Tien Kiat Chong v Public Prosecutor: Voyeurism, Rehabilitation, and Sentencing
Tien Kiat Chong appealed against a 12-week imprisonment sentence imposed by the District Judge for voyeuristic conduct under Section 509 of the Penal Code. The High Court, presided over by Justice Vincent Hoong, dismissed the appeal, holding that while Chong demonstrated some propensity for reform, deterrence remained the dominant sentencing consideration given the nature and prevalence of the offences. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, considering the number of victims and the aggravating circumstances.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Ex Tempore Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal against a 12-week imprisonment sentence for voyeurism. The court considered the relevance of rehabilitation and deterrence in sentencing.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Ng Jun Chong of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tien Kiat Chong | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Vincent Hoong | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Ng Jun Chong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Kalidass Murugaiyan | Kalidass Law Corporation |
| Chua Hock Lu | Kalidass Law Corporation |
4. Facts
- Tien Kiat Chong pleaded guilty to taking upskirt videos on 19 occasions.
- The offences occurred on escalators in public places, an MRT station, and a retail shop.
- Chong consented to another charge of possessing 37 obscene films being taken into consideration.
- Chong sought psychological treatment and counselling after his arrest.
- The District Judge sentenced Chong to 12 weeks’ imprisonment.
- Chong appealed, seeking probation or a reduced sentence.
5. Formal Citations
- Tien Kiat Chong v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9164 of 2022, [2023] SGHC 202
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Magistrate’s Appeal No 9164 of 2022 | |
| Judgment delivered |
7. Legal Issues
- Sentencing Considerations for Voyeurism
- Outcome: The court held that deterrence was the dominant sentencing consideration, and probation was not a suitable sentencing option.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Relevance of rehabilitation
- Dominance of deterrence
- Related Cases:
- [2018] 5 SLR 1289
- [2018] 4 SLR 1294
- [2020] 4 SLR 1412
- [2023] SGHC 35
- Manifest Excessiveness of Sentence
- Outcome: The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2015] 3 SLR 222
- [2016] 4 SLR 1059
8. Remedies Sought
- Probation
- Reduced Sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Voyeurism
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A Karthik v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2018] 5 SLR 1289 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there is no age-based restriction for probation orders, but rehabilitation must be a dominant sentencing consideration. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lim Chee Yin Jordan | High Court | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 1294 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that making a probation order requires rehabilitation to be a dominant sentencing consideration. |
| Public Prosecutor v Siow Kai Yuan Terence | High Court | Yes | [2020] 4 SLR 1412 | Singapore | Cited for the three-limb framework to assess whether an offender demonstrates an extremely strong propensity for reform. |
| Nicholas Tan Siew Chye v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHC 35 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that deterrence is generally the dominant sentencing consideration for offences under s 377BB(4) of the Penal Code. |
| Public Prosecutor v Chong Hou En | N/A | Yes | [2015] 3 SLR 222 | Singapore | Cited for comparison of sentencing in similar voyeurism cases. |
| Ang Zhu Ci Joshua v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [2016] 4 SLR 1059 | Singapore | Cited for comparison of sentencing in similar voyeurism cases. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Section 509 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 124(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 30(2)(a) of the Films Act (Cap 107, 1998 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 5(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act 1951 (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Voyeurism
- Upskirt videos
- Rehabilitation
- Deterrence
- Probation
- Sentencing
- Propensity for reform
15.2 Keywords
- Voyeurism
- Rehabilitation
- Deterrence
- Sentencing
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Sexual Offences | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Sentencing | 85 |
| Criminal Procedure | 85 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing