Public Prosecutor v Yap Pow Foo: Rape and Housebreaking by Night
In Public Prosecutor v Yap Pow Foo, the High Court of Singapore convicted Yap Pow Foo of rape and housebreaking by night. The charges stemmed from an incident on January 30, 2017, where Yap Pow Foo allegedly entered the victim's apartment and raped her while she was heavily intoxicated. The court, presided over by Justice Tan Siong Thye, found that the victim did not consent to the sexual intercourse due to her level of intoxication and that Yap Pow Foo had unlawfully entered her home. The court found the accused guilty on both the rape charge and the housebreaking charge.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and convicted on both the Rape Charge and the House-breaking Charge accordingly.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Yap Pow Foo was convicted of rape and housebreaking by night. The court found the victim did not consent due to intoxication.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Prosecution | Government Agency | Won | Won | Chong Kee En, Susanna Yim |
| Yap Pow Foo | Defendant | Individual | Lost | Lost | S S Dhillon, Suppiah Krishnamurthi |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tan Siong Thye | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Chong Kee En | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Susanna Yim | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| S S Dhillon | Dhillon & Panoo LLC |
| Suppiah Krishnamurthi | Dhillon & Panoo LLC |
4. Facts
- The accused met the victim at a KTV lounge on January 29, 2017.
- The victim consumed a large amount of alcohol at the KTV lounge.
- The victim was heavily intoxicated and had to be carried home.
- The accused returned to the victim's apartment in the early hours of January 30, 2017.
- The accused entered the victim's apartment using a key he retrieved from under the door.
- The accused penetrated the victim's vagina with his penis without her consent.
- The victim was awakened during the rape.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Yap Pow Foo, Criminal Case No 32 of 2022, [2023] SGHC 11
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Accused met the Victim at a KTV lounge. | |
| Accused entered the Victim’s house and raped her. | |
| Accused’s first statement recorded under section 22 of the Criminal Procedure Code. | |
| Accused examined by Dr Darren Goh Wee Yian at Changi General Hospital. | |
| Accused’s second statement recorded. | |
| Dr Guo interviewed the Victim. | |
| Dr Guo interviewed the Victim. | |
| Accused examined by Dr Stephen Phang Boon Chye from the Institute of Mental Health. | |
| Accused examined by Dr Stephen Phang Boon Chye from the Institute of Mental Health. | |
| Accused examined by Dr Stephen Phang Boon Chye from the Institute of Mental Health. | |
| Pre-polygraph interview recorded by SSI Chea Wai Choong. | |
| Charges read to the Accused. | |
| Trial began. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Rape
- Outcome: The court found that the victim did not consent to the sexual intercourse due to her level of intoxication.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Consent
- Intoxication
- Penetration
- Related Cases:
- [2017] 2 SLR 1015
- House-breaking by Night
- Outcome: The court found that the accused unlawfully entered the victim's apartment with the intent to commit rape.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Unlawful Entry
- Intent to Commit Offence
8. Remedies Sought
- Imprisonment
- Fine
- Caning
9. Cause of Actions
- Rape
- House-breaking by Night
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Sexual Assault
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Lam Leng Hung and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 4 SLR 474 | Singapore | Cited to support the principle that the applicable law is the law at the time of the offence. |
| Public Prosecutor v Pram Nair | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 1015 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that consent is invalid if the victim was so intoxicated that the law deems such consent to be invalid or vitiated. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ridhaudin Ridhwan bin Bakri and others | High Court | Yes | [2019] SGHC 105 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the 'unusually convincing' burden of proof may not be necessary where there is corroborative evidence. |
| Asep Ardiansyah v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] SGCA 74 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the 'unusually convincing' burden of proof may not be necessary where there is corroborative evidence. |
| AOF v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 3 SLR 34 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a complainant’s testimony can constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt when it is so ‘unusually convincing’ as to overcome any doubts that might arise from the lack of corroboration. |
| Haliffie bin Mamat v Public Prosecutor and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 5 SLR 636 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the “unusually convincing” standard “does not introduce a new burden of proof. |
| Kwang Boon Keong Peter v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR(R) 211 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that section 147(1) of the Evidence Act applies to cross-examination of previous statements in any proceeding. |
| Public Prosecutor v Sng Siew Ngoh | High Court | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR(R) 755 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that section 147(1) of the Evidence Act applies to cross-examination of previous statements in any proceeding. |
| Lewis Christine v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR(R) 131 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a flawed witness does not equate to an untruthful witness. |
| Osman bin Din v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 1 SLR(R) 419 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that discrepancies in the evidence of a witness does not ipso facto mean that the witness should not be believed. |
| Chean Siong Guat Guan v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1969] 2 MLJ 63 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that discrepancies in the evidence of a witness does not ipso facto mean that the witness should not be believed. |
| Jagatheesan s/o Krishnasamy v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 45 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that minor discrepancies in a witness’s testimony should not be held against the witness in assessing his credibility. |
| Ramesh a/l Perumal v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | No | [2019] 1 SLR 1003 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that courts must guard against the mind-set that once an unbelievable defence is rejected, everything is to be taken against the accused. |
| Mui Jia Jun v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 1087 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it is incumbent on the Prosecution, and not the court, to address any weakness in the evidence that the Prosecution adduces. |
| Public Prosecutor v BNO | High Court | Yes | [2018] SGHC 243 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the police investigators had provided reasonable explanations for why it did not obtain further corroborative evidence of the offender’s guilt and should not be faulted for the same. |
| Lim Thian Lai v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 319 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a conviction may be grounded on an accused person’s confession alone, even if that statement is subsequently retracted. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) section 375(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) section 375(2) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) section 457 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) section 458A | Singapore |
| Penal Code section 446 | Singapore |
| Penal Code section 445(d) | Singapore |
| Penal Code section 442 | Singapore |
| Penal Code section 441 | Singapore |
| Penal Code section 90(b) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Intoxication
- Consent
- Penetration
- House-breaking
- Unlawful entry
- Special pass
- Monetary compensation
- DNA evidence
- CCTV footage
- Medical examination
15.2 Keywords
- Rape
- Housebreaking
- Intoxication
- Consent
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Sexual Offences
- House-breaking
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Law
- Sexual offences