District Judge Luke Tan:
Introduction
It would appear from recent case reports that there has been an upsurge in the commission of “upskirt video” offences. Typically these would involve offenders literally filming up the skirts of female victims using miniature recording devices, often found in mobile phones.
Before me, the Accused, Ang Zhu Ci (Hong Zhuci), a 29-year-old male Singaporean, was alleged to have committed numerous such offences. His period of offences commenced from July 2010, and only ended when he was finally arrested on 19 December 2013, after he tried to film up the skirt of a female victim using his Apple iPhone 4S. Following his arrest, the police seized a Dell Laptop and a Seagate Portable hard disk from the Accused. Multiple upskirt video footages and images of females, whom the Accused admitted to having personally filmed and photographed, were found.
What is perhaps a little unusual, and somewhat disturbing about this case, is that almost all the female victims of the Accused were his friends or colleagues. The offences were also apparently committed in many diverse places, and the same victims (except for the last victim) were all targeted repeatedly, with one female victim, the target of 45 offences.
For his actions, the Accused faced 127 charges, either under section 509 of the Penal Code (for insulting the modesty of a woman), or under section 509 read with section 511 Penal Code (for attempts to commit such offences). Before me, the Accused pleaded guilty to 15 of these charges. He also consented to having the remaining 112 charges taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing.
The prescribed punishment for an offence under section 509 Penal Code, as well as for an attempted commission of the same offence (section 509 read with 511 Penal Code) is an imprisonment term which may extend to one year or a fine or both.
His counsel urged me to consider probation for the Accused, while the Prosecution sought a sentence of 3 months’ imprisonment for each of the proceeded charges, with 4 of these sentences to run consecutively, for a global sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment.
Having considered the lengthy and detailed documents tendered by both the Prosecution and the Defence, including the Statement of Facts (SOF), the mitigation plea and Defence submissions, the psychiatric and psychological reports, and the Prosecution’s sentencing submissions and table of precedents, I sentenced the Accused to a global sentence of 36 weeks imprisonment.
The Accused, being dissatisfied, has appealed against his sentence. I now set out my reasons for arriving at the sentence imposed on the Accused.
The facts that the Accused admitted to
The Prosecution tendered an 8 page SOF, which the Accused admitted to without qualification. The salient features of the SOF are set out below.
Modus Operandi
The Accused admitted that most of his upskirt videos were taken using his mobile phone. The phone would be switched on to “video mode”, and he would flip it with the back camera lens facing upwards. Thereafter, he would deliberately move near his intended victim to record the upskirt video.
The victims involved in the 15 proceeded charges were all relatively young female adults, ranging in age from 23 years to 30 years old. Also, based on the schedule of offences, in all but one of the cases, the victims were targeted on multiple occasions by the Accused. The facts for each offence are also largely similar, and they showed that the Accused committed his offences over the span of about 4 years, from 2010 to 2013. The offences were also committed in many different places, including the escalators of malls and MRT stations, food courts and other food establishments, his working place, the premises of religious institutions, a school etc.
After he took the upskirt videos, the Accused would download them into his Dell laptop and save these videos in a Hard Disk, in folders labelled with the respective victims’ names. In many cases, the victims’ underwear could be seen in the upskirt videos.
Additional facts of each particular offence
1st charge (MCN 900894/2015): Section 509 read with Section 511 of the Penal Code The victim (V1) was a 23-year-old female. She was the only victim not acquainted with the Accused. On 19 December 2013 at about 6.30 pm, at Tampines MRT station, both the Accused and V1 were standing on an escalator. The Accused, who was behind V1, was observed by an eye witness to be holding onto his mobile phone at a low point behind V1. The eye witness alerted the MRT staff who subsequently confronted the Accused at the platform. The Accused admitted that he had attempted to use his black Apple iPhone 4S to record an upskirt video of V1. The Accused then handed over his mobile phone to the MRT staff. An examination of the phone showed that there was footage lasting for 22 seconds, which showed the back of V1’s skirt. It was filmed when the Accused was standing behind V1 on the escalator. The Accused did not manage to record any footage under V1’s skirt.
2nd, 3rd Charges (MCN 900895-6/2015): Section 509 Penal Code The victim (V2) is a 27-year-old female. She was a friend of the Accused. On two separate occasions, both sometime around December 2012, while at the Starbucks located at Wisma Atria, at No 435 Orchard Road, Singapore, the Accused had used an unknown mobile device to record two video footages up V2’s skirt. For the charge in MCN 900895/2015, the Accused had switched on an unknown recording device to “video recording mode”, and had hidden it in a paper bag with the lens facing up. He had then approached V2 from the back, and carefully positioned the paper bag between the legs and under the skirt of V2 from her back. He then made an upskirt video that lasted for 25 seconds, with sound recording. V2’s underwear could clearly be seen in the said recording. For the charge in MCN 900896/2015, the Accused had similarly switched on an unknown recording device to “video recording mode”, and had hidden it in a paper bag with the lens facing up. He had approached V2 from the side, and had carefully positioned the paper bag under the skirt of V2 He then made an upskirt video that lasted for 18 seconds, with sound recording.
11th and 17th Charges (MCN 900904/2015; MCN 900910/2015): S 509 Penal Code The victim (V3) is a 24-year-old female. She was a former colleague of the Accused. On two separate occasions, the first in April 2013, and the second in September 2013, at their workplace at an accounting firm, the Accused had used an unknown mobile device to record two video footages up V3’s skirt. For the charge in MCN 900904/2015, the Accused had switched on an unknown recording device to “video recording mode”, and had approached V3 (who was standing near a white table) from the back with the lens facing up and positioned the recording device under her skirt and between her legs. He made an upskirt video that lasted for 9 seconds, with sound recording. V3’s underwear could clearly be seen in the recording. For the charge in MCN 900910/2015, the Accused was sitting across the table from V3 who was also seated. He had switched the recording device to “video recording mode”, moved it under the table with the lens facing V3’s skirt. He then made an upskirt video that lasted for 20 seconds, with sound recording. V3’s underwear could be seen in the recording.
24th and 25th Charges (MCN 900917-8/2015): S 509 Penal Code The victim (V4) is a 24-year-old female. She was a friend of the Accused. On two separate occasions, the first in October 2011, and the second in March 2012, the Accused used an unknown mobile device to record video footage up V3’s skirt. For the charge in MCN 900917/2015, in the Great World City foodcourt, located at No 1 Kim Seng Promenade #03-09, Singapore, V3 was sitting on a green bench, while the Accused was seated across the table from her. He switched the recording device to “video recording mode”, moved it under the table with the lens facing V4’s skirt, and made an upskirt video that lasted for 6 seconds, with sound recording. For the charge in MCN 900918/2015, while at the Boys’ Bridge Office located at No 105 Ganges Avenue, Singapore, the Accused had switched the recording device to “video recording mode”, approached V4 (who was standing) from the back with the lens facing up and positioned the recording device under her skirt and between her legs. He made an upskirt video that lasted for 7 seconds, with sound recording.
39th and 42nd Charges (MCN 900932/2015; MCN 900935/2015): S 509 Penal Code The victim (V5) is a 23-year-old female. She was a former colleague of the Accused. On two separate occasions, the Accused had used an unknown mobile device to record two video footages up V5’s skirt. For the charge in MCN 900932/2015, sometime around November 2013, as V5 was climbing up the staircase at the Golden Shoe food court, the Accused who was behind her, switched the recording device to “video recording mode” and positioned it under her skirt and between her legs. He made an upskirt video that lasted for 27 seconds, with sound recording. V5’s underwear could clearly be seen in the recording. For the charge in MCN 900935/2015, sometime around November 2013, while at Raffles MRT Station escalator, while V5 was standing on the escalator, the Accused, who was then behind her, switched the recording device to “video recording mode”. He then positioned it under her skirt and between her legs. The camera lens faced up her skirt. He made an upskirt video that lasted for 17 seconds, with sound recording. V5’s underwear could be seen in the recording.
60th Charge (MCN 900953/2015): S 509 Penal Code The victim (V6) is a 30-year-old female. She was a friend of the Accused. Sometime around December 2012, while Lim was standing behind the boot of a vehicle at the carpark...
