Public Prosecutor v Yap Weng Wah
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Woo Bih Li J |
Judgment Date | 20 March 2015 |
Neutral Citation | [2015] SGHC 76 |
Plaintiff Counsel | David Khoo and Raja Mohan |
Docket Number | Criminal Case No 7 of 2014 |
Date | 20 March 2015 |
Hearing Date | 30 January 2015,16 January 2015 |
Subject Matter | Benchmark Sentences,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Sentencing |
Year | 2015 |
Citation | [2015] SGHC 76 |
Defendant Counsel | Daniel Koh and Favian Kang (Eldan Law LLP) |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Published date | 26 May 2015 |
The accused, Yap Weng Wah (“Yap”), faced a total of 76 charges; 75 charges were brought under s 376A of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“Penal Code”) and one charge was brought under s 7(b) of the Children and Young Persons Act (Cap 38, 2001 Rev Ed) (“CYPA”).
The prosecution proceeded with 12 charges:
The remaining 64 charges which were taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing were:
The offences under the 76 charges were committed against 30 boys aged between 11 and 15 over a period of more than two and a half years (
With respect to the 12 proceeded charges, the offences were committed against 12 boys:
Since all but one of the charges are for offences punishable under s 376A(3), I will highlight that the maximum sentence under s 376A(3) is 20 years’ imprisonment and the accused is also liable for a fine or caning. This provision applies where the victims are below the age of 14. Where they are below the age of 16, pursuant to s 376A(2), the maximum sentence is ten years’ imprisonment and the accused is liable for a fine but not caning.
Yap pleaded guilty to these charges and I accepted his plea of guilt and convicted him on the charges. Yap also consented to having the remaining 64 charges taken into consideration for sentencing.
At the time of the offences, Yap was between 26 and 29 years old and worked as a quality assurance engineer. The circumstances in which Yap came to be acquainted with his victims were largely similar. Yap would, under different personas, befriend his victims on “Facebook”.
Upon befriending them, Yap would earn his victims’ trust by portraying himself as an elder brother or mentor to them, inviting them to share their problems with him. Yap would also familiarise himself with the interests and hobbies of his victims, and would use that knowledge to arrange meet-ups with the victims under various pretexts (
After meeting his victims, Yap would then bring them to a variety of places to commit sexual offences against them. These places included his place of residence, toilet cubicles in shopping centres and swimming complexes, dormitories, hotel rooms and even once in a public park. Yap would cajole and persuade his victims to engage in sexual activities with him despite some of his victims expressing reluctance. In the case of the victim under the 28th charge, Yap fellated him despite his protestations.
On most occasions, Yap would use his mobile phone to film the sexual acts with the victims’ knowledge. In some cases, Yap would assure the victims that he would delete the videos later on. However, he did not do so. Instead, Yap would upload the videos on his laptop and would view them during masturbation.
The offences only came to light when the victim under the sixth charge lodged a police report alleging that Yap had sexually penetrated him. It was on the basis of this report that the police interviewed Yap and he admitted to having oral and anal sex with three boys. After placing Yap under arrest and seizing his laptop and mobile, it was discovered by the police that there were approximately 2,000 video footages capturing Yap performing sexual acts on various persons. It was through these footages that the 30 victims were traced.
The video footages also showed the accused engaging in sexual acts in Malaysia with 14 boys who were below the age of 16. These acts were committed when he made his yearly visits to Malaysia between 2009 and 2012.
Medical and psychiatric examination of YapUpon the discovery that Yap had committed sexual offences against no fewer than 30 victims, Yap was referred to the Institute of Mental Health (“IMH”) for assessment. In an IMH report dated 28 May 2013 (“28 May 2013 IMH Report”), Dr Bharat Saluja (“Dr Saluja”) concluded that Yap has hebephilia, a term used for sexual interest in pubescent individuals predominantly in the age range of 11 to 14 years old. Dr Saluja also noted that Yap’s risk of sexual reoffending was high.
On 19 February 2014, in a medical report prepared by Dr Tommy Tan (“Dr Tan’s Report”), he concurred with Dr Saluja’s assessment that the risk of reoffending was high for Yap. Dr Tan, however, went on to note that Yap wanted to be treated so that he would not reoffend and that Yap exhibited symptoms of major depressive disorder. Dr Tan opined that although Yap was not suicidal, long term imprisonment may increase his suicide risk.
In a further report prepared by Dr Saluja on 29 December 2014, he noted that on a strict and semantic adherence to the diagnostic criteria for paedophilic disorder, it would be very difficult to say with confidence that Yap has a paedophilic disorder. However, Dr Saluja highlighted that irrespective of this, Yap’s pattern of sexualized behaviours was deviant and resembled that of a high risk sex offender having paedophilic tendencies.
Prosecution’s submissions on sentenceThe prosecution urged me to impose an aggregate sentence of not less than 30 years’ imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane. In justifying this position, the prosecution relied firstly on the numerous aggravating factors in the present case, secondly on the relevant sentencing principles to be applied, and finally on the relevant sentencing precedents.
Aggravating factors The prosecution submitted that there was an abundance of aggravating factors in the present case. I need not set out all of the factors but the pertinent ones include:
The prosecution next submitted that while all four sentencing principles (
The prosecution justified its reliance on the principle of prevention on the basis that the offences committed by Yap were highly premeditated, they were committed against multiple, vulnerable and young victims, and there was a high risk of Yap reoffending.
As for the principle of specific deterrence, the prosecution relied both on the high level of premeditation and also that Yap had made the conscious and deliberate choice to commit the various offences. The prosecution argued that general deterrence should also be of significant importance due to the public disquiet that follows from sexual offences against children and also because such offences are often difficult to detect.
Sentencing precedents Imprisonment term The prosecution relied on the decision of
It should be noted that s 377 of the 1985 Penal Code, which has since been repealed, is the predecessor to the present ss 376 and 376A of the Penal Code. I will refer to this provision as “the previous s 377”. Under the previous s 377, a person who voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to a fine. The provision however did not allow for caning to be imposed, unlike s 376A(3).
In
To continue reading
Request your trial-
GCM v Public Prosecutor and another appeal
...the victim on the instant facts was 13 years-old at the material time. As was recognised at [56] of Public Prosecutor v Yap Weng Wah [2015] 3 SLR 297, the higher maximum sentence under s 376A(3) of the Penal Code serves to reflect Parliament’s view that sexual abuse against victims below th......
-
PP v Tan Meng Soon Bernard
...rank order and the spacing of penalties necessary in ensuring ordinal proportionality between the similar case of PP v Yap Weng Wah[2015] 3 SLR 297 and the case at hand, the accused was sentenced to 13 years' imprisonment on each proceeded charge, with two sentences to run consecutively, re......
-
BPH v Public Prosecutor and another appeal
...of Appeal in Adam bin Darsin v Public Prosecutor [2001] 1 SLR(R) 709, followed by the High Court in Public Prosecutor v Yap Weng Wah [2015] 3 SLR 297, took the approach that anal intercourse was more serious than fellatio. Similarly, the High Court in Public Prosecutor v BMD [2013] SGHC 235......
-
Public Prosecutor v BLV
...and 12 strokes of the cane. Citing Public Prosecutor v AUB [2015] SGHC 166 (“PP v AUB”) and Public Prosecutor v Yap Weng Wah [2015] 3 SLR 297, the Prosecution drew an analogy with the offence of sexual assault by penetration to rape under s 375 of the PC, and thus sought to rely on the sent......
-
Criminal Procedure, Evidence and Sentencing
...was no element of abuse of trust. 14.120 The third and final case to be considered for sexual offences, Public Prosecutor v Yap Weng Wah[2015] 3 SLR 297 (‘Yap Weng Wah’), clarified the principles that ought to apply for offences involving the sexual penetration of minors below the age of 14......
-
SEXUAL GROOMING AS AN OFFENCE IN SINGAPORE
...https://www.nyc.gov.sg/en/initiatives/resources/national-youth-survey/ (accessed 23 December 2019). 24 Public Prosecutor v Yap Weng Wah [2015] 3 SLR 297. 25 Kelly Ng, “‘Unremorseful’ Engineer Gets 30 Years' Jail for Sex with 31 Boys” Today (20 March 2015). 26 Vanessa Paige Chelvan, “Badmint......