Public Prosecutor v CHJ: Sexual Assault & Obstruction of Justice
In Public Prosecutor v CHJ, the High Court of Singapore convicted CHJ of two counts of sexual assault by penetration against his wife and one count of obstructing the course of justice. The court found that the prosecution had proven the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. CHJ was sentenced to a global sentence of eight years’ imprisonment and six strokes of the cane.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Accused convicted of all charges.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
CHJ was convicted of sexual assault and obstruction of justice against his wife. He was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment and six strokes of the cane.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Prosecution | Government Agency | Accused convicted of all charges | Won | Selene Yap, Jane Lim, Jonathan Tan |
| CHJ | Defendant | Individual | Convicted of all charges | Lost | Vinit Chhabra, Gloria James-Civetta, Chong Xin Yi |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Hoo Sheau Peng | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Selene Yap | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Jane Lim | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Jonathan Tan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Vinit Chhabra | Vinit Chhabra Law Corporation |
| Gloria James-Civetta | Gloria James-Civetta & Co |
| Chong Xin Yi | Gloria James-Civetta & Co |
4. Facts
- The Accused and the Complainant have been married since May 2012 and have two children.
- The Accused moved out of the matrimonial home in August 2019 after being discharged from the Institute of Mental Health.
- On 12 July 2020, the Accused returned to the matrimonial home after a family meeting.
- On 13 July 2020, the Accused and Complainant were alone in the master bedroom when the acts of digital penetration took place.
- The Complainant stated that the Accused digitally penetrated her vagina without her consent.
- The Accused claimed the Complainant consented to the sexual acts.
- Between 11 and 17 October 2020, the Accused called the Complainant's mother to persuade the Complainant to withdraw her sexual assault allegation.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v CHJ, Criminal Case No 44 of 2023, [2024] SGHC 240
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Accused and Complainant married. | |
| Accused discharged from Institute of Mental Health and moved in with his sister. | |
| Accused returned to the couple’s matrimonial home. | |
| Acts of digital penetration took place. | |
| Complainant made a police report alleging sexual assault. | |
| Accused arrested. | |
| Accused called Complainant’s mother. | |
| Accused called Complainant’s mother. | |
| Statement of Agreed Facts dated. | |
| Agreed Bundle of Documents dated. | |
| Prosecution’s Opening Submissions dated. | |
| Defence’s Opening Submissions dated. | |
| Trial began. | |
| Trial concluded. | |
| Prosecution Closing Submissions dated. | |
| Defence’s Closing Submissions dated. | |
| Defence’s Reply Submission dated. | |
| Prosecution Reply Submissions dated. | |
| Hearing date. | |
| Prosecution Sentencing Submissions dated. | |
| Defence Sentencing Submissions dated. | |
| Hearing date. | |
| Judgment delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Sexual Assault by Penetration
- Outcome: The court found the accused guilty of two counts of sexual assault by penetration.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2017] 2 SLR 1015
- Obstruction of Justice
- Outcome: The court found the accused guilty of obstructing the course of justice.
- Category: Substantive
- Consent in Sexual Assault
- Outcome: The court found that the complainant did not consent to the sexual acts.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2020] 1 SLR 486
- [2012] 3 SLR 34
- [2008] 1 SLR(R) 601
- Defence of Mistake
- Outcome: The court rejected the accused's defence of mistake, finding that he was aware the complainant did not consent.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2020] SGCA 74
8. Remedies Sought
- Conviction of the Accused
- Imprisonment
- Caning
9. Cause of Actions
- Sexual Assault by Penetration
- Obstructing the Course of Justice
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Sexual Assault
- Obstruction of Justice
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pram Nair v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 1015 | Singapore | Cited for the elements of sexual assault by penetration under s 376 of the Penal Code. |
| Public Prosecutor v GCK | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 486 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that uncorroborated evidence of a complainant may be the sole basis for a conviction if it is 'unusually convincing'. |
| AOF v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 3 SLR 34 | Singapore | Cited for the standard of 'unusually convincing' evidence required for a conviction based solely on a complainant's testimony. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mohammed Liton Mohammed Syeed Mallik | High Court | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 601 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that uncorroborated evidence of a complainant may be the sole basis for a conviction if it is 'unusually convincing'. |
| Jagatheesan s/o Krishnasamy v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 45 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that minor discrepancies in a witness’s testimony should not be held against the witness in assessing his credibility. |
| GBR v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2018] 3 SLR 1048 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that victims of sexual crimes cannot be straitjacketed in the expectation that they must act or react in a certain manner. |
| Public Prosecutor v Yue Roger Jr | High Court | Yes | [2019] 3 SLR 749 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it is not necessary for a complainant to be distraught for her to be believed. |
| Asep Ardiansyah v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] SGCA 74 | Singapore | Cited for the burden of proof when an offender seeks to rely on s 79 of the Penal Code for the defence of mistake. |
| Chai Chien Wei Kelvin v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 619 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that more weight is generally accorded to statements made contemporaneously as such temporal proximity guards against inaccuracy. |
| Muhammad Hamir B Laka v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2023] 2 SLR 286 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that motive is not needed to prove intention. |
| Parthiban a/l Kanapathy v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2021] 2 SLR 847 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that general deterrence ought to be the primary sentencing consideration for offences of obstructing the course of justice. |
| Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 449 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a lack of remorse can be an aggravating factor in sentencing. |
| BWM v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] SGCA 83 | Singapore | Cited for determining if there was an abuse of trust by an offender. |
| Public Prosecutor v NF | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 849 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the psychological trauma inflicted by sexual offences are especially exacerbated when the perpetrator is a family member or a person in a position of trust. |
| Tan Wai Luen v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2020] SGHC 267 | Singapore | Cited as a sentencing precedent for sexual penetration offences with a limited abuse of trust. |
| Mohamed Shouffee bin Adam v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 998 | Singapore | Cited for the application of the totality principle in sentencing. |
| Public Prosecutor v Raveen Balakrishnan | High Court | Yes | [2018] 5 SLR 799 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that sentences for related offences should run concurrently, while sentences for unrelated offences should run consecutively. |
| CJH v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2023] SGCA 19 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court does not take an overly prescriptive and rigid approach towards evaluating the harm suffered by victims of sexual assault. |
| Mustapah bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2023] SGCA 30 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the factor of an abuse of trust was not made out, despite the fact that the victims saw the offender as a “big brother”, as he did not occupy “a position of responsibility in relation to the [v]ictims”. |
| Public Prosecutor v Loqmanul Hakim bin Buang | High Court | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 75323 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that committing offences while on bail is a recognised aggravating factor. |
| Public Prosecutor v Tay Tong Chuan | District Court | Yes | [2019] SGDC 58 | Singapore | Cited as a case where the predicate offence involved a breach of the Workplace Safety and Health Act. |
| Rajendran s/o Nagarethinam and another v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2022] 3 SLR 689 | Singapore | Cited as a case where the predicate offences involved prostitution-related infractions under the Women’s Charter. |
| Public Prosecutor v Rajendran s/o Nagarethinam and another | District Court | Yes | [2020] SGDC 156 | Singapore | Cited as a case involving offenders arranging for their accomplice to leave Singapore to evade arrest. |
| Public Prosecutor v Yeo Jiawei | District Court | Yes | [2017] SGDC 11 | Singapore | Cited as a relevant precedent for sentencing in obstruction of justice cases. |
| Public Prosecutor v Jeffrey Pe | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHC 313 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an offender who relies on a defence of consent should not be unduly penalised at the sentencing stage for putting uncomfortable questions and suggestions to the victim, so long as this is done in a reasonable manner and the questions are necessary for the proper ventilation of the defence. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 376(2)(a) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 204A(b) | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 79 | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 52 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 124(4) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 124(8)(a)(ii) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 125(5) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 307(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 383(1) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act 1893 (2020 Rev Ed) s 157(c) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act 1893 (2020 Rev Ed) s 147(3) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act s 147(6) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Sexual Assault
- Digital Penetration
- Consent
- Obstruction of Justice
- Penal Code
- Video-Recorded Interview
- Personal Protection Order
- Domestic Exclusion Order
15.2 Keywords
- Sexual Assault
- Obstruction of Justice
- Criminal Law
- Singapore
- High Court
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Sexual Offences
- Criminal Procedure
- Sentencing
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Law
- Sexual Offences
- Criminal Procedure
- Sentencing