CRH v Public Prosecutor: Appeal on Attempted Aggravated Statutory Rape Sentence & Applicability of Mandatory Minimum Sentence
In CRH v Public Prosecutor, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal against the High Court's decision on the sentence imposed on CRH, who pleaded guilty to two charges of attempted aggravated statutory rape of his biological daughter. The key legal issue was whether the mandatory minimum sentence for aggravated statutory rape applied to an attempt to commit the offence. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the aggregate sentence of 13 years’ imprisonment and 16 strokes of the cane imposed by the High Court.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal on sentence for attempted aggravated statutory rape. The court examined the applicability of mandatory minimum sentences and dismissed the appeal.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Upheld | Won | Vincent Leow of Attorney-General’s Chambers Jocelyn Teo of Attorney-General’s Chambers Sivanathan Jheevanesh of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| CRH | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Steven Chong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Vincent Leow | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Jocelyn Teo | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Sivanathan Jheevanesh | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Akesh Abhilash | Harry Elias Partnership LLP |
4. Facts
- The appellant pleaded guilty to two charges of attempted aggravated statutory rape of his biological daughter.
- The offences were committed in or around 2013 when the victim was less than 14 years old.
- The appellant attempted to penetrate the victim's vagina with his penis without her consent.
- The victim suffered psychological harm as a result of the appellant's actions.
- The High Court judge imposed a sentence of six years and six months’ imprisonment and eight strokes of the cane for each of the two Charges and ordered these to run consecutively.
- The appellant argued that the aggregate sentence imposed by the Judge was manifestly excessive.
5. Formal Citations
- CRH v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Appeal No 5 of 2024, [2024] SGCA 29
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Offences committed in or around 2013 | |
| Post-2019 Amendment PC in force from 1 January 2020 | |
| Appellant’s arrest | |
| Appeal dismissed | |
| Grounds of decision furnished |
7. Legal Issues
- Applicability of Mandatory Minimum Sentence
- Outcome: The court held that the mandatory minimum sentence for aggravated statutory rape did not apply to an attempt to commit the offence.
- Category: Substantive
- Manifest Excessiveness of Sentence
- Outcome: The court found that the aggregate sentence imposed by the Judge was not manifestly excessive.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Attempted Aggravated Statutory Rape
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
- Sentencing Guidelines
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v CRH | High Court | Yes | [2024] SGHC 34 | Singapore | The High Court decision on the sentence to be imposed on the appellant was appealed against. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ho Wee Fah | High Court | Yes | [1998] SGHC 128 | Singapore | Cited as a previous decision where the court took the view that s 511 of the Pre-2019 Amendment PC did not expressly impose any restriction in relation to the mandatory minimum sentence prescribed for an offence applying also to an attempt to commit that offence. |
| Public Prosecutor v Tan Jun Hui | High Court | Yes | [2013] SGHC 94 | Singapore | Cited as a previous decision where the court took the view that s 511 of the Pre-2019 Amendment PC did not expressly impose any restriction in relation to the mandatory minimum sentence prescribed for an offence applying also to an attempt to commit that offence. |
| Public Prosecutor v BZT | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC 148 | Singapore | Cited as a previous decision where the court took the view that s 511 of the Pre-2019 Amendment PC did not expressly impose any restriction in relation to the mandatory minimum sentence prescribed for an offence applying also to an attempt to commit that offence. |
| Public Prosecutor v Huang Shiyou | High Court | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 417 | Singapore | Cited as a previous decision where the court took the view that s 511 of the Pre-2019 Amendment PC did not expressly impose any restriction in relation to the mandatory minimum sentence prescribed for an offence applying also to an attempt to commit that offence. |
| Public Prosecutor v Shamsul bin Sa’at | High Court | Yes | [2010] 3 SLR 900 | Singapore | Cited as a previous decision where the court took the view that s 511 of the Pre-2019 Amendment PC did not expressly impose any restriction in relation to the mandatory minimum sentence prescribed for an offence applying also to an attempt to commit that offence. |
| Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 850 | Singapore | Cited for the three-step framework to be adopted when undertaking the purposive interpretation of a statutory provision. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ridhaudin Ridhwan bin Bakri and others | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2020] 4 SLR 790 | Singapore | Cited for the applicable sentencing framework for attempted rape. |
| Public Prosecutor v Raveen Balakrishnan | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2018] 5 SLR 799 | Singapore | Cited for the guidance that consecutive sentences should be ordered for distinct offences. |
| Mohamed Shouffee bin Adam v Public Prosecutor | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 998 | Singapore | Cited for the court’s guidance that the individual sentences can be adjusted downwards and run consecutively. |
| Janardana Jayasankarr v Public Prosecutor | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2016] 4 SLR 1288 | Singapore | Cited to emphasize that sentencing was ultimately a matter for the court. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 375(1)(b) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 511(1) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 375(3)(b) | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 512(3)(a) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 511(2) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Attempted aggravated statutory rape
- Mandatory minimum sentence
- Manifestly excessive
- Consecutive sentences
- Totality principle
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
- Rape
- Appeal
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Criminal Law | 95 |
| Sentencing | 90 |
| Attempted Statutory Rape | 90 |
| Statutory Rape | 85 |
| Criminal Procedure | 80 |
| Sex Crimes | 75 |
| Abduction | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
- Statutory Interpretation