CJH v Public Prosecutor: Appeal Against Sentence for Sexual Offences Against Minor

CJH, a Singapore citizen, appealed against the sentence imposed by the High Court for sexual offences committed against his biological sister, V, when he was between 15 and 18 years old and she was between 9 and 12 years old. The offences included penile-anal, penile-vaginal, and penile-oral penetration. The High Court applied the sentencing frameworks in *Ng Kean Meng Terence* and *Pram Nair*. The Court of Appeal, comprising Sundaresh Menon CJ, Judith Prakash JCA, and Tay Yong Kwang JCA, allowed the appeal in part, reducing the aggregate sentence from 18 years' imprisonment and 16 strokes of the cane to 16 years' imprisonment and 16 strokes of the cane, considering the appellant's youth at the time of the offences.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the republic of singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed in Part

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Ex tempore judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal against sentence for sexual offences. The Court of Appeal reduced the aggregate sentence, considering the appellant's youth at the time of the offences.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorRespondentGovernment AgencyAppeal Partially UpheldPartial
Selene Yap Wan Ting of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Michelle Tay Xin Ying of Attorney-General’s Chambers
CJHAppellantIndividualAppeal Allowed in PartPartial
Wong Kok Weng of Public Defender’s Office
Ryan David Lim of Public Defender’s Office
Muhammad Taufiq bin Suraidi of Public Defender’s Office

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Sundaresh MenonChief JusticeNo
Judith PrakashJustice of the Court of AppealNo
Tay Yong KwangJustice of the Court of AppealYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Selene Yap Wan TingAttorney-General’s Chambers
Michelle Tay Xin YingAttorney-General’s Chambers
Wong Kok WengPublic Defender’s Office
Ryan David LimPublic Defender’s Office
Muhammad Taufiq bin SuraidiPublic Defender’s Office

4. Facts

  1. The appellant committed sexual offences against his biological sister between 2017 and 2020.
  2. The offences included penile-anal, penile-vaginal, and penile-oral penetration.
  3. The victim was between 9 and 12 years old at the time of the offences.
  4. The appellant pleaded guilty to three charges under s 376A(1)(a) of the Penal Code.
  5. The trial Judge applied the sentencing frameworks in *Ng Kean Meng Terence* and *Pram Nair*.
  6. The trial Judge ordered the imprisonment terms for the first two charges to run consecutively, resulting in an aggregate sentence of 18 years’ imprisonment and 16 strokes of the cane.
  7. The Court of Appeal reduced the aggregate sentence to 16 years’ imprisonment and 16 strokes of the cane.

5. Formal Citations

  1. CJH v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Appeal No 39 of 2022, [2023] SGCA 19

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Appellant penetrated V's anus.
Appellant penetrated V's vagina.
Appellant penetrated V's mouth.
Appellant arrested.
Court of Appeal judgment delivered.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Appropriateness of Sentence
    • Outcome: The Court of Appeal reduced the aggregate sentence, considering the appellant's youth at the time of the offences and applying the totality principle.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Aggravating factors
      • Mitigating factors
      • Totality principle
      • Rehabilitation
    • Related Cases:
      • [2017] 2 SLR 449
      • [2017] 2 SLR 1015
      • [2022] SGHC 244
      • [2020] SGCA 113
  2. Aggravating Factors
    • Outcome: The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding of aggravating factors, except for severe harm, but stated that even without that factor, the case would still fall within band 2 of the sentencing frameworks.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Victim's youth
      • Breach of trust
      • Prolonged period of offending
      • Harm caused to victim
    • Related Cases:
      • [2017] 2 SLR 449

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Appeal against sentence
  2. Reduction of imprisonment term
  3. Reduction of caning strokes

9. Cause of Actions

  • Sexual Offences
  • Penile-anal penetration
  • Penile-vaginal penetration
  • Penile-oral penetration

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Appeals
  • Sentencing Guidelines

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2017] 2 SLR 449SingaporeApplied the sentencing framework for penile-vaginal penetration charge.
Pram Nair v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2017] 2 SLR 1015SingaporeApplied the sentencing framework for penile-anal and penile-oral penetration charges.
ABC v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2022] SGHC 244SingaporeHigh Court's views on sentencing framework.
Muhammad Anddy Faizul bin Mohd Eskah v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2020] SGCA 113SingaporeCited for comparison of sentencing in similar cases involving multiple victims and offences.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 376A(1)(a)Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 376A(3)Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) s 124(5)(d)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Sexual offences
  • Penile penetration
  • Sentencing framework
  • Aggravating factors
  • Mitigating factors
  • Totality principle
  • Rehabilitation
  • Manifestly excessive
  • Consecutive sentences

15.2 Keywords

  • sexual offences
  • sentencing
  • criminal appeal
  • youthful offender
  • totality principle

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Sexual Offences98
Criminal Law95
Sentencing Guidelines92
Criminal Procedure90
Appeal85
Children's Welfare70

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Sentencing
  • Criminal Procedure