Lim Hua Tong Jason v Public Prosecutor: Appeal Against Conviction for Outrage of Modesty
In Lim Hua Tong Jason v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by Lim Hua Tong Jason against his conviction in the District Court for outrage of modesty under Section 354(1) of the Penal Code. The District Judge had sentenced Lim to seven months' imprisonment for the outrage of modesty charge, along with an aggregate sentence of 14 months for related charges of forgery and offenses under the Companies Act. Justice Vincent Hoong dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding the victim's testimony credible and the arguments presented by the appellant unpersuasive. The court also dismissed the appeal against the sentence, deeming it proportionate to the severity of the offense.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Ex Tempore Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Lim Hua Tong Jason appeals against his conviction for outrage of modesty. The High Court dismisses the appeal, finding the victim's testimony convincing.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lim Hua Tong Jason | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Darren Sim, David Menon |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Vincent Hoong | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Darren Sim | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| David Menon | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- The Appellant was convicted of outrage of modesty under s 354(1) of the Penal Code.
- The victim alleged the Appellant grabbed her right breast during a casting interview.
- The Appellant claimed the victim's testimony was inconsistent regarding which hand was used.
- The Appellant argued CCTV footage would have exonerated him, blaming the police for not securing it.
- The District Judge found the victim's testimony convincing and rejected the Appellant's arguments.
- The Appellant was sentenced to seven months' imprisonment for the outrage of modesty charge.
- The Appellant appealed against the conviction and sentence, arguing the sentence was manifestly excessive.
5. Formal Citations
- Lim Hua Tong Jason v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9021 of 2024, [2025] SGHC 33
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant sustained a deep cut to his left finger. | |
| Petition of Appeal filed. | |
| Appellant’s Written Submissions dated. | |
| Judgment delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Outrage of Modesty
- Outcome: The court upheld the conviction for outrage of modesty.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2018] 4 SLR 1315
- Sentencing
- Outcome: The court found the sentence of seven months' imprisonment was not manifestly excessive.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2018] 4 SLR 580
- Credibility of Witness Testimony
- Outcome: The court found the victim's testimony to be credible and convincing, despite minor inconsistencies.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2018] 4 SLR 1315
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against Conviction
- Appeal against Sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Outrage of Modesty
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tay Wee Kiat v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 1315 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that amendment of charges does not undermine the reliability of the victim's evidence if the totality of the evidence suggests the witness's evidence on material elements is reliable. |
| GBR v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2018] 3 SLR 1048 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that victims of sexual crimes cannot be straightjacketed in the expectation that they must act or react in a certain manner. |
| GHI v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2024] SGHC 220 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that victims of sexual crimes cannot be straightjacketed in the expectation that they must act or react in a certain manner. |
| Public Prosecutor v GCK and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 486 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where an accused person alleges that the victim had a motive to make a false allegation, the burden is on the Defence to establish sufficient evidence of that motive. |
| Kunasekaran s/o Kalimuthu Somasundara v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 580 | Singapore | Cited as setting out the applicable sentencing framework for outrage of modesty offences, utilizing the sentencing bands approach. |
| Public Prosecutor v Abdul Karim bin Syed Musgooth | State Courts | No | [2023] SGMC 85 | Singapore | Cited by the appellant as a case with a lower sentence, but distinguished by the court as falling within a lower sentencing band. |
| Toh Suat Leng Jennifer v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 5 SLR 1075 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that unreported decisions are of limited precedential value. |
| Lai Oei Mui Jenny v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1993] 2 SLR(R) 406 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the hardship caused to an offender’s family as a consequence of the offender’s imprisonment is to be accorded little, if any, mitigating weight. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 354(1) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 465 of the Penal Code | Singapore |
| Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 148(1) of the Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 154(1) punishable under s 154(5) of the CA | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Outrage of Modesty
- Casting Interview
- Credibility of Witness
- Sentencing Framework
- Manifestly Excessive
- Aggravating Factors
15.2 Keywords
- Outrage of Modesty
- Criminal Law
- Singapore
- Appeal
- Conviction
- Sentence
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Sexual Offences
- Appeals
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Law
- Statutory Offences
- Penal Code
- Appeal