PP v Rahim bin Basron

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 22 March 2010
• Date: 22 March 2010
• Docket Number: Criminal Case No 32 of 2009
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Public Prosecutor

Plaintiff

and

Rahim bin Basron

Defendant

[2010] SGHC 90

Tay Yong Kwang J

Criminal Case No 32 of 2009

High Court

Criminal Law—Offences—Unnatural offences—Man having carnal intercourse against order of nature with boy aged 13—Whether charges had been made out—Sections 354A (2) (b), 377 and 377A Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed)

The accused was charged with and claimed trial to four charges: two charges for committing carnal intercourse against the order of nature under s 377 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) (“the PC”), one charge for outraging modesty under s 354A (2) (b) of the PC and one charge for outrage on decency under s 377A of the PC. All the charges were alleged to have been committed against the alleged victim (“AB”) when he was aged 13.

The Prosecution's case, with the main evidence given by AB, was that the accused approached and started a conversation with AB in 2005 while AB was playing with some friends at a playground. From November 2006, AB would follow the accused regularly to sell roti prata in the morning. He would wait at the stall while the accused worked. After the morning's work, the accused would go to AB's home to take a shower and a nap. Whenever he did so, AB's parents were not at home. At about 2.00pm, the accused and AB would go to Jurong West to hawk otak-otak. The four charges arose based on incidents occurring on a particular day in November 2006 and December 2006. On a particular day in November 2006, when the accused and AB were alone in AB's home, the accused told AB that he wanted to teach him how to perform “mandi hadas”, a religious cleansing ritual by a person who had reached puberty when he had done a sexual act. The accused then proceeded to carry out sexual acts on AB.

One day in December 2006, the accused and AB went to AB's home after selling roti prata in the morning. They were alone in the flat. The accused told AB to go with him into AB's bedroom, take off his clothes and lock the bedroom door. He then committed sexual acts on AB. The anorectal examination of AB conducted on 14 May 2008 showed no evidence of sodomy.

The accused's evidence was in general agreement with AB's testimony save for the sexual offences alleged. The accused alleged AB and his mother of lying in order to frame him.

Held, convicting the accused as charged and sentencing him to 20 years of preventive detention and eight strokes of the cane:

(1) AB was a very forthright person and was consistent in his evidence. Nothing had happened to give AB any reason to make false allegations against the accused: at [42] and [43].

(2) The medical examination conducted on AB revealed no evidence of anal penetration. That was hardly surprising as the incidents happened some 16 to 17 months earlier: at [45].

(3) The reasons proffered by the accused as to why false allegations were being made against him appeared rather lame and were devoid of corroboration and logic: at [46].

(4) The accused's conduct showed that his association with AB was far from a pure relationship of brotherhood. He took it upon himself to demonstrate “mandi hadas” to AB without informing AB's parents in advance or after the event. It was clear that “mandi hadas” was merely the accused's pretext to initiate the sexual acts with AB: at [48].

(5) AB and the other prosecution witnesses were telling the truth in court and they had no reason whatsoever to implicate the accused falsely: at [49].

(6) While it was true that the plain language of s 223 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) on the date of commencement of sentence made it applicable only to imprisonment sentences, there was no difference in principle in the treatment of the period spent in remand when imposing preventive detention on the one hand and when ordering imprisonment on the other since, in both cases, the public was protected and the accused had his liberty curtailed while he was in remand: at [57].

(7) The accused was a real danger to young boys. His offences on three occasions were targeted at such victims and they had progressed in gravity from fondling of buttocks to digital anal penetration and to penile anal penetration: at [58].

(8) In view of his history of offending and his predilection for young boys, it was clearly expedient for the protection of the public that the accused be locked away for as long as the law permitted. The maximum sentence ought to commence from the date it was imposed (11 December 2009): at [58].

(9) As preventive detention was only in lieu of imprisonment terms, the accused was sentenced to eight strokes of the cane for the offence under s 354A (2) (b) of the PC: at [59].

Chua Chuan Heng Allan v PP [2003] 2 SLR (R) 409; [2003] 2 SLR 409 (refd)

Lim Hock Hin Kelvin v PP [1998] 1 SLR (R) 37; [1998] 1 SLR 801 (refd)

Nicholas Kenneth v PP [2003] 1 SLR (R) 80; [2003] 1 SLR 80 (refd)

PP v Mohammed Liton Mohammed Syeed Mallik [2008] 1 SLR (R) 601; [2008] 1 SLR 601 (refd)

PP v Salwant Singh s/o Amer Singh [2003] SGDC 146 (refd)

PP v Salwant Singh s/o Amer Singh [2003] 4 SLR (R) 305; [2003] 4 SLR 305 (refd)

PP v Wong Wing Hung [1999] 3 SLR (R) 304; [1999] 4 SLR 329 (refd)

Yusoff bin Hassan v PP [1992] 2 SLR (R) 160; [1992] 2 SLR 1032 (refd)

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) ss 12 (2) (b) , 223

Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) ss 354A (2) (b) , 377, 377A

Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 376A (3)

Ramu Miyapan, Crystal Ong and Kevin Yong (Attorney-General's Chambers) for the Prosecution

Accused in person

.

Tay Yong Kwang J

Introduction

1 The accused was born on 27 April 1966. He was residing in the Jurong East public housing estate at the material time. He earned his living selling roti prata at a stall in Tanjong Pagar in the morning and hawking otak-otak in the Jurong West public housing estate in the afternoon.

2 The alleged victim (“AB”) was born in February 1993. At the material time, he was 13 years old. He lives with his parents (his father is Malay while his mother is ethnically Chinese) and two younger siblings in the Jurong East public housing estate, not too far away from the accused's home.

The charges

3 The accused, who conducted his own defence, was tried and convicted on the following four charges:

That you, Rahim bin Basron,

1. (1) on a day in November 2006, in a toilet in the flat at (AB's home), did use criminal force on one AB (NRIC No: SXXXXXXXH), a boy then aged 13 years having been born on X February 1993, intending to outrage his modesty, to wit, by instructing him to masturbate your penis by taking his hand and making him do so, and in order to do this, you voluntarily caused wrongful restraint, and you have thereby committed an offence under section 354A (2) (b) of the Penal Code (Chapter 224);

2. (2) on a day in November 2006, in a toilet in the flat at (AB's home), did voluntarily have carnal intercourse against the order of nature with one AB (NRIC No: SXXXXXXXH), a boy then aged 13 years having been born on X February 1993, to wit, by penetrating his anus with your penis, and you have thereby committed an offence under section 377 of the Penal Code (Chapter 224);

3. (3) on a day in December 2006, in a toilet in the flat at (AB's home), did commit an act of gross indecency with one AB (NRIC No: SXXXXXXXH), a boy then aged 13 years having been born on X February 1993, to wit, by instructing him to masturbate your penis with his hand and allowing him to do so, and you have thereby committed an offence under section 377A of the Penal Code (Chapter 224);

4. (4) on a day in December 2006, in a toilet in the flat at (AB's home), did voluntarily have carnal intercourse against the order of nature with one AB (NRIC No: SXXXXXXXH), a boy then aged 13 years having been born on X February 1993, to wit, by penetrating his anus with your penis, and you have thereby committed an offence under section 377 of the Penal Code (Chapter 224).

4 As the alleged offences took place in 2006, the applicable law is the Penal Code that existed before the amendments thereto became operative on 1 February 2008.

The Prosecution's case

5 In 2005, AB was a primary school student. He was with some friends playing at a playground near Block 250 Jurong East Street 24 when the accused approached him and started a conversation. Nothing happened after that until July 2006 when the accused approached AB at the Al-Mukminin Mosque (“the mosque”) located in Jurong East to ask him whether he wanted to go with him to watch the fireworks at the National Day Parade in town. AB was keen to go but told him that he (AB) needed to get his parents' permission first. However, the accused told AB not to mention him to his parents yet. AB subsequently approached his parents and lied that he would be going to the National Day Parade celebrations with his friend's father. His parents gave him permission to do so.

6 On 9 August 2006, the accused brought AB to watch the said fireworks. Later that night, he brought AB home. AB addressed the accused as “Abang” (meaning “elder brother” in Malay).

7 On another occasion, the accused saw AB at the mosque. He told AB about his work selling roti prata and otak-otak. He then asked AB whether he could go to AB's home to taste his mother's cooking. He told AB not to tell his mother who he was. AB therefore approached his mother and informed her that his friend wanted to go to their home for a meal.

8 Sometime after August 2006, the accused went to AB's home for the first time. AB's mother was surprised that it was not a school friend but an adult. During the meal, which was the breaking of fast in the evening during the Muslim fasting month, the accused introduced himself and assured AB's mother that he regarded AB as his own younger brother and would take care of him. This was the first time that AB and his mother knew the accused's name. As a result, AB's mother did not...