Public Prosecutor v Yap Weng Wah

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeWoo Bih Li J
Judgment Date20 March 2015
Neutral Citation[2015] SGHC 76
Plaintiff CounselDavid Khoo and Raja Mohan
Docket NumberCriminal Case No 7 of 2014
Date20 March 2015
Hearing Date30 January 2015,16 January 2015
Subject MatterBenchmark Sentences,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Sentencing
Year2015
Citation[2015] SGHC 76
Defendant CounselDaniel Koh and Favian Kang (Eldan Law LLP)
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Published date26 May 2015
Woo Bih Li J: Background

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: 11 charges of sexually penetrating a minor below the age of 14, punishable under s 376A(3) of the Penal Code; and one charge of sexually penetrating a minor below the age of 16, punishable under s 376A(2) of the Penal Code.

The remaining 64 charges which were taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing were: 18 charges of digitally penetrating the anus of a minor below the age of 14, punishable under s 376A(3) of the Penal Code; 15 charges of receiving fellatio from a minor below the age of 14, punishable under s 376A(3) of the Penal Code; ten charges of having anal intercourse with a minor below the age of 14, punishable under s 376A(3) of the Penal Code; seven charges of digitally penetrating the anus of a minor below the age of 16, punishable under s 376A(2) of the Penal Code; seven charges of receiving fellatio from a minor below the age of 16, punishable under s 376A(2) of the Penal Code; six charges of having anal intercourse with a minor below the age of 16, punishable under s 376A(2) of the Penal Code; and one charge of procuring a child to commit an indecent act, punishable under s 7(b) of the CYPA.

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 (ie, 6 November 2009 to 30 June 2012).

With respect to the 12 proceeded charges, the offences were committed against 12 boys: Ten charges were with respect to Yap having anal intercourse with ten boys aged between 11 and 13 years old (ie, the sixth charge, 12th charge, 19th charge, 26th charge, 31st charge, 36th charge, 41st charge, 48th charge, 52nd charge, and 75th charge). One charge was with respect to Yap receiving fellatio from an 11 year old boy (the 13th charge). One charge was with respect to Yap giving fellatio to a 15 year old boy (the 28th charge).

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 (eg, to give them gifts, go for a swim, play computer games and give body building tips).

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 Yap

Upon 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 sentence

The 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: Yap targeted young and vulnerable victims. Offences against young children are difficult to detect. Yap morally corrupted young boys. Significant harm was caused to the victims. The offences were premeditated. Yap breached the victims’ trust and confidence. Yap recklessly penetrated his victims without protection. Yap created and possessed videos of the sexual offences. Yap exploited the internet to widen his reach. The offences were perpetrated against a large number of victims over a prolonged period of time.

Sentencing principles

The prosecution next submitted that while all four sentencing principles (ie, prevention, deterrence, retribution and rehabilitation) were relevant in the present case, the principles of prevention and deterrence (both general and specific) were of greatest relevance.

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 Lim Hock Hin Kelvin v Public Prosecutor [1998] 1 SLR(R) 37 (“Kelvin Lim”) which established the relevant principles and public interest considerations with respect to the sentencing of diagnosed paedophiles who commit sexual offences against young victims between the ages of eight and 12 years old. In Kelvin Lim, the accused faced a total of ten charges, four of which were charges under s 377 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) (“the 1985 Penal Code”). Thirty charges of a similar nature were taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing.

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 Kelvin Lim, the High Court imposed a sentence of ten years’ imprisonment per s 377 charge with the four sentences...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • GCM v Public Prosecutor and another appeal
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 25 January 2021
    ...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
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 1 June 2018
    ...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
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 13 November 2019
    ...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
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 4 July 2017
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Criminal Procedure, Evidence and Sentencing
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2015, December 2015
    • 1 December 2015
    ...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
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2020, December 2020
    • 1 December 2020
    ...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......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT