Public Prosecutor v Tan Yew Sin: Sexual Assault, Rape, Outrage of Modesty, Mistake of Fact
In Public Prosecutor v Tan Yew Sin, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore acquitted Tan Yew Sin of charges of sexual assault, attempted rape, and outrage of modesty on 12 May 2023. The charges stemmed from sexual acts between Tan, a private hire driver, and the complainant, a passenger. The court found reasonable doubt regarding the complainant's capacity to consent due to intoxication and whether consent was given. The court also found that the defense of mistake of fact was made out.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Accused acquitted of all charges
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Tan Yew Sin was acquitted of sexual assault, attempted rape, and outrage of modesty charges due to reasonable doubt about consent and mistake of fact.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Prosecution | Government Agency | Charges Dismissed | Lost | Muhamad Imaduddien of Attorney-General’s Chambers Emily Koh of Attorney-General’s Chambers Tan Yen Seow of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tan Yew Sin | Defense | Individual | Acquitted | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Pang Khang Chau | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Muhamad Imaduddien | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Emily Koh | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tan Yen Seow | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Chenthil Kumarasingam | Withers KhattarWong LLP |
| Adeline Goh Peizhi | Withers KhattarWong LLP |
4. Facts
- The accused was a private hire vehicle driver.
- The complainant consumed five pints of beer over three hours.
- The complainant was visibly intoxicated after drinking at a bar.
- The complainant declined her friend's offer to send her home.
- The accused ferried the complainant home in his car.
- Sexual acts occurred between the accused and the complainant in the car.
- The complainant experienced an alcohol-induced blackout.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Tan Yew Sin, Criminal Case No 36 of 2019, [2023] SGHC 136
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Sexual acts occurred between the accused and the complainant | |
| Dr. Cheok prepared a report | |
| Trial began | |
| Dr. Lim prepared a report | |
| Dr. Lim prepared a report | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Consent
- Outcome: The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the sexual acts were committed without the complainant's consent.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Lack of capacity to consent
- Absence of actual consent
- Mistake of Fact
- Outcome: The court found that the accused had established on a balance of probabilities that he believed in good faith, after exercising due care and attention, that the complainant had the capacity to consent and did in fact consent to the Sexual Acts.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Conviction
- Imprisonment
9. Cause of Actions
- Sexual Assault
- Attempted Rape
- Outrage of Modesty
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Sexual Assault Defense
11. Industries
- Transportation
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 principle that a consent is not valid if the complainant was incapable of giving consent. |
| Jagatheesan s/o Krishnasamy v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 45 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a reasonable doubt is a doubt for which one can give a reason logically connected to the evidence. |
| Public Prosecutor v GCK and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 486 | Singapore | Cited for guidance on how the principle of proof beyond a reasonable doubt could be conceptualised. |
| AOF v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 3 SLR 34 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an individual is presumed innocent until the Prosecution adduces sufficient evidence to displace this presumption. |
| Ong Mingwee (alias Wang Mingwei) v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 1217 | Singapore | Cited as a case where the court assessed the complainant's capacity to consent based on observed behavior and estimated blood alcohol content. |
| Gunapathy Muniandy v James Khoo and others | High Court | Yes | [2001] SGHC 165 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court must form its own opinion and not allow experts to usurp the functions of the court. |
| George Abraham Vadakathu v Jacob George | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 3 SLR(R) 631 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court must decide the issues of fact and law, and not allow an expert to decide them. |
| Public Prosecutor v Teo Eng Chan and others | High Court | Yes | [1987] SLR(R) 567 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in situations where the accused argues that he believed the victim was consenting, the proper approach is through the mistake of fact defense under s 79 PC. |
| Tan Khee Wan Iris v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1995] 1 SLR(R) 723 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the test of whether a mistake was made in good faith is whether there was due care and attention. |
| Public Prosecutor v Iryan bin Abdul Karim and others | High Court | Yes | [2010] 2 SLR 15 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that consent on the part of a woman, as a defence to an allegation of rape, requires voluntary participation, not only after the exercise of intelligence, based on the knowledge of the significance and the moral quality of the act, but after having freely exercised a choice between resistance and assent. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 376(2)(a) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 376(3) PC | Singapore |
| s 375(1)(a) PC | Singapore |
| s 375(2) read with s 511 PC | Singapore |
| s 354(1) PC | Singapore |
| s 79 PC | Singapore |
| s 26B PC | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 22 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Consent
- Intoxication
- Mistake of Fact
- Sexual Assault
- Rape
- Outrage of Modesty
- Alcohol-Induced Blackout
- Due Care and Attention
- Reasonable Doubt
- Capacity to Consent
15.2 Keywords
- Sexual Assault
- Rape
- Outrage of Modesty
- Consent
- Intoxication
- Mistake of Fact
- Singapore Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Sexual Offences | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Consent | 70 |
| Mistake | 60 |
| Evidence | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Sexual Offences
- Consent
- Intoxication
- Mistake of Fact