Public Prosecutor v Tan Chee Beng: Outrage of Modesty & Sexual Offences
In Public Prosecutor v Tan Chee Beng, the High Court of Singapore heard appeals from both the Public Prosecutor and Tan Chee Beng regarding a conviction and acquittal on charges of outrage of modesty. Tan Chee Beng was initially convicted on one charge and acquitted on three others. The Public Prosecutor appealed the acquittals, while Tan Chee Beng appealed the conviction and sentence. The High Court allowed the Public Prosecutor's appeal, convicting Tan Chee Beng on all four charges. Tan Chee Beng's appeal against his conviction and sentence was dismissed. The court found the complainant's testimony to be unusually convincing and well-corroborated, and the accused's silence weighed against him.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Tan Chee Beng was convicted of outrage of modesty. The High Court allowed the appeal, convicting him on remaining charges.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Appellant, Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Allowed | Won | Christopher Ong Siu Jin of Attorney-General’s Chambers Phang Tze En Joshua of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tan Chee Beng | Respondent, Appellant | Individual | Conviction upheld; Appeal dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Vincent Hoong | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Christopher Ong Siu Jin | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Phang Tze En Joshua | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Chooi Jing Yen | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
4. Facts
- The complainant alleged that her superior committed four acts that outraged or insulted her modesty.
- The accused elected not to take the stand to give his evidence.
- The district judge convicted the accused person for the charge pertaining to the second incident, and acquitted him of the remaining charges.
- The complainant's evidence was largely corroborated by three other witnesses.
- The complainant lodged a police report alleging that she was molested by her company’s boss.
- The accused was served with four charges, all of which pertained to his sexual harassment of the complainant between August 2018 and January 2019.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Tan Chee Beng and another appeal, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9146 of 2021, [2023] SGHC 93
- Public Prosecutor v Tan Chee Beng, , [2021] SGMC 61
- Public Prosecutor v Tan Chee Beng, , [2021] SGMC 89
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| First Incident occurred between August 2018 and September 2018 | |
| Second Incident occurred | |
| Third Incident occurred in January 2019 | |
| Police report lodged | |
| Hearing date | |
| Hearing date | |
| Hearing date | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Outrage of Modesty
- Outcome: The court found the accused guilty of outrage of modesty.
- Category: Substantive
- Adverse Inference for Accused’s Election to Remain Silent
- Outcome: The court drew an adverse inference from the accused's decision not to testify, which strengthened the finding of guilt.
- Category: Procedural
- Whether complainant’s testimony unusually convincing
- Outcome: The court found the complainant's testimony to be unusually convincing.
- Category: Substantive
- Whether complainant’s testimony corroborated
- Outcome: The court found the complainant's testimony to be corroborated by other witnesses.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Conviction
- Imprisonment
9. Cause of Actions
- Outrage of Modesty
- Sexual Harassment
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Sexual Offences
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kunasekaran s/o Kalimuthu Somasundara v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 580 | Singapore | Applied the sentencing framework for outrage of modesty offences. |
| Jagatheesan s/o Krishnasamy v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 45 | Singapore | Cited regarding the appellate court's position in disturbing a trial judge's finding of fact. |
| AOF v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 3 SLR 34 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a complainant's testimony can constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt if it is 'unusually convincing'. |
| Public Prosecutor v GCK and another matter | High Court | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 486 | Singapore | Cited for the 'unusually convincing' standard applicable to uncorroborated evidence. |
| Pram Nair v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 1015 | Singapore | Cited regarding the appellate court's position to assess the internal and external consistency of the witnesses’ evidence. |
| Sakthivel Punithavathi v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 983 | Singapore | Cited regarding the possibility of judges being deceived by adroit or plausible knaves or by apparent innocence. |
| Ah Mee v Public Prosecutor | Court of Criminal Appeal | Yes | [1967] 1 MLJ 220 | Malaysia | Cited regarding the possibility of judges being deceived by adroit or plausible knaves or by apparent innocence. |
| GBR v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 3 SLR 1048 | Singapore | Cited regarding the appellate court which has neither seen nor heard the witness, is in a less advantageous position as compared to the DJ who had the benefit of hearing the evidence of the Complainant and observing her demeanour. |
| Public Prosecutor v Wee Teong Boo and other appeal and another matter | High Court | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 533 | Singapore | Cited regarding the finding that a complainant’s testimony is unusually convincing does not automatically entail a guilty verdict. |
| XP v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 686 | Singapore | Cited regarding the finding that a complainant’s testimony is unusually convincing does not automatically entail a guilty verdict. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mohd Ariffan bin Mohd Hassan | High Court | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 490 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an accused’s conviction is unsafe unless there is some corroboration of the complainant’s story where the evidence of a complainant is not “unusually convincing”. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mardai | High Court | Yes | [1950] MLJ 33 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that a subsequent complaint by the complainant to another party can amount to corroborative evidence. |
| Lee Kwang Peng v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR(R) 569 | Singapore | Cited regarding the timing of such a corroborative “former statement” would affect the relevance and weight to be attributed the statement. |
| Public Prosecutor v Kong Hoo (Pte) Ltd and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 4 SLR 421 | Singapore | Cited for the propositions on adverse inferences. |
| Took Leng How v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 2 SLR(R) 70 | Singapore | Cited for the propositions on adverse inferences. |
| Tay Wee Kiat and another v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 1315 | Singapore | Cited regarding the amendment of charges at the close of the Prosecution’s case does not per se undermine a complainant’s testimony. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mohd Ariffan bin Mohd Hassan | High Court | Yes | [2017] SGHC 81 | Singapore | Cited regarding charges are usually revised to contain better particulars as more information become available. |
| Public Prosecutor v Singh Kalpanath | High Court | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR(R) 158 | Singapore | Cited regarding no one can describe the same thing exactly in the same way over and over again. |
| Muhammad Nabill bin Mohd Fuad v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 984 | Singapore | Cited regarding the rule in Browne v Dunn. |
| Public Prosecutor v Yue Roger Jr | High Court | Yes | [2019] 3 SLR 749 | Singapore | Cited regarding the explanation for any such delay in reporting is to be considered and assessed by the court on a case-by-case basis. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mohd Taufik bin Abu Bakar and anor appeal | High Court | Yes | [2019] SGHC 90 | Singapore | Cited regarding the abuse of position of trust. |
| Zeng Guoyuan v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR(R) 556 | Singapore | Cited regarding an evident lack of remorse could be drawn where the offender had conducted his defence in an extravagant and unnecessary manner, and particularly where scandalous allegations are made in respect of the victim. |
| Public Prosecutor v Thompson, Matthew | High Court | Yes | [2018] 5 SLR 1108 | Singapore | Cited regarding the sentencing considerations for outrage of modesty. |
| Public Prosecutor v Raveen Balakrishnan | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 5 SLR 799 | Singapore | Cited regarding the framework for sentencing where there are multiple offences. |
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 354(1) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act 1893 (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Outrage of modesty
- Sexual harassment
- Unusually convincing testimony
- Corroborated testimony
- Adverse inference
- Abuse of position
- Sexual exploitation
15.2 Keywords
- Outrage of Modesty
- Sexual Offences
- Criminal Law
- Singapore
- High Court
- Appeal
- Evidence
- Testimony
- Corroboration
- Adverse Inference
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Outrage of Modesty | 98 |
| Sexual Offences | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Offences | 85 |
| Evidence | 60 |
| Evidence Law | 50 |
| Torts | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Sexual Offences
- Evidence Law