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Yvonne PoonAttorney-General’s Chambers
Andre OngAttorney-General’s Chambers
Fong Mun Yung Gregory JohnFong & Fong LLC

4. Facts

  1. The accused, BVR, committed sexual abuse against eight victims over 16 years.
  2. Some victims were as young as five years old at the time of the offences.
  3. The accused pleaded guilty to six charges of aggravated rape.
  4. The accused consented to 80 other charges being taken into consideration for sentencing.
  5. The accused abused his position as a tutor and family friend to gain access to the victims.
  6. The accused video recorded some of the sexual offences.
  7. The accused did not use a condom during any of the offences.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Public Prosecutor v BVR, Criminal Case No 33 of 2022, [2022] SGHC 198

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Accused became acquainted with V4’s mother.
Accused got to know V5.
Accused had sexual intercourse with V5.
Accused had sexual intercourse with V5.
Accused falsely represented to V4's mother that he had studied psychology.
Accused worked as a part-time tutor for children.
Accused offered to tutor V4 at no cost.
Accused committed various sexual offences against V4.
Accused entered into a relationship with V4’s mother.
Accused had sexual intercourse with V4.
Accused had sexual intercourse with V4.
Accused enrolled in a diploma in Learning Disorders Management and Child Psychology.
V4, V8 and their mother moved to reside with the accused at his residence.
Accused obtained a diploma in Learning Disorders Management and Child Psychology.
Accused became acquainted with V1’s mother.
Accused’s relationship with V4’s mother ended.
Accused video recorded himself attempting to penetrate, and penetrating V1’s vagina with his penis on five occasions.
Accused penetrated V1’s vagina with his penis.
Accused penetrated V1’s vagina with his penis.
Complainant purchased a used laptop from the accused.
Complainant discovered obscene photographs and videos on the laptop.
Complainant lodged a police report.
Accused was arrested by police officers.
Institute of Mental Health prepared psychiatric report.
Health Sciences Authority prepared report.
Accused pleaded guilty and was convicted of six charges of aggravated rape.
Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Sentencing for Aggravated Rape
    • Outcome: The court sentenced the accused to 15 years’ imprisonment for each of the six proceeded charges, with the sentences for three charges to run consecutively, resulting in an aggregate sentence of 45 years’ imprisonment.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Application of the Terence Ng framework
      • Aggravating factors
      • Mitigating factors
      • Totality principle
    • Related Cases:
      • [2017] 2 SLR 449
      • [2014] 2 SLR 998

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Imprisonment

9. Cause of Actions

  • Aggravated Rape
  • Attempted Aggravated Rape
  • Committing an Unnatural Offence
  • Using Criminal Force with Intent to Outrage Modesty
  • Committing an Indecent Act with a Child

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Law
  • Sentencing
  • Sexual Assault

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2017] 2 SLR 449SingaporeLaid down a two-step sentencing approach for rape.
Public Prosecutor v NFUnknownYes[2006] 4 SLR(R) 849SingaporeRape is an inherently odious and reprehensible act which almost invariably inflicts immeasurable and irreparable harm on a victim.
Lim Ghim Peow v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[2014] 4 SLR 1287SingaporeThe primary sentencing considerations should be the need for retribution, the protection of the public and general deterrence.
Chang Kar Meng v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[2017] 2 SLR 68SingaporeThe primary sentencing considerations should be the need for retribution, the protection of the public and general deterrence.
Lim Hock Hin Kelvin v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[1998] 1 SLR(R) 37SingaporeGeneral deterrence is a highly relevant sentencing consideration when sentencing offenders who have committed rape, especially where such offenders have exploited a relationship of trust or position of authority in order to gratify their sexual impulses.
Public Prosecutor v Fernando Payagala Waduge Malitha KumarUnknownYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 334SingaporeSpecific deterrence features as an important sentencing consideration in this case in light of the long period of time over which the accused’s offences were committed.
Public Prosecutor v Law Aik MengUnknownYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 814SingaporeThe offences were conducted in a highly premeditated manner. Such premeditation made it apparent that the accused had made a conscious choice to commit the various offences, which necessitated the consideration of specific deterrence in the eventual sentence imposed.
Public Prosecutor v Lim Beng CheokHigh CourtYes[2003] SGHC 54SingaporeThe accused thereby placed himself in a position of trust and authority over the victims by virtue of their tutor-student relationship, the abuse of which has been accepted as an aggravating factor
GBR v Public Prosecutor and another appealUnknownYes[2018] 3 SLR 1048SingaporeIn cases where victims are sexually abused by figures in whom they repose significant trust, deterrence becomes a particular concern due to the “difficulty in the detection of the offences and the considerable barriers faced by the victim in reporting them
Public Prosecutor v ABJUnknownYes[2010] 2 SLR 377SingaporeOne of the aggravating factors which the court in Terence Ng considered in classifying Public Prosecutor v ABJ [2010] 2 SLR 377 (“ABJ”) as a Band 3 case was the “extreme youth” of the victim in that case who was eight years old when the sexual abuses started
Public Prosecutor v Azuar Bin AhamadHigh CourtYes[2014] SGHC 149SingaporeThe video recording of the sexual assault of one’s victims is an aggravating factor as such conduct allows offenders to repeatedly rewatch their offences for their own perverted pleasure and creates the risk of the recordings being circulated
Muhammad Sutarno bin Nasir v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[2018] 2 SLR 647SingaporeThe same TIC Charges should not be relied upon as a basis for increasing the sentences for more than one charge, as that might otherwise amount to double counting
Lee Shing Chan v Public Prosecutor and another appealUnknownYes[2020] 4 SLR 1174SingaporeSentencing is not a scientific exercise requiring mathematical precision, and a mathematical approach to sentencing, which is impractical and unduly constrains the sentencing judge, should be eschewed
Public Prosecutor v Lee Ah ChoyUnknownYes[2016] 4 SLR 1300SingaporeWhere an offender has no choice but to plead guilty due to the overwhelming strength of the evidence against him, that guilty plea should not be accorded significant mitigatory weight
Public Prosecutor v BDBUnknownYes[2018] 1 SLR 127SingaporeWhere an offender has no choice but to plead guilty due to the overwhelming strength of the evidence against him, that guilty plea should not be accorded significant mitigatory weight
Kunasekaran s/o Kalimuthu Somasundara v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[2018] 4 SLR 580SingaporeThe absence of relevant antecedents was not a valid mitigating factor, but merely the absence of an additional aggravating factor
Public Prosecutor v Raveen BalakrishnanUnknownYes[2018] 5 SLR 799SingaporeThis involved applying the one-transaction rule and the totality principle
Mohamed Shouffee bin Adam v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[2014] 2 SLR 998SingaporeThe totality principle comprises two limbs: (i) whether the aggregate sentence is substantially above the normal level of sentences for the most serious of the individual offences involved; and (ii) whether the effect of the aggregate sentence on the offender is crushing and not in keeping with the offender’s past record and future prospects
ADF v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[2010] 1 SLR 874SingaporeIt is not inconsistent with the totality principle for more than two sentences to run consecutively where the circumstances call for it
Public Prosecutor v Koh Seah Wee and anotherUnknownYes[2012] 1 SLR 292SingaporeA distinction must be drawn between those who break the law for the first time and those who have flouted the law with impunity for years and are finally caught and charged for the first time
Chen Weixiong Jerriek v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[2003] 2 SLR(R) 334SingaporeThe court should be extremely reluctant to regard offenders who have been charged with multiple offences as first-time offenders
Public Prosecutor v UIUnknownYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 500SingaporeThe imposition of a substantial custodial term which deprives an offender of a larger fraction of their expectation of life so as to effectively amount to a life sentence might offend the totality principle
Public Prosecutor v Ewe Pang KooiHigh CourtYes[2019] SGHC 166SingaporeThe High Court sentenced the offender (who was 65 years old) to 310 months’ imprisonment (25.8 years’ imprisonment) for offences under s 409 of the 1985 PC, after expressly taking into account his advanced age and the principle that the court should not impose what would effectively be a life sentence
Ewe Pang Kooi v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2020] 1 SLR 757SingaporeThere are limits to the principle that a sentencing court should be mindful of the real effect of a sentence on an offender of advanced age, and that the sentence in that case was simply a consequence of the period of time during which the offender had managed to keep his criminal activities concealed

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 375(1)(a)Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 375(3)(b)Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 376(2)Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 511(1)Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 511Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 377Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 354(2)Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 354Singapore
Children and Young Persons Act (Cap 38, 2001 Rev Ed) s 7(a)Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) s 325(1)(b)Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code s 307(1)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Aggravated Rape
  • Paedophilia
  • Sentencing
  • Mitigation
  • Aggravation
  • Totality Principle
  • Sexual Abuse
  • Child Victims
  • Breach of Trust
  • Premeditation

15.2 Keywords

  • Aggravated Rape
  • Child Abuse
  • Sentencing
  • Singapore
  • Criminal Law

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Aggravated Rape99
Sexual Offences98
Sentencing Guidelines95
Criminal Law90
Criminal Procedure85
Children's Welfare70

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Procedure and Sentencing