Ler Chun Poh v Public Prosecutor: Appeal on Outrage of Modesty Conviction & Sentencing
Ler Chun Poh appealed to the General Division of the High Court of Singapore against his conviction and sentencing by the District Judge for three charges of outrage of modesty under s 354(1) of the Penal Code. Aidan Xu @ Aedit Abdullah J set aside the original decision due to concerns that the trial judge had substantially adopted the Prosecution’s submissions without providing analysis. The High Court then heard the matter de novo and dismissed the appeal, upholding the original sentence of eight months' imprisonment.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal against conviction and sentencing for outrage of modesty. The High Court set aside the original decision due to judicial concerns.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ler Chun Poh (Lu Junbao) | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Ang Sin Teck |
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Goh Qi Shuen, Kumaresan Gohulabalan, Dillon Kok Yi-Min |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Aidan Xu @ Aedit Abdullah | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Ang Sin Teck | Jing Quee & Chin Joo |
| Goh Qi Shuen | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Kumaresan Gohulabalan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Dillon Kok Yi-Min | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- The appellant was a taxi driver.
- The victim, a 17-year-old girl, was a passenger in the appellant's taxi.
- The victim alleged that the appellant touched her breasts on three separate occasions during two taxi rides.
- The appellant claimed he did not intentionally touch the victim.
- The victim made a police report shortly after the alleged incidents.
- DNA analysis of the victim's t-shirt did not find traces of the appellant's DNA.
- The trial judge convicted the appellant on three counts of outrage of modesty.
5. Formal Citations
- Ler Chun Poh v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9223 of 2023, [2024] SGHC 307
- Public Prosecutor v Ler Chun Poh, , [2023] SGMC 94
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Outrage of modesty offences occurred | |
| First Information Report made | |
| Police statement recorded | |
| Victim's t-shirt seized | |
| Appellant arrested | |
| Appellant's blood sample obtained | |
| Investigation statement recorded | |
| Prosecution's Close of Trial Submissions | |
| Prosecution's Reply Submissions | |
| Grounds of Decision | |
| Appellant’s Written Submissions | |
| First hearing of the appeal | |
| Appellant’s counsel indicated that the appellant would put in further submissions | |
| Appellant’s Further Submissions | |
| Respondent’s Further Submissions | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Outrage of Modesty
- Outcome: The High Court upheld the conviction for three charges of outrage of modesty.
- Category: Substantive
- Judicial Impartiality
- Outcome: The High Court initially set aside the original decision due to concerns that the trial judge had substantially adopted the Prosecution’s submissions without providing analysis, raising questions about judicial impartiality.
- Category: Procedural
- Appellate Review
- Outcome: The High Court clarified the scope of the appellate court’s powers, including the power to decide on conviction and sentence de novo.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against Conviction
- Appeal against Sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Outrage of Modesty
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- Transportation
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Newton, David Christopher v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2024] 3 SLR 1370 | Singapore | Cited regarding the function and importance of a legal decision and the concerns that arise when a judge substantially copies one side's submissions. |
| Lim Chee Huat v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2019] 5 SLR 433 | Singapore | Cited regarding the function of a legal decision and the concerns that arise when a judge substantially copies one side's submissions. |
| Thong Ah Fat v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 1 SLR 676 | Singapore | Cited regarding the function and importance of a legal decision. |
| Public Prosecutor v Heng Swee Weng | High Court | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 954 | Singapore | Cited in relation to sentencing for outrage of modesty offences committed against passengers travelling in taxis at night. Distinguished on the facts. |
| Yap Ah Lai v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 180 | Singapore | Cited regarding the appellate court's power to consider sentencing anew when the district judge had failed to fully appreciate the material before him. |
| Cojocaru and another v British Columbia Women’s Hospital and Health Centre and another | Supreme Court of Canada | Yes | [2013] 5 LRC 680 | Canada | Cited to distinguish the considerations that require attribution in academic, artistic and scientific spheres from reasons for judgment. |
| AOF v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 3 SLR 34 | Singapore | Cited regarding the powers of the appellate court and the relevant considerations for whether an acquittal, retrial or remittance to the trial judge is appropriate. |
| Public Prosecutor v BWJ | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2023] 1 SLR 477 | Singapore | Cited regarding the principles of appellate intervention. |
| Loh Der Ming Andrew v Koh Tien Hua | High Court | Yes | [2022] 3 SLR 1417 | Singapore | Cited regarding the distinction between findings of fact and inferences drawn from such findings. |
| Public Prosecutor v UI | High Court | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 500 | Singapore | Cited regarding intervention by an appellate court in respect of findings of fact and the exercise of discretion. |
| Yap Giau Beng Terence v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR(R) 855 | Singapore | Cited regarding the deference accorded to a trial judge’s findings of fact. |
| Public Prosecutor v Wang Ziyi Able | High Court | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 61 | Singapore | Cited regarding the assessment of a witness’s credibility based on the internal or external consistency of the witness’s testimony. |
| Jagatheesan s/o Krishnasamy v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 45 | Singapore | Cited regarding the assessment of a witness’s credibility based on the internal or external consistency of the witness’s testimony. |
| Goh Sin Huat Electrical Pte Ltd v Ho See Jui (trading as Xuanhua Art Gallery) and another | High Court | Yes | [2012] 3 SLR 1038 | Singapore | Cited regarding the advent of technology and the corresponding availability of verbatim transcripts. |
| Tan Meow Hiang (trading as Chip Huat) v Ong Kay Yong (trading as Wee Wee Laundry Service) | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHC 218 | Singapore | Cited regarding the advent of technology and the corresponding availability of verbatim transcripts. |
| Public Prosecutor v Chua Siew Wei Kathleen | High Court | Yes | [2016] 2 SLR 713 | Singapore | Cited regarding the expense and length of time required for a fresh hearing and the consequent ordeal for the victim. |
| Public Prosecutor v GCK and another matter | High Court | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 486 | Singapore | Cited regarding the requirement for testimony to be 'unusually convincing' where it is uncorroborated and the liberal approach to corroboration. |
| Public Prosecutor v Wee Teong Boo and other appeal and another matter | High Court | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 533 | Singapore | Cited regarding the fact that there is no prescribed way in which victims of sexual assault are expected to act. |
| Public Prosecutor v Yue Roger Jr | High Court | Yes | [2019] 3 SLR 749 | Singapore | Cited regarding the fact that there is no prescribed way in which victims of sexual assault are expected to act. |
| Haliffie bin Mamat v Public Prosecutor and other appeals | High Court | Yes | [2016] 5 SLR 636 | Singapore | Cited regarding the evidence of the victim’s genuine distress after the alleged offences. |
| XP v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 686 | Singapore | Cited regarding the assessment of the complainant’s testimony against that of the accused. |
| Browne v Dunn | House of Lords | Yes | [1893] 6 R 67 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the rule in Browne v Dunn, which requires contradictory facts to be put to the witness during cross-examination. |
| Parti Liyani v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2020] SGHC 187 | Singapore | Cited regarding the rule in Browne v Dunn, which requires contradictory facts to be put to the witness during cross-examination. |
| Arts Niche Cyber Distribution Pte Ltd v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR(R) 936 | Singapore | Cited regarding the failure to put contradictory facts to the witness during cross-examination. |
| Yeo Kwan Wee Kenneth v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2004] 2 SLR(R) 45 | Singapore | Cited regarding the failure to put contradictory facts to the witness during cross-examination. |
| Kunasekaran s/o Kalimuthu Somasundara v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 580 | Singapore | Cited regarding the sentencing framework for s 354(1) offences. |
| Public Prosecutor v Thompson, Matthew | High Court | Yes | [2018] 5 SLR 1108 | Singapore | Cited regarding the degree of sexual exploitation in outrage of modesty offences. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mahat bin Salim | High Court | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR(R) 104 | Singapore | Cited regarding the mitigating value of hardship to the accused’s family. |
| BOI v BOJ | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 1156 | Singapore | Cited regarding the test for apparent bias. |
| IG Markets Ltd v Declan Crinion | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] EWCA Civ 587 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the importance of explaining to the unsuccessful party why they have lost. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mardai | High Court | Yes | [1950] MLJ 33 | Malaysia | Cited regarding the liberal approach to corroboration. |
| PP v Mohammed Liton Mohammed Syeed Mallik | High Court | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 601 | Singapore | Cited regarding the liberal approach to corroboration. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 354(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) s 390(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 s 6 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 307(1) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Outrage of Modesty
- Judicial Impartiality
- Appellate Review
- Criminal Force
- Sentencing
- De Novo
- Unusually Convincing
- Corroborative Evidence
15.2 Keywords
- Outrage of Modesty
- Criminal Law
- Singapore
- Appeal
- Taxi
- Judicial Bias
- Criminal Procedure
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Appeals
- Judicial Review
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Procedure and Sentencing
- Courts and Jurisdiction
- Criminal Law