Huang Xiaoyue v Public Prosecutor: Sentencing for Unlicensed Massage Services

Huang Xiaoyue appealed against her sentence for two charges under s 5(1) of the Massage Establishments Act 2017 for operating a massage business without a license. The General Division of the High Court, presided over by Vincent Hoong J, allowed the appeal, finding the original sentence manifestly excessive. The court established a sentencing framework for offenses under s 5(1) of the MEA, setting a benchmark sentence and considering aggravating and mitigating factors. The court reduced Huang Xiaoyue's aggregate sentence from 24 weeks to 18 weeks.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal against sentence allowed. The original sentence of 24 weeks' imprisonment was set aside, and an aggregate sentence of 18 weeks' imprisonment was imposed.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal against sentence for operating an unlicensed massage establishment. The court establishes a sentencing framework for Massage Establishments Act offenses.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Huang XiaoyueAppellantIndividualAppeal against sentence allowedPartialLow Chun Yee
Public ProsecutorRespondentGovernment AgencyAppeal allowedLostTai Wei Shyong, Norine Tan, Ng Shao Yan

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Vincent HoongJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Low Chun YeeLow Law Corporation
Tai Wei ShyongAttorney-General’s Chambers
Norine TanAttorney-General’s Chambers
Ng Shao YanAttorney-General’s Chambers
Alexander Choo Wei WenDentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP

4. Facts

  1. Huang Xiaoyue was the sole shareholder and director of Four Seasons Spa.
  2. The Spa operated as a massage establishment.
  3. The Spa had received permission to operate as an exempted massage establishment under s 32 of the MEA.
  4. On 17 September 2019, police found the Spa operating with rooms with doors, breaching exemption conditions.
  5. On 9 December 2019, police found the Spa operating without a license or valid exemption.
  6. Huang had a prior conviction under s 5(1) of the MEA.
  7. Customers testified that they were offered sexual services during massages.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Huang Xiaoyue v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9159 of 2022, [2023] SGHC 187
  2. Public Prosecutor v Huang Xiaoyue, , [2022] SGDC 199
  3. Public Prosecutor v Ong Han Seng & Choo Kon Ying, , [2020] SGDC 14
  4. Logachev Vladislav v Public Prosecutor, , [2018] 4 SLR 609
  5. Ye Lin Myint v Public Prosecutor, , [2019] 5 SLR 1005
  6. Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public Prosecutor, , [2017] 2 SLR 449
  7. Sue Chang v Public Prosecutor, , [2023] 3 SLR 440
  8. Public Prosecutor v GED and other appeals, , [2022] SGHC 301
  9. Vijay Kumar v Public Prosecutor, , [2023] SGHC 109
  10. Public Prosecutor v Sinsar Trading Pte Ltd, , [2004] 3 SLR(R) 240
  11. Public Prosecutor v Fernando Payagala Waduge Malitha Kumar, , [2007] 2 SLR(R) 334
  12. Yang Suan Piau Steven v Public Prosecutor, , [2013] 1 SLR 809
  13. Public Prosecutor v Goh Jun Hao Jeremy, , [2018] 4 SLR 1438
  14. Stansilas Fabian Kester v Public Prosecutor, , [2017] 5 SLR 755
  15. Poh Boon Kiat v Public Prosecutor, , [2014] 4 SLR 892
  16. Public Prosecutor v Mohammed Liton Mohammed Syeed Mallik, , [2008] 1 SLR(R) 601

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Massage Establishments Act 2017 enacted
Police officers conducted checks on the Spa (First Incident)
Appellant convicted of an offence under s 5(1) of the MEA
Police officers conducted a second check on the Spa (Second Incident)
Notes of Evidence
Notes of Evidence
Public Prosecutor v Huang Xiaoyue [2022] SGDC 199
Appellant’s Submissions dated
Respondent’s Submissions dated
Judgment reserved
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Sentencing Framework for Offences under s 5(1) of the Massage Establishments Act
    • Outcome: The court established a sentencing framework based on a benchmark approach, considering the presence of vice activities and the offender's prior convictions.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Appropriate sentencing benchmarks
      • Custodial threshold
      • Aggravating and mitigating factors

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Appeal against sentence

9. Cause of Actions

  • Violation of Massage Establishments Act 2017, s 5(1)

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Law
  • Regulatory Law

11. Industries

  • Wellness
  • Healthcare

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Public Prosecutor v Huang XiaoyueDistrict CourtYes[2022] SGDC 199SingaporeDetails the District Judge’s decision on conviction and sentence, which is the subject of the current appeal.
Public Prosecutor v Ong Han Seng & Choo Kon YingDistrict CourtYes[2020] SGDC 14SingaporeThe Prosecution referred to this case regarding the appropriate sentence, given the similarity of that case with the present factual matrix.
Logachev Vladislav v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2018] 4 SLR 609SingaporeThe Appellant proposes that a five-step “sentencing matrix” framework, as set out by Sundaresh Menon CJ in this case, should be adopted for offences under s 5(1) punishable under s 5(4) of the MEA.
Ye Lin Myint v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2019] 5 SLR 1005SingaporeCited for the general holistic assessment of the seriousness of the offence by reference to all the offence-specific factors.
Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2017] 2 SLR 449SingaporeThe YIC’s proposed framework is modelled after the two-step “sentencing band” framework in this case.
Sue Chang v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2023] 3 SLR 440SingaporeCited for the point that a sentencing framework would reduce inconsistencies and provide a clear structure to guide the exercise of their sentencing discretion.
Public Prosecutor v GED and other appealsHigh CourtYes[2022] SGHC 301SingaporeCited for the point that it is not the role of the court to lay down sentencing frameworks for offences that are not before it.
Vijay Kumar v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2023] SGHC 109SingaporeCited for the point that the approaches of the Court of Appeal and High Court respectively in Terence Ng and Logachev suggested that both frameworks might be applicable where no other sentencing framework is suitable.
Public Prosecutor v Sinsar Trading Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2004] 3 SLR(R) 240SingaporeCited for the point that the parity principle is likely to be more relevant in regulatory or strict liability offences.
Public Prosecutor v Fernando Payagala Waduge Malitha KumarHigh CourtYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 334SingaporeCited for the point that a benchmark sentence has the obvious advantage of engendering a greater degree of consistency and certainty in the sentencing of offences.
Yang Suan Piau Steven v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2013] 1 SLR 809SingaporeCited for the point that a custodial sentence should not generally be imposed as a default punishment unless the nature of the offence justifies its imposition retributively or as a general or specific deterrent.
Public Prosecutor v Goh Jun Hao JeremyHigh CourtYes[2018] 4 SLR 1438SingaporeCited for the point that harm is a measure of the injury which has been caused to society by the commission of the offence, whereas culpability is a measure of the degree of relative blameworthiness disclosed by an offender’s actions.
Stansilas Fabian Kester v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2017] 5 SLR 755SingaporeCited for the point that in the context of other offences courts have often found a custodial sentence to be inappropriate where the level of harm and culpability caused is both low.
Poh Boon Kiat v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2014] 4 SLR 892SingaporeCited for the point on the scale and sophistication of the enterprise, evidence of the amount of profit made by an offender, the location of the unlicensed massage establishment near a residential area, and the period of offending during which the massage establishment remained open.
Public Prosecutor v Mohammed Liton Mohammed Syeed MallikHigh CourtYes[2008] 1 SLR(R) 601SingaporeCited for the point that the disparity between this sentence and the sentence of 24 weeks’ imprisonment imposed below requires substantial alteration to remedy injustice towards the Appellant.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Massage Establishments Act 2017 (2020 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 5(1) of the Massage Establishments Act 2017Singapore
s 5(4)(b) of the Massage Establishments Act 2017Singapore
s 5(5)(a)(i) of the Massage Establishments Act 2017Singapore
s 32 of the Massage Establishments Act 2017Singapore
Massage Establishments Act 2013 (Cap 173, 2013 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 9 of the Massage Establishments Act 2013 (Cap 173, 2013 Rev Ed)Singapore
Women’s Charter 1961 (2020 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Massage Establishments Act
  • Unlicensed massage establishment
  • Sentencing framework
  • Benchmark sentence
  • Vice activities
  • Repeat offender
  • Exempted massage establishment
  • Custodial threshold

15.2 Keywords

  • Massage Establishments Act
  • Unlicensed massage
  • Sentencing
  • Vice
  • Singapore

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Sentencing
  • Regulatory Offences

17. Areas of Law

  • Criminal Law
  • Sentencing
  • Regulatory Offences
  • Massage Establishments Act 2017