PP v GED & PP v GEH: Sentencing for Distribution of Intimate Images under Penal Code s 377BE(1)
The High Court of Singapore heard appeals by the Public Prosecutor against GED and GEH regarding sentences for distributing intimate images under s 377BE(1) of the Penal Code. GED was initially sentenced to 12 weeks' imprisonment for distributing an intimate image of his wife. GEH was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment for distributing a video of an assault victim. The court established a sentencing framework for the offence, considering harm and culpability. The court allowed the appeals, increasing GED's sentence to 18 months and GEH's to 33 months' imprisonment and two strokes of the cane. GEH's cross-appeal was dismissed.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed in Part
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court clarifies sentencing for distributing intimate images under s 377BE(1) of the Penal Code. Appeals against sentences allowed.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Appellant, Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Allowed in Part | Partial | Tai Wei Shyong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Yvonne Poon Yirong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Foong Ke Hui of Attorney-General’s Chambers Jeremy Bin Wen Hao of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| GED | Respondent | Individual | Sentence Increased | Lost | |
| GEH | Appellant, Respondent | Individual | Sentence Increased | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Steven Chong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Vincent Hoong | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Tai Wei Shyong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Yvonne Poon Yirong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Foong Ke Hui | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Jeremy Bin Wen Hao | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Wee Hong Shern | Ong & Co LLC |
| Luke Anton Netto | Netto & Magin LLC |
| Aylwyn Seto Zi You | Netto & Magin LLC |
4. Facts
- GED stole V1's mobile phone and found intimate images of her.
- GED posted an intimate image of V1 on Facebook.
- GEH and others attacked V2, causing grievous hurt.
- GEH recorded a video of V2's exposed genitals during the assault.
- GEH distributed the video to over 500 of V2's contacts.
- GEH and others shouted insults at B and mocked her.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v GED and other appeals, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9280 of 2021, [2022] SGHC 301
- Public Prosecutor v GED and other appeals, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9008 of 2022/01, [2022] SGHC 301
- Public Prosecutor v GED and other appeals, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9008 of 2022/02, [2022] SGHC 301
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Section 377BE of the Penal Code came into effect | |
| GED stole V1's mobile phone | |
| GEH and others confronted and attacked V2 | |
| GED posted intimate image of V1 on Facebook | |
| GED pleaded guilty to theft and distribution of intimate image | |
| GEH pleaded guilty to voluntarily causing grievous hurt, distributing an intimate recording, and disorderly conduct | |
| GED sentenced by District Judge | |
| Prosecution appealed against GED's sentence | |
| GEH sentenced by Principal District Judge | |
| GEH appealed against sentence | |
| Prosecution appealed against GEH's sentence | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment delivered |
7. Legal Issues
- Sentencing for Distribution of Intimate Images
- Outcome: The court established a sentencing framework for the offence under s 377BE(1) of the Penal Code, considering harm and culpability.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Appropriate sentencing framework
- Assessment of harm
- Assessment of culpability
- Double counting of factors
- Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt
- Outcome: The court considered the appropriate sentence for GEH's VCGH Offence, applying the BDB Framework.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Seriousness of injury
- Aggravating factors
- Mitigating factors
- Disorderly Conduct
- Outcome: The court upheld the sentence for GEH's MOA Offence.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Increased Sentence
- Review of Sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Theft
- Distribution of Intimate Images
- Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt
- Disorderly Conduct
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing Guidelines
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wong Tian Jun De Beers v Public Prosecutor | General Division of the High Court | Yes | [2021] SGHC 273 | Singapore | Stressed the importance of utilising the full range of sentences prescribed by s 506 of the Penal Code for the offence of criminal intimidation, observations apply equally to s 377BE of the Penal Code. |
| Public Prosecutor v GED | District Court | No | [2022] SGDC 6 | Singapore | The District Judge sentenced GED to 12 weeks’ imprisonment for his Actual Distribution Offence and one week’s imprisonment for the Theft Offence, to run consecutively. |
| Public Prosecutor v Shahrul Nizam Bin Kharuddin | District Court | No | [2021] SGDC 67 | Singapore | The DJ observed that general deterrence had to feature as a dominant sentencing consideration, given the context in which s 377BE was enacted. |
| Public Prosecutor v GEH | District Court | No | [2022] SGDC 25 | Singapore | The Principal District Judge sentenced GEH to 18 months’ imprisonment for his Actual Distribution Offence, 18 months’ imprisonment and four strokes of the cane for his VCGH Offence, and a fine of $1,500 for his MOA Offence. |
| Public Prosecutor v BDB | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 127 | Singapore | Applied the two-step sentencing framework set out by the Court of Appeal in Public Prosecutor v BDB for GEH’s VCGH Offence. |
| Public Prosecutor v Gao Zhengkun | District Court | Yes | [2019] SGDC 241 | Singapore | The usual sentencing tariff for MOA offences was a fine. |
| Abdul Mutalib bin Aziman v Public Prosecutor and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 4 SLR 1220 | Singapore | Sentencing framework would assist in providing structure and guidance for future sentencing courts and assist in the “quest for broad parity and consistency in sentencing”. |
| Logachev Vladislav v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 609 | Singapore | Sentencing framework for the Actual Distribution Offence should be modelled on the two-stage, five-step sentencing framework set out in Logachev. |
| Ye Lin Myint v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2019] 5 SLR 1005 | Singapore | The High Court considered how the offender’s motive would be analysed as a factor going towards culpability. |
| R v Bostan (Amar) | England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) | No | [2018] EWCA Crim 494 | England and Wales | The need to take into consideration the circumstances and sensitivity of the particular victim. |
| Public Prosecutor v Raveen Balakrishnan | High Court | Yes | [2018] 5 SLR 799 | Singapore | The rule against double counting. |
| Cheang Geok Lin v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 548 | Singapore | When determining the appropriate sentence for the offence with which an offender has been charged, it may fairly have regard to relevant facts that may constitute a separate offence that he has not been charged with. |
| Public Prosecutor v Bong Sim Swan Suzanna | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 1001 | Singapore | Importance of “consider[ing] the totality of the circumstances of a charged offence in order to have a true flavour of the offence as the overall perspective may have an impact on the level of the offender’s culpability and the extent of the victim’s suffering”. |
| Public Prosecutor v Nelson Jeyaraj s/o Chandran | High Court | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 1130 | Singapore | The risk of double counting where a factor is taken into account in sentencing even though it has already formed the factual basis of other charges brought against the offender. |
| Low Song Chye v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2019] 5 SLR 526 | Singapore | Sentencing framework for the offences of voluntarily causing hurt. |
| Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 449 | Singapore | An offence committed with planning and premeditation will generally be more aggravated than one which is committed opportunistically or on impulse. |
| R v JB | Ontario Superior Court of Justice | No | (2018) ONSC 4726 | Canada | Illustrative example of facts that would disclose a high degree of planning and premeditation. |
| Edwin s/o Suse Nathen v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 1139 | Singapore | Although the presence of relevant antecedents will be taken into account as an aggravating factor, the absence of such antecedents will not in itself be a mitigating factor. |
| Purwanti Parji v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 2 SLR(R) 220 | Singapore | The absence of antecedents must be “weighed in the balance against other factors, the first and foremost of which … is the public interest”. |
| Chang Kar Meng v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 68 | Singapore | The key question in this regard is whether the nature of the offender’s mental condition is such that the offender “retained substantially the mental ability or capacity to control or restrain himself at the time of his criminal acts”, and simply “chose not to exercise self-control”. |
| Mohamed Shouffee bin Adam v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 998 | Singapore | The court must have particular regard to two principles: namely, the one-transaction rule and the totality principle. |
| Public Prosecutor v Manta Equipment (S) Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC 157 | Singapore | “a wider range of indicative starting sentences is warranted for the myriad situations that might be encapsulated” in certain categories of cases. |
| Amin bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 5 SLR 904 | Singapore | A sentence of caning may be imposed to meet the sentencing objectives of deterrence and/or retribution. |
| Tan Song Cheng v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2021] 5 SLR 789 | Singapore | Illustrates the dangers of the “anchoring effect”. |
| Keeping Mark John v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2017] 5 SLR 627 | Singapore | Sentencing precedents without written grounds are of relatively little (if any) precedential value because they are unreasoned. |
| Public Prosecutor v Kwong Kok Hing | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 684 | Singapore | It “has long been established that hurt can extend to non-physical injury, eg, mental harm”, and long-term psychological and emotional trauma suffered by the victim is a relevant sentencing consideration. |
| Saw Beng Chong v Public Prosecutor | General Division of the High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC 175 | Singapore | Laid down further guidance as to the sentencing approach to be adopted for the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt. |
| Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Fuad Kamroden | District Court | No | [2019] SGDC 287 | Singapore | Injuries suffered by the relevant victim included facial fractures concentrated on the nose area. |
| Public Prosecutor v Pettijohn William Samuel | District Court | No | [2019] SGDC 290 | Singapore | The victim sustained mildly displaced fractures of the left orbital floor and anterior and lateral maxillary walls with small hemoantrum, and a left zygomatic arch fracture. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ong Chee Heng | High Court | Yes | [2017] 5 SLR 876 | Singapore | The mere fact that there was a group element in the facts and circumstances of the offence does not mean that the commission of the offence is necessarily aggravated. |
| Tan Rui Leen Russell v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | No | [2009] 3 SLR(R) 979 | Singapore | Medical evidence to show that the victim’s provocative conduct had triggered the offender’s “acute stress reaction” at the time of the offence. |
| Public Prosecutor v Manfred Wu Jing Jie | District Court | No | [2019] SGDC 126 | Singapore | A fine of $1,500 (in default, six days’ imprisonment) was imposed for the offence under s 20 of the MOA. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 377BE | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 380 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 377BD | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 325 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 34 | Singapore |
| Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act (Cap 184, 1997 Rev Ed) s 20 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) s 386(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) s 307(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) s 306(2) | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 26C(1) | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 26D(1)–26D(3) | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 74(1) | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 74(2)(a) | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 378 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Intimate Image
- Distribution
- Sentencing Framework
- Harm
- Culpability
- Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt
- Disorderly Conduct
- Totality Principle
- Double Counting
15.2 Keywords
- Distribution of Intimate Images
- Sentencing
- Criminal Law
- Singapore
- Penal Code
- Sexual Offences
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Criminal Law | 95 |
| Sentencing | 95 |
| Criminal Procedure | 95 |
| Sexual Offences | 90 |
| Offences | 80 |
| Torts | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
- Sexual Offences
- Criminal Procedure