PP v Jeffrey Pe: Sexual Assault by Penetration, Intoxication, and Consent

In Public Prosecutor v Jeffrey Pe [2023] SGHC 313, the High Court of Singapore convicted Jeffrey Pe of two charges of sexual assault by penetration under s 376(1)(b) of the Penal Code and one charge of sexual assault by penetration under s 376(2)(a) of the Penal Code. The alleged victim, S, was intoxicated at the time of the offences. The court found that S did not consent to the sexual acts and that his intoxication vitiated any purported consent. Pe was sentenced to a global sentence of ten years’ imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Conviction on all charges; sentenced to ten years' imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Jeffrey Pe was convicted of sexual assault by penetration against an intoxicated male. The court examined consent, intoxication, and the voluntariness of statements.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorProsecutionGovernment AgencyJudgment for ProsecutionWon
David Khoo Kim Leng of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Tay Jia En of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Jeffrey PeDefendantIndividualConvictedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Mavis Chionh Sze ChyiJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
David Khoo Kim LengAttorney-General’s Chambers
Tay Jia EnAttorney-General’s Chambers
Amarjit Singh s/o Hari SinghAmarjit Sidhu Law Corporation

4. Facts

  1. Accused and Complainant met at a pub and exchanged numbers.
  2. Complainant attended Accused's birthday party.
  3. Complainant and Accused went to several bars on the night of the incident.
  4. Complainant and Accused went to the Accused's apartment.
  5. Complainant consumed an alcoholic drink at the Accused's apartment.
  6. Complainant fell asleep in the Accused's apartment.
  7. Accused performed sexual acts on the Complainant while he was asleep or intoxicated.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Public Prosecutor v Jeffrey Pe, Criminal Case No 52 of 2022, [2023] SGHC 313

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Accused and Complainant met at Hero’s pub.
Accused's birthday party held at The Mustard Incident, Drinks & Co, and Skyline Club.
Complainant invited to Accused’s home but meeting did not materialise.
Complainant and Accused met at Chinatown MRT and visited various pubs and bars.
Complainant and Accused took a taxi to the Condominium at around 3:00 a.m.
Complainant called the police at about 5.47am.
Accused was arrested at about 10.30am.
Complainant examined at SGH.
Statement recorded from the Accused.
Accused underwent forensic psychiatric assessment.
Accused underwent forensic psychiatric assessment.
Dr. Low interviewed the Complainant.
Dr. Chee conducted a psychiatric assessment of the Complainant.
Dr. Chee conducted a psychiatric assessment of the Complainant.
Dr. Low interviewed the Complainant and spoke to the Complainant’s father.
Trial began.
Trial continued.
Trial concluded.
Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Consent
    • Outcome: The court found that the Complainant did not consent to the sexual acts and that his intoxication vitiated any purported consent.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Capacity to consent
      • Voluntary consent
    • Related Cases:
      • [2017] 2 SLR 1015
  2. Voluntariness of Statements
    • Outcome: The court found that the disputed portions of the Accused’s statement were provided voluntarily.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [1998] 3 SLR(R) 619
  3. Intoxication
    • Outcome: The court considered the Complainant's level of intoxication and its impact on his capacity to consent.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Imprisonment
  2. Caning

9. Cause of Actions

  • Sexual Assault by Penetration under s 376(1)(b) of the Penal Code
  • Sexual Assault by Penetration under s 376(2)(a) of the Penal Code

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Law
  • Sexual Assault

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Pram Nair v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2017] 2 SLR 1015SingaporeCited for the burden of proof in sexual assault cases and the test for voluntariness of statements.
Chai Chien Wei Kelvin v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[1998] 3 SLR(R) 619SingaporeCited for the objective and subjective limbs of the test for voluntariness of statements.
Lim Thian Lai v PPCourt of AppealYes[2006] 1 SLR(R) 319SingaporeCited for the components of the test for voluntariness of statements.
Neo Ah Soi v PPHigh CourtYes[1996] 1 SLR(R) 199SingaporeCited for the principle that a threat, inducement or promise need not be explicitly articulated.
PP v Lim Thian LaiHigh CourtYes[2005] SGHC 122SingaporeCited for the principle that a self-perceived threat without a reasonable basis does not amount to a threat within the rubric of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Panya Martmontree and others v PPCourt of AppealYes[1995] 2 SLR(R) 806SingaporeCited for the principle that the Prosecution bears the burden of proving the voluntariness of statements beyond reasonable doubt.
Muhammad bin Kadar v PPCourt of AppealYes[2011] 3 SLR 1205SingaporeCited for the principle that the Prosecution bears the burden of proving the voluntariness of statements beyond reasonable doubt.
AOF v PPCourt of AppealYes[2012] 3 SLR 34SingaporeCited for the principle that a complainant’s testimony can constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt when it is so ‘unusually convincing’.
XP v PPHigh CourtYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 686SingaporeCited for the definition of 'unusually convincing' testimony and the need to assess the complainant’s testimony against that of the accused.
Khoo Kwoon Hain v PPHigh CourtYes[1995] 2 SLR(R) 591SingaporeCited for the principle that subsequent repeated complaints by the complainant cannot, in and of themselves, constitute corroborative evidence so as to dispense with the requirement for “unusually convincing” testimony.
Kunasekaran s/o Kalimuthu Somasundara v PPCourt of AppealYes[2018] 4 SLR 580SingaporeCited for the principle that in assessing whether a complainant’s testimony is “unusually convincing”, the court must also assess the complainant’s testimony against that of the accused.
Haliffie bin Mamat v PPCourt of AppealYes[2016] 5 SLR 636SingaporeCited for the principle that where the complainant’s evidence was not unusually convincing, the accused’s conviction would be unsafe unless there was some corroboration of the complainant’s story.
PP v Mohammed Liton Mohammed Syeed MallikCourt of AppealYes[2008] 1 SLR(R) 601SingaporeCited for the ‘more liberal approach’ to corroboration.
PP v Tan Chee Beng and another appealHigh CourtYes[2023] SGHC 93SingaporeCited for the principle that a subsequent complaint by a complainant is corroboration if the complaint implicating the offender “was made at the first reasonable opportunity after the commission of the offence.
GDC v PPCourt of AppealYes[2020] 5 SLR 1130SingaporeCited for the factors that add weight to a victim’s testimony.
Md Desa bin Hashim bin PPUnknownYes[1995] 3 MLJ 350MalaysiaCited for the objective and subjective limbs of the test for voluntariness of statements.
Dato Mohktar bin Hashim v PPUnknownYes[1983] 2 MLJ 232MalaysiaCited for the objective and subjective limbs of the test for voluntariness of statements.
Eu Lim Hoklai v PPCourt of AppealYes[2011] 3 SLR 167SingaporeCited for the principle that the court’s fact-finding function cannot be arrogated to the expert.
Anita Damu v PPCourt of AppealYes[2020] 3 SLR 825SingaporeCited for the principle that even where an expert has expressed an opinion on how she thinks the ultimate issue is to be resolved, the court must nonetheless arrive at a final finding of fact.
PP v Ridhaudin Ridhwan bin Bakri and othersCourt of AppealYes[2020] 4 SLR 790SingaporeCited as a past case involving offenders who were convicted after a trial of similar sexual assault by penetration offences committed against intoxicated victims.
PP v Tan En Jie NorvanHigh CourtYes[2022] SGHC 166SingaporeCited as a past case involving offenders who were convicted after a trial of similar sexual assault by penetration offences committed against intoxicated victims.
BPH v PPCourt of AppealYes[2019] 2 SLR 764SingaporeCited for the principle that the Pram Nair sentencing framework should be applied to all forms of sexual assault by penetration under s 376.
Asep Ardiansyah v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2020] SGCA 74SingaporeCited for the general principles relating to capacity to consent.
PP v Yue Roger JrHigh CourtYes[2019] 3 SLR 749SingaporeCited for the principle that the burden on the Prosecution to prove absence of motive to fabricate did not arise.
PP v Raveen BalakrishnanCourt of AppealYes[2018] 5 SLR 799SingaporeCited for the application of the totality principle to mitigate the aggregate sentence of a multiple offender.
Mohamed Shouffee bin Adam v PPCourt of AppealYes[2014] 2 SLR 998SingaporeCited for the totality principle.
Stansilas Fabian Kester v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2017] 5 SLR 755SingaporeCited for the circumstances in which a court would be justified in admitting evidence of positive contributions and good character in the sentencing process.
PP v Song Hauming Oskar and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2021] 5 SLR 965SingaporeCited for the principle that alleged charitable or other good works cannot be regarded as mitigating on some form of social accounting.
PP v Lim Cheng Ji AlvinCourt of AppealYes[2017] 5 SLR 671SingaporeCited for the principle that alleged charitable or other good works cannot be regarded as mitigating on some form of social accounting.
Ang Peng Tiam v Singapore Medical Council and another matterCourt of AppealYes[2017] 5 SLR 356SingaporeCited for the principle that alleged charitable or other good works cannot be regarded as mitigating on some form of social accounting.
PP v Lim Chee Yin JordonHigh CourtYes[2018] 4 SLR 1294SingaporeCited for the principle that voluntary intoxication worsens rather than mitigates the offence.
Chung Wan v PPCourt of AppealYes[2019] 5 SLR 858SingaporeCited for the principle that voluntary intoxication worsens rather than mitigates the offence.
Wong Hoi Len v PPHigh CourtYes[2009] 1 SLR(R) 115SingaporeCited for the principle that voluntary intoxication worsens rather than mitigates the offence.
PP v Satesh s/o NavarlanHigh CourtYes[2019] SGHC 119SingaporeCited for the principle that voluntary intoxication worsens rather than mitigates the offence.
PP v Amir Hamzah Bin MohammadHigh CourtYes[2012] SGHC 165SingaporeCited for the principle that making grave and ultimately baseless allegations against the police constitutes an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes.
GCM v PP and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2021] 4 SLR 1086SingaporeCited for the principle that it would be appropriate for the court to impose an uplift to any sentence imposed to reflect a clear absence of remorse in attacking the victim in a scurrilous way.
Law Society of Singapore v Wong Sin YeeCourt of Three JudgesYes[2018] 5 SLR 1261SingaporeCited for the principle that it was cruel and humiliating to suggest to the victim that she was attractive, and to physically scrutinise her to the point that she felt uncomfortable and offended, only to then suggest that she was so unattractive that her testimony that she was deliberately molested could not be believed.
PP v Ong Soon HengHigh CourtYes[2018] SGHC 58SingaporeCited for the principle that there can be no abuse of position in a situation where the perpetrator and the victim were merely friends as that would result in too broad a scope for the aggravating factor of abuse of position.
Public Prosecutor v Law Aik MengHigh CourtYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 814SingaporeCited for the principle that general deterrence aims to educate and deter other like-minded members of the general public by making an example of a particular offender.
Mohammed Ibrahim s/o Hamzah v PPCourt of AppealYes[2015] 1 SLR 1081SingaporeCited for the principle that the absence of aggravating factors cannot be construed as a mitigating factor.
Edwin s/o Suse Nathen v PPHigh CourtYes[2013] SGHC 194SingaporeCited for the principle that the absence of aggravating factors cannot be construed as a mitigating factor.
PP v Chow Yee SzeHigh CourtYes[2011] 1 SLR 481SingaporeCited for the principle that the absence of aggravating factors cannot be construed as a mitigating factor.
Public Prosecutor v AOMHigh CourtYes[2011] 2 SLR 1057SingaporeCited for the principle that the absence of aggravating factors cannot be construed as a mitigating factor.
PP v Chan Chuan and anotherHigh CourtYes[1991] 1 SLR(R) 14SingaporeCited for the principle that caning cannot be ordered to run concurrently.
Yuen Ye Ming v PPHigh CourtYes[2020] 2 SLR 970SingaporeCited for the principle that caning cannot be ordered to run concurrently.
PP v Yap Pow FooHigh CourtYes[2023] SGHC 79SingaporeCited for the principle that caning cannot be ordered to run concurrently.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 376(1)(b)Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 376(2)(a)Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 90(b)Singapore
Penal Code s 79Singapore
Penal Code s 52Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 258(3)Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code s 307(1)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Sexual assault
  • Penetration
  • Consent
  • Intoxication
  • Voluntariness
  • Statement
  • Good faith
  • Due care
  • Unusually convincing
  • Retrograde extrapolation
  • BAC
  • Victim-blaming

15.2 Keywords

  • Sexual assault
  • Penetration
  • Consent
  • Intoxication
  • Voluntariness
  • Singapore
  • Criminal Law

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Sex Crimes95
Criminal Law90
Sentencing80
Criminal Procedure70
Evidence60

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Sexual Offences
  • Criminal Procedure
  • Sentencing
  • Evidence