Public Prosecutor v CRH: Attempted Aggravated Rape & Mandatory Minimum Sentencing

In Public Prosecutor v CRH, before the General Division of the High Court of Singapore on 2024-02-05, CRH pleaded guilty to two charges of attempted aggravated rape of his biological daughter. The court, presided over by Pang Khang Chau J, considered whether the mandatory minimum sentence for aggravated rape applied to attempted aggravated rape and whether amendments to the Penal Code could be applied retrospectively. The court answered both issues in the negative and sentenced CRH to a global sentence of 13 years’ imprisonment and 16 strokes of the cane.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Accused sentenced to a global sentence of 13 years’ imprisonment and 16 strokes of the cane.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

CRH pleaded guilty to attempted aggravated rape. The court considered the applicability of mandatory minimum sentences and retrospectivity.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorProsecutionGovernment AgencySuccessfulWon
Sivanathan Jheevanesh of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Kristy Tan Ruyan of Attorney-General’s Chambers
CRHDefendantIndividualConvicted and SentencedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Pang Khang ChauJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Sivanathan JheevaneshAttorney-General’s Chambers
Kristy Tan RuyanAttorney-General’s Chambers
Akesh AbhilashHarry Elias Partnership LLP

4. Facts

  1. The Accused pleaded guilty to two charges of attempted aggravated rape of his biological daughter.
  2. The offences were committed in or around 2013 when the Victim was 4 to 5 years old.
  3. The Accused attempted to penetrate the Victim’s vagina with his penis without her consent.
  4. The Accused was unable to penetrate the Victim’s vagina because it was too small.
  5. The Victim suffered severe psychological harm as a result of the offences.
  6. The Accused took photographs of the Victim’s genitals without her consent in 2020.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Public Prosecutor v CRH, Criminal Case No 66 of 2022, [2024] SGHC 34

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Offences committed in or around 2013
Image of genitals recorded between 2020-04-07 to 2020-06-01
Image of genitals recorded between 2020-04-07 to 2020-06-01
Offences came to light in 2021
First sentencing hearing
Prosecution and Defence file written submissions
Young Independent Counsel files written submissions
Second sentencing hearing
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Applicability of mandatory minimum sentence to an attempt to commit the offence of aggravated statutory rape
    • Outcome: The court held that the mandatory minimum sentence for a completed offence had no application to an attempt to commit the offence.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Retrospective operation of penal statutes
    • Outcome: The court held that s 512(3)(a) of the Post-2019 Amendment PC could not be applied retrospectively.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Imprisonment
  2. Caning

9. Cause of Actions

  • Attempted Aggravated Rape

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Law
  • Sentencing

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Public Prosecutor v Ho Wee FahHigh CourtYes[1998] SGHC 128SingaporeCited as a case that regarded the minimum sentence prescribed for the primary offence as being applicable to an attempt to commit that offence.
Public Prosecutor v Huang ShiyouHigh CourtYes[2010] 1 SLR 417SingaporeCited as a case where the Singapore High Court had treated the mandatory minimum sentence prescribed for the primary offence as applying without reduction to an attempt to commit the offence.
Public Prosecutor v Shamsul bin Sa’atHigh CourtYes[2010] 3 SLR 900SingaporeCited as a case where the Singapore High Court had treated the mandatory minimum sentence prescribed for the primary offence as applying without reduction to an attempt to commit the offence.
Public Prosecutor v Tan Jun HuiHigh CourtYes[2013] SGHC 94SingaporeCited as a case where the Singapore High Court had treated the mandatory minimum sentence prescribed for the primary offence as applying without reduction to an attempt to commit the offence.
Public Prosecutor v BZTHigh CourtYes[2022] SGHC 148SingaporeCited as a case where the Singapore High Court had treated the mandatory minimum sentence prescribed for the primary offence as applying without reduction to an attempt to commit the offence.
Rafat Mian v State of U.P.Allahabad High CourtYes2000 CriLJ 3039 (All)IndiaCited as a case from India, decided under s 511 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, which treated the minimum sentence as being halved (or as not being applicable) when sentencing for an attempt.
Nand Lal v State of H.P.Himachal Pradesh High CourtYes2000 CriLJ 3106 (HP)IndiaCited as a case from India, decided under s 511 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, which treated the minimum sentence as being halved (or as not being applicable) when sentencing for an attempt.
Sri Amarappa S/O Sri Yellappa v State by Women Police DavanagereKarnataka High CourtYesCrl.A 2447/06IndiaCited as a case from India, decided under s 511 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, which treated the minimum sentence as being halved (or as not being applicable) when sentencing for an attempt.
Barkatullakha v State of MaharashtraBombay High CourtYes2002 CriLJ 427 (Bom)IndiaCited as a case from India, decided under s 511 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, which treated the minimum sentence as being halved (or as not being applicable) when sentencing for an attempt.
The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh v Lingisetty SreenuAndhra Pradesh High CourtYesAP/0188/1997IndiaCited as a case from India, decided under s 511 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, which treated the minimum sentence as being halved (or as not being applicable) when sentencing for an attempt.
Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-GeneralCourt of AppealYes[2017] 2 SLR 850SingaporeCited for the three-step framework for purposive interpretation of a legislative provision.
JD Ltd v Comptroller of Income TaxCourt of AppealYes[2006] 1 SLR 484SingaporeCited for the rule that Parliament shuns tautology and does not legislate in vain; the court should therefore endeavour to give significance to every word in an enactment.
Hong Leong Bank Bhd v Soh Seow PohCourt of AppealYes[2009] 4 SLR(R) 525SingaporeCited for the rule that Parliament is presumed not to have intended an unworkable or impracticable result, so an interpretation that leads to such a result would not be regarded as a possible one.
Public Prosecutor v ASRCourt of AppealYes[2019] 1 SLR 941SingaporeCited for the principle that words in a legislative enactment are to be given their ordinary meaning and that words mean what they were understood to mean at the time they were adopted by the Legislature.
Low Khoon Hai v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[1996] 1 SLR(R) 958SingaporeCited as a case where the court applied the mandatory minimum sentence prescribed for the primary offence when sentencing the abettor under s 109.
Ang Ser Kuang v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[1998] 3 SLR(R) 316SingaporeCited as a case where the court applied the mandatory minimum sentence prescribed for the primary offence when sentencing the abettor under s 109.
Tay Chi Hiong v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2003] 1 SLR(R) 650SingaporeCited as a case where the court applied the mandatory minimum sentence prescribed for the primary offence when sentencing the abettor under s 109.
Barras v Aberdeen Steam Trawling and Fishing Co LtdHouse of LordsYes[1933] AC 402United KingdomCited for the Barras principle of statutory interpretation.
Royal Crown Derby Porcelain v RussellCourt of AppealYes[1949] 2 KB 417United KingdomCited as a case that doubted and qualified the Barras principle.
Farrell v AlexanderHouse of LordsYes[1977] AC 59United KingdomCited as a case that doubted and qualified the Barras principle.
R (on the applications of ZH and CN) v London Borough of Newham and London Borough of LewishamSupreme CourtYes[2015] AC 1259United KingdomCited as a case that doubted and qualified the Barras principle.
R (on the application of Edison First Power Ltd) v Central Valuation OfficerCourt of AppealYes[2003] 4 All ER 209United KingdomCited for the presumption against absurd results.
Wong Souk Yee v Attorney-GeneralCourt of AppealYes[2019] 1 SLR 1223SingaporeCited for the principle of updating construction.
Public Prosecutor v Takaaki Masui and another and other mattersCourt of AppealYes[2022] 1 SLR 1033SingaporeCited for the principle that it is generally unhelpful to frame the legislative purpose of a statutory provision as the very action or mechanism provided for by that provision.
Lau Cheng Kai and others v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2019] 3 SLR 374SingaporeCited for the interpretation of deeming provisions.
R v ShawCourt of AppealYes[1996] 2 Cr App R (S) 278United KingdomCited for the English courts sentence according to the law prevailing at the time of sentencing, irrespective of when the offence was committed, subject only to the rule that the sentence should not exceed the maximum prevailing at the time the offence was committed.
R v H (J) (Practice Note)Court of AppealYes[2012] 1 WLR 1416United KingdomCited for the English courts sentence according to the law prevailing at the time of sentencing, irrespective of when the offence was committed, subject only to the rule that the sentence should not exceed the maximum prevailing at the time the offence was committed.
R v Docherty (Shaun)Supreme CourtYes[2017] 1 WLR 181United KingdomCited for the English courts sentence according to the law prevailing at the time of sentencing, irrespective of when the offence was committed, subject only to the rule that the sentence should not exceed the maximum prevailing at the time the offence was committed.
L’Office Chefifien Des Phosphates v Yamashita-Shinnihon Steamship Co LtdHouse of LordsYes[1994] 1 AC 486United KingdomCited for the formulation of the presumption against retrospectivity.
ABU v Comptroller of Income TaxCourt of AppealYes[2015] 2 SLR 420SingaporeCited for the two-step framework for determining whether legislation should have retrospective application.
Kalaiarasi d/o Marimuthu Innasimuthu v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2012] 2 SLR 774SingaporeCited as a case where the court proceeded on the basis that community-based sentences were applicable to the offender notwithstanding that her offences were committed before the enactment of community based sentences.
Public Prosecutor v Loy Zhong Huan, DylanDistrict CourtYes[2019] SGDC 139SingaporeCited as a case where the court applied the lower minimum detention period of six months even though the offence was committed before this lower minimum came into force.
Loy Zhong Huan Dylan v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2019] SGHC 283SingaporeCited as a case where the court applied the lower minimum detention period of six months even though the offence was committed before this lower minimum came into force.
Erven Warnink BV v J Townsend & Sons (Hull) LtdHouse of LordsYes[1979] AC 731United KingdomCited for the principle that where over a period of years there can be discerned a steady trend in legislation which reflects the view of successive Parliaments as to what the public interest demands in a particular field of law, development of the common law in that part of the same field which has been left to it ought to proceed upon a parallel rather than a diverging course.
Esso Australia Resource Ltd v Federal Commissioner of TaxationHigh Court of AustraliaYes201 CLR 49AustraliaCited for the principle that significant elements of what now is regarded as “common law” had their origin in statute or as glosses on statute or as responses to statute.
Potter v ManningHigh CourtYes[1984] Lexis Citation 2023United KingdomCited for the principle that s 16(1)(d) and (e) of the Interpretation Act 1978 (UK) do not apply where a penalty-creating provision is repealed, but the offence creating provision is not.
Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2017] 2 SLR 449SingaporeCited for the three-band sentencing framework for the offence of rape.
Public Prosecutor v Ridhaudin Ridhwan bin Bakri and othersHigh CourtYes[2020] 4 SLR 790SingaporeCited for the principle that, in the case of attempted rape, the sentence should be determined by adapting the Terence Ng framework through halving the sentencing ranges for each of the three sentencing bands of the Terence Ng framework.
PP v BLVHigh CourtYes[2020] 3 SLR 166SingaporeCited as a case for the offence of aggravated outrage of modesty under s 354(2) of the PC.
Mohamed Shouffee bin Adam v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2014] 2 SLR 998SingaporeCited for the principle that the court has the option to adjust the individual sentences downwards and run them consecutively so as to arrive at an aggregate sentence that is proportionate to the offender’s overall criminality.
Public Prosecutor v Raveen BalakrishnanCourt of AppealYes[2018] 5 SLR 799SingaporeCited for the general rule of consecutive sentences for unrelated offences.
Janardana Jayasankarr v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2016] 4 SLR 1288SingaporeCited for the principle that, because sentencing is ultimately a matter for the court, the defence’s submissions on sentence is not necessarily the lower limit of the sentence which the court may impose and the Prosecution’s submissions on sentence is not the upper limit of the sentence that may be meted out.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 375(3)(b)Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 511Singapore
Criminal Law Reform Act 2019 (Act 15 of 2019) s 512Singapore
Interpretation Act 1965 (2020 Rev Ed) s 9ASingapore
Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (2020 Rev Ed) Art 11(1)Singapore
Interpretation Act 1965 s 16(1)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Attempted Aggravated Rape
  • Mandatory Minimum Sentence
  • Retrospective Operation
  • Penal Code
  • Criminal Law Reform Act
  • Sentencing
  • Statutory Interpretation

15.2 Keywords

  • attempted rape
  • mandatory minimum sentence
  • retrospective operation
  • criminal law
  • sentencing
  • statutory interpretation

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Sexual Offences95
Criminal Law90
Sentencing90
Statutory Interpretation70
Criminal Procedure60

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Sentencing
  • Statutory Interpretation