Mustapah bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor: Sexual Assault by Oral-Penile Penetration and Sentencing Appeal
In Mustapah bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor, the Singapore Court of Appeal heard an appeal against conviction and sentence for sexual assault by oral-penile penetration (SAP offences) and an appeal against sentence for sexual penetration of a minor (SPOM offence). Mustapah bin Abdullah was convicted in the High Court on three charges of SAP offences involving three teenaged male victims and pleaded guilty to one charge of SPOM offence. The High Court sentenced him to a total of 23 years’ imprisonment with an additional 12 months’ imprisonment in lieu of caning. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against conviction but allowed the appeal against sentence in part, calibrating the global sentence downwards to 18 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed in part.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore Court of Appeal upholds conviction for sexual assault by oral-penile penetration but calibrates the sentence downwards to 18 years and 6 months' imprisonment.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal against conviction upheld; appeal against sentence partially upheld | Partial | Gladys Lim of Attorney-General’s Chambers Gail Wong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Tay Jia En of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Mustapah bin Abdullah | Appellant | Individual | Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed in part | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Judith Prakash | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Gladys Lim | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Gail Wong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tay Jia En | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- The appellant was convicted on three charges of sexual assault by oral-penile penetration involving three teenaged male victims.
- The appellant pleaded guilty to a charge for sexual penetration of a minor under 16 years of age.
- The appellant and the Victims resided in the same neighbourhood.
- The Victims often met at a hut in their neighbourhood, together with another friend.
- The appellant would drink beer and smoke cigarettes with the Victims.
- The appellant revealed his past as an ex-convict, a gang member and his involvement in rioting.
- The Victims viewed the appellant with respect, and saw him as a close friend and even thought of him as a “big brother”.
5. Formal Citations
- Mustapah bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Appeal No 34 of 2022, [2023] SGCA 30
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant began to meet the Victims at the Hut. | |
| Appellant called V1 and asked him to meet at the fitness corner. | |
| Appellant sent V2 and V3 a series of WhatsApp messages. | |
| V3 met the appellant at the Hut. | |
| Second meeting took place at about 10.30pm at the Hut. | |
| SAP offences committed. | |
| Mr. AB asked V1 what had happened. | |
| SAP offences were discovered during the counselling session with Mr. CD. | |
| Police report lodged by V1’s educational institute. | |
| Appellant arrested. | |
| Appellant gave first long statement. | |
| Appellant gave second and third long statements. | |
| Dr. Yeo prepared psychiatric report regarding the appellant. | |
| Appellant filed his Case for the Defence. | |
| Appellant convicted on three charges of sexual assault. | |
| Appellant sentenced for the SAP offences and the SPOM offence. | |
| Hearing of the appeal. | |
| Judgment delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Sexual Assault by Penetration
- Outcome: The court upheld the conviction for sexual assault by penetration.
- Category: Substantive
- Consent in Sexual Offences
- Outcome: The court found that the victims did not genuinely consent to the acts of fellatio.
- Category: Substantive
- Admissibility of Long Statements
- Outcome: The court found that the three incriminating long statements recorded by IO Chai were correctly found to be admissible in evidence.
- Category: Procedural
- Sentencing for Sexual Offences
- Outcome: The court calibrated the global sentence downwards to 18 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2017] 2 SLR 1015
- [2019] 2 SLR 764
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against Conviction
- Appeal against Sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Sexual Assault by Penetration
- Sexual Penetration of a Minor
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pram Nair v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 1015 | Singapore | Cited for the sentencing framework for offences of sexual assault by penetration. |
| AOF v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 3 SLR 34 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it is for an accused to first establish that a complainant had a plausible motive to falsely implicate the accused. |
| Goh Han Heng v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2003] 4 SLR(R) 374 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that if the accused does not discharge the evidential burden of showing collusion, then the burden does not shift to the Prosecution to disprove the fact of collusion beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Public Prosecutor v GCK and another matter | High Court | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 486 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there must be sufficient evidence of a motive for collusion and general assertions without more would not ordinarily suffice. |
| XP v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 686 | Singapore | Cited to distinguish the present case from a case where the court found a plausible motive for collusion. |
| Lee Kwang Peng v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR(R) 569 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there was an absence of a unifying motive amongst the Victims to falsely implicate the appellant. |
| ADF v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 874 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court has a limited role in an appeal against conviction. |
| Tay Wee Kiat and another v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 1315 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that minor inconsistencies in the Victims’ testimony were understandable given the passage of time. |
| Public Prosecutor v Terence Leong Yew Wei | State Courts | Yes | [2014] SGDC 86 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that so long as there is “entry of the tip” of a foreign object into the anus of the victim, then this would constitute penetration. |
| Public Prosecutor v Iryan bin Abdul Karim and others | High Court | Yes | [2010] 2 SLR 15 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it is not necessary for the penis to be erect for there to be successful penetration of the Victims’ mouths within meaning of s 377C(3)(a) of the Penal Code. |
| Public Prosecutor v Murugesan | High Court | Yes | [2005] SGHC 160 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that production of DNA evidence is not a mandatory requirement for an offence to be made out. |
| Public Prosecutor v BND | High Court | Yes | [2019] SGHC 49 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that DNA evidence often serves as evidence that corroborates the testimony of the victims regarding the sexual offence in question. |
| Public Prosecutor v Tan En Jie Norvan | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC 166 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that DNA evidence often serves as evidence that corroborates the testimony of the victims regarding the sexual offence in question. |
| Public Prosecutor v Tan Boon Tat | High Court | Yes | [1990] 1 SLR(R) 287 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the fact that the statement was made by an accused who was tired and hungry and stressed did not necessarily mean that he had no will to resist making any statement which he did not wish to make. |
| Tey Tsun Hang v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 1189 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the key question is whether the individual being questioned was still lucid, could understand questions and could respond to them appropriately. |
| Public Prosecutor v Chong Chee Boon Kenneth and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 5 SLR 1434 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that whether or not there was consent is a question of fact. |
| Augustine Foong Boo Jang v Public Prosecutor | Supreme Court | Yes | [1990] 1 MLJ 225 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that there is a vital difference between submission and consent. |
| BPH v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 764 | Singapore | Cited for the sentencing framework for offences of sexual assault by penetration. |
| Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 449 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the abuse of trust and authority factor encompasses a situation where the offender is in a position of responsibility in relation to the victim. |
| AQW v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 4 SLR 150 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the courts should be careful not to impose excessive punishments on offenders in situations where the minor is not particularly vulnerable. |
| Public Prosecutor v Isham bin Kayubi | High Court | Yes | [2020] SGHC 44 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that vulnerability must be assessed by considering personal circumstances. |
| Public Prosecutor v BAB | High Court | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 292 | Singapore | Cited for the starting sentence in cases involving an abuse of trust. |
| Mohamed Shouffee Bin Adam v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 998 | Singapore | Cited for the framework to arrive at an aggregate sentence for an offender who faced multiple charges. |
| CCG v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] SGCA 19 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the impact on livelihood and hardship to the family caused by the imposition of a sentence should be given little weight unless there are exceptional circumstances. |
| Amin bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2017] 5 SLR 904 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it was also appropriate to impose two months’ imprisonment in lieu of the four strokes of the cane under s 325(2) of the CPC for each of the SAP offences according to indicative guidelines. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mustapah bin Abdullah | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC 262 | Singapore | The decision of the Judge in the High Court. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 376(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 376(3) | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 376A(1)(c) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 22 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 258(3) | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 377C(3)(a) | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 90(a) | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 44 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 307(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 325(2) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Sexual Assault
- Oral-Penile Penetration
- Consent
- Long Statements
- Sentencing
- Aggravating Factors
- Mitigating Factors
- Vulnerability
- Abuse of Trust
- Totality Principle
- One-Transaction Rule
15.2 Keywords
- Sexual Assault
- Penetration
- Consent
- Criminal Law
- Singapore
- Appeal
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Criminal Law | 95 |
| Sexual Offences | 95 |
| Sentencing | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 90 |
| Appeal | 80 |
| Personal Injury | 5 |
| Torts | 5 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Sexual Offences
- Sentencing
- Criminal Procedure