Public Prosecutor v CJH: Sentencing for Sexual Assault of a Minor
In Public Prosecutor v CJH, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore sentenced CJH on December 2, 2022, for three charges of sexual penetration of his biological sister, a minor, under s 376A(1)(a) of the Penal Code. The court considered the sentencing frameworks in Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public Prosecutor and Pram Nair v PP, ultimately sentencing CJH to a total of 18 years' imprisonment and 16 strokes of the cane, with the sentences for the first and second charges running consecutively.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Accused sentenced to 18 years’ imprisonment and 16 strokes of the cane.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
CJH was convicted of sexually assaulting his younger sister. The court sentenced him to 18 years' imprisonment and 16 strokes of the cane.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Prosecution | Government Agency | Judgment for the Prosecution | Won | Yap Wan Ting Selene of Public Prosecutor Tay Xin Ying Michelle of Public Prosecutor |
| CJH | Defendant | Individual | Convicted and Sentenced | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Mavis Chionh Sze Chyi | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Yap Wan Ting Selene | Public Prosecutor |
| Tay Xin Ying Michelle | Public Prosecutor |
| Vangadasalam Suriamurthi | V. Suria & Co |
4. Facts
- The accused raped and sexually assaulted his younger sister on numerous occasions over three years.
- The victim was between 9 and 12 years old at the time of the offences.
- The accused and victim resided with their parents in a three-room flat.
- The parents were often not at home during the times the offences were committed.
- The victim confided in a friend, leading to a police report and the accused's arrest.
- The accused penetrated the victim's anus, vagina, and mouth with his penis.
- The victim experienced pain and bleeding as a result of the assaults.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v CJH, Criminal Case 56 of 2022, [2022] SGHC 303
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| First instance of sexual assault occurred after this date. | |
| Sexual assault occurred before this date. | |
| Sexual assault occurred after this date. | |
| Sexual assault occurred before this date. | |
| Sexual assault occurred before this date. | |
| Sexual assault occurred after this date. | |
| Sexual assault occurred before this date. | |
| Sexual assault occurred around this date. | |
| Police report made at Jurong East Neighbourhood Police Centre. | |
| Accused arrested. | |
| Hearing fixed before the court. | |
| ABC v PP judgment released. | |
| Accused pleaded guilty to three charges. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Rape
- Outcome: The accused was convicted of rape.
- Category: Substantive
- Sentencing
- Outcome: The court determined the appropriate sentence based on relevant sentencing frameworks.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2022] SGHC 244
- [2017] 2 SLR 1015
- [2017] 2 SLR 449
- Mitigation
- Outcome: The court considered mitigating factors in determining the final sentence.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Imprisonment
- Caning
9. Cause of Actions
- Sexual Assault
- Rape
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing Guidelines
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ABC v PP | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC 244 | Singapore | Cited for the applicable sentencing framework in respect of s 376A offences. |
| Pram Nair v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 1015 | Singapore | Cited for the sentencing framework for digital penetration offences and its potential applicability to s 376A offences. |
| Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 449 | Singapore | Cited for the sentencing framework for rape offences and its potential applicability to penile-vaginal penetration offences under s 376A. |
| Public Prosecutor v BAB | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 292 | Singapore | Cited for the starting point for cases under s 376A(3) where there is an element of abuse of trust. |
| Public Prosecutor v Yue Roger Jr | High Court | Yes | [2019] 3 SLR 749 | Singapore | Cited for the sentencing bands for s 376 set out in Pram Nair should generally apply to offences under s 376A(3). |
| Yue Roger Jr v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 829 | Singapore | Cited for the issue of the appropriate sentencing approach for an offence of sexual penetration of a minor under the age of 14 years of age punishable under s 376A(3) open. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mohammad Al-Ansari bin Basri | High Court | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 449 | Singapore | Cited for the analytical framework for sentencing young offenders. |
| BPH v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 764 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that non-consensual penile-vaginal penetration is the most serious of sexual offences. |
| Mohamed Shouffee bin Adam v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 998 | Singapore | Cited for the totality principle in sentencing. |
| PP v Koh Wen Jie Boaz | High Court | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 334 | Singapore | Cited for endorsing the Al-Ansari framework in sentencing a young offender. |
| PP v ASR | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 941 | Singapore | Cited for explaining the operation of the Al-Ansari framework. |
| PP v Mok Ping Wuen Maurice | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 439 | Singapore | Cited for rehabilitation is presumed to be the dominant sentencing objective for young offenders unless otherwise shown. |
| A Karthik v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 5 SLR 1289 | Singapore | Cited for rehabilitation is presumed to be the dominant sentencing objective for young offenders unless otherwise shown. |
| Ahmad Syafiq bin Azmi v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 5 SLR 837 | Singapore | Cited for if the offence is so heinous and the young offender is so devoid of any realistic prospect of being reformed, then deterrence is the dominant consideration. |
| Soh Meiyun v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 299 | Singapore | Cited for general deterrence is premised on the cognitive normalcy of both the offender in question and the potential offenders sought to be deterred. |
| PP v Kong Peng Yee | High Court | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 295 | Singapore | Cited for general deterrence is premised on the cognitive normalcy of both the offender in question and the potential offenders sought to be deterred. |
| PP v Mohamed Noh Hafiz bin Osman | High Court | Yes | [2003] 4 SLR(R) 281 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case where rehabilitation was displaced as the primary sentencing consideration in the sentencing of a young offender. |
| AQW v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 4 SLR 150 | Singapore | Cited for the vulnerability of a minor ought to be a key consideration in sentencing for sexual offences against minors. |
| PP v NF | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 849 | Singapore | Cited for our courts would be grievously remiss if they did not send an unequivocal and uncompromising message to all would-be sex offenders that abusing a relationship or a position of authority in order to satisfy sexual impulse will inevitably be met with the harshest penal consequences. |
| PP v UI | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 500 | Singapore | Cited for rape simpliciter is already ‘an inherently odious and reprehensible act’… that exacts ‘irretrievable physical, emotional and psychological scars on [the] victim’. |
| PP v Ong Jack Hong | High Court | Yes | [2016] 5 SLR 166 | Singapore | Cited for reformative training should ordinarily be preferred over probation if the court considers that there is a need for deterrence. |
| GBR v PP | High Court | Yes | [2018] 3 SLR 1048 | Singapore | Cited for the aggravating factor of young age would, in relation to enhanced offences, apply if the victim concerned was materially younger than the stipulated age ceiling. |
| PP v See Li Quan Mendel | High Court | Yes | [2019] SGHC 255 | Singapore | Cited for the sentencing of a 19-year-old accused who had pleaded guilty to serious charges including a robbery charge and a rape charge. |
| See Li Quan Mendel v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 630 | Singapore | Cited for the appeal against sentence was dismissed by the CA. |
| Chen Weixing Jerriek v PP | High Court | Yes | [2003] 2 SLR(R) 334 | Singapore | Cited for although the accused has no antecedents on record, he should not be treated as a first-time offender in view of the six TIC charges in this case. |
| PP v Ridhaudin Ridhwan bin Bakri and others | High Court | Yes | [2020] 4 SLR 790 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case with similar offences and sentences. |
| PP v Ridhaudin Ridhwan bin Bakri | High Court | Yes | [2019] SGHC 105 | Singapore | Cited for the trial judge found Ridhwan and Asep guilty of all charges. |
| Asep Ardiansyah v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] SGCA 74 | Singapore | Cited for Asep’s appeal against his conviction was dismissed. |
| Muhammad Anddy Faizul bin Mohd Eskah v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] SGCA 113 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case with similar offences and sentences. |
| PP v Muhammad Fadly Bin Abdull Wahab | High Court | Yes | [2016] SGHC 160 | Singapore | Cited for the two other co-offenders who were also involved and had committed offences against the same complainant – however, they had elected to plead guilty and were dealt with separately. |
| R v William Christopher Millberry | N/A | Yes | R v William Christopher Millberry [2003] 2 Cr App R (S) 31 | N/A | Cited for categorising rape offences into broad categories with benchmark sentences for each category. |
| R v Keith Billam | N/A | Yes | R v Keith Billam (1986) 8 Cr App R (S) 48 | N/A | Cited for categorising rape offences into broad categories with benchmark sentences for each category. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 376A(1)(a) of the Penal Code | Singapore |
| s 376A(3) of the Penal Code | Singapore |
| Penal Code 1871 | Singapore |
| s 375(1)(b) p/u s 375(3)(b) of the Penal Code 1871 | Singapore |
| s 375(1A)(b) p/u s 375(3)(b) of the Penal Code 1871 | Singapore |
| s 307(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 | Singapore |
| s 375 | Singapore |
| s 376 | Singapore |
| s 376A | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Sexual penetration
- Minor
- Penile-vaginal penetration
- Penile-anal penetration
- Penile-oral penetration
- Abuse of trust
- Sentencing framework
- Deterrence
- Retribution
- Rehabilitation
15.2 Keywords
- Rape
- Sexual Assault
- Minor
- Sentencing
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Criminal Law | 95 |
| Rape | 95 |
| Sentencing | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 90 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
- Sexual Offences