Nicholas Tan v Public Prosecutor: Voyeurism, s377BB(4) Penal Code & Sentencing
Nicholas Tan Siew Chye appealed to the General Division of the High Court of Singapore against the sentence imposed by the District Judge for two charges under Section 377BB(4) of the Penal Code. The High Court, comprising Sundaresh Menon CJ, Tay Yong Kwang JCA, and Vincent Hoong J, considered the relevance of rehabilitation as a sentencing consideration and established a sentencing framework for voyeurism offences. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentences were substituted with an aggregate imprisonment of four weeks.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed; sentences imposed by the District Judge were set aside and substituted with a sentence of one week and three weeks’ imprisonment respectively, for an aggregate imprisonment of four weeks.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding sentencing for voyeurism under s377BB(4) PC. The court considered rehabilitation vs. deterrence and established a sentencing framework.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Partially Allowed | Partial | Stephanie Koh of Attorney-General’s Chambers Tai Wei Shyong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Seah Ee Wei of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Nicholas Tan Siew Chye | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | No |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Vincent Hoong | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Stephanie Koh | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tai Wei Shyong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Seah Ee Wei | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Quek Mong Hua | Lee & Lee |
| Wong Wai Keong Anthony | Lee & Lee |
| Huang Weiqiang | Lee & Lee |
4. Facts
- Appellant, a 24-year-old NTU student, committed two counts of voyeurism.
- First incident: Appellant took an upskirt video of V1 in Tamarind Hall at NTU.
- Second incident: Appellant attempted to take an upskirt video of V2 at Canberra Road while on police bail.
- Appellant pleaded guilty to two charges under s 377BB(4) PC.
- The District Judge sentenced the appellant to an aggregate of seven weeks’ imprisonment.
- Appellant appealed, arguing for a non-custodial sentence based on rehabilitation.
- The High Court dismissed the appeal and substituted the sentences with an aggregate of four weeks’ imprisonment.
5. Formal Citations
- Nicholas Tan Siew Chye v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9121 of 2022/01, [2023] SGHC 35
- Public Prosecutor v Nicholas Tan Siew Chye, , [2022] SGMC 40
- Public Prosecutor v Mark Fritz Tanel, , [2022] SGMC 26
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| First Incident: Appellant took an upskirt video of V1 at NTU. | |
| Appellant was arrested. | |
| Appellant was released on police bail. | |
| Second Incident: Appellant attempted to take an upskirt video of V2 at Canberra Road. | |
| Appellant was arrested. | |
| Appellant pleaded guilty to two charges under s 377BB(4) PC. | |
| MTO suitability report stated that the psychiatrist was not recommending an MTO. | |
| Appellant confirmed that his mitigation would not rely on the alleged voyeuristic disorder causing or contributing to the offences. | |
| District Judge sentenced the appellant to an aggregate of seven weeks’ imprisonment. | |
| Hearing date. | |
| Judgment date. |
7. Legal Issues
- Voyeurism
- Outcome: The court established a sentencing framework for voyeurism offences under s 377BB(4) PC.
- Category: Substantive
- Sentencing
- Outcome: The court considered the relevance of rehabilitation as a sentencing consideration and established a sentencing framework for voyeurism offences.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Rehabilitation vs. Deterrence
- Sentencing Framework
8. Remedies Sought
- Non-custodial sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Voyeurism
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
11. Industries
- Education
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Siow Kai Yuan Terence | High Court | Yes | [2020] 4 SLR 1412 | Singapore | Cited for the framework to determine if an offender has demonstrated an extremely strong propensity for reform. |
| A Karthik v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2018] 5 SLR 1289 | Singapore | Cited to distinguish the retrospective and prospective rationales for rehabilitation in youthful offenders from adult offenders. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mohammad Al-Ansari bin Basri | High Court | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 449 | Singapore | Cited as part of the body of case law concerning the treatment of youthful offenders. |
| Public Prosecutor v Koh Wen Jie Boaz | High Court | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 334 | Singapore | Cited as part of the body of case law concerning the treatment of youthful offenders. |
| Public Prosecutor v Law Aik Meng | High Court | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 814 | Singapore | Cited for the principles of general and specific deterrence in sentencing. |
| Ang Zhu Ci Joshua v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2016] 4 SLR 1059 | Singapore | Cited for the principle of avoiding a crushing sentence that would destroy all prospects of rehabilitation. |
| Public Prosecutor v Raveen Balakrishnan | High Court | Yes | [2018] 5 SLR 799 | Singapore | Cited for the principle of avoiding a crushing sentence that would destroy all prospects of rehabilitation and the application of the totality principle. |
| Logachev Vladislav v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 609 | Singapore | Cited for the two-stage, five-step sentencing framework. |
| Goh Ngak Eng v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC 254 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that broader indicative sentencing ranges should only be used when necessary. |
| Ong Chee Eng v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2012] 3 SLR 776 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the prescribed sentencing framework should take into account the whole range of penalties prescribed. |
| Huang Ying-Chun v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2019] 3 SLR 606 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the prescribed sentencing framework should take into account the whole range of penalties prescribed and the distinction in culpability between actual knowledge and reasonable belief. |
| Public Prosecutor v GED | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC 301 | Singapore | Cited for the objective indicia to evaluate the extent of the invasion of privacy arising from the dissemination of a record and the need for evidence to support allegations of emotional harm. |
| Edwin s/o Suse Nathen v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 1139 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the absence of an aggravating factor cannot be called in aid as a mitigating factor. |
| Ye Lin Myint v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2019] 5 SLR 1005 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the offender’s motivation may either heighten or reduce the offender’s culpability. |
| Mohamed Shouffee bin Adam v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 998 | Singapore | Cited for the two-limbed analysis of the totality principle. |
| Gan Chai Bee Anne v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2019] 4 SLR 838 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court can order more sentences to run consecutively or make upward adjustments to the individual sentences if the overall sentence would otherwise be inadequate. |
| Public Prosecutor v Nicholas Tan Siew Chye | State Courts | Yes | [2022] SGMC 40 | Singapore | The decision below being appealed. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mark Fritz Tanel | State Courts | Yes | [2022] SGMC 26 | Singapore | Cited as a similar case involving an offence under s 377BB(4) PC. |
| GCO v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2019] 3 SLR 1402 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that deterrence may displace rehabilitation as the dominant sentencing consideration even though the adult offender has demonstrated an extremely strong propensity for reform. |
| Public Prosecutor v BDB | High Court | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 127 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that caning will be further warranted if the moderate to high harm in a particular case flows from an act of violence against the victim. |
| Public Prosecutor v GEZ | State Courts | Yes | [2022] SGMC 59 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a breach of a relationship of trust where the offender and the victim are husband and wife. |
| Tan Pin Seng v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR(R) 494 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a breach of a relationship of trust where the offender and the victim are landlord and tenant. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lau Zongming | State Courts | Yes | [2021] SGMC 71 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a breach of a relationship of trust where the offender and the victim are work colleagues who share an office space. |
| Prasanth s/o Mogan | District Court | Yes | [2022] SGDC 209 | Singapore | Cited as an instance in which the s 377BB(4) PC offence was committed out of malice. |
| Tan Gek Young v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2017] 5 SLR 820 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the imposition of a fine may not be necessary if the profit has already been surrendered, confiscated or it has been established that the profits made has already been squandered and the offender has no means to pay any fine imposed. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Section 377BB of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 377BB(4) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 377BB(7) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 509 PC | Singapore |
| Section 30 of the Films Act (Cap 107, 1998 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 447 PC | Singapore |
| Section 377C(f) PC | Singapore |
| Section 377BE(1) PC | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Voyeurism
- Upskirt video
- Rehabilitation
- Deterrence
- Sentencing framework
- Section 377BB(4) PC
- Propensity for reform
- General deterrence
- Specific deterrence
15.2 Keywords
- Voyeurism
- Sentencing
- Rehabilitation
- Deterrence
- Section 377BB(4) PC
- Upskirt
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Voyeurism | 98 |
| Criminal Law | 95 |
| Sexual Offences | 90 |
| Sentencing | 85 |
| Criminal Procedure | 80 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
- Voyeurism