Public Prosecutor v Ang Chye Heng

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chay Yuen Fatt
• Judgment Date: 12 December 2016
• Neutral Citation: [2016] SGMC 57
• Court: Magistrates' Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: MAC-904989-2014
• Published date: 24 December 2016
• Year: 2016
• Hearing Date: 01 September 2016,23 November 2015,10 November 2016,03 August 2015,21 January 2016,12 April 2016,17 November 2016,24 November 2015,22 July 2016,21 July 2016
• Plaintiff Counsel: Terence Szetoh Khai Hoe
• Defendant Counsel: Bachoo Mohan Singh (M/s Bachoo Mohan Singh Law Practice)
• Citation: [2016] SGMC 57

District Judge Chay Yuen Fatt: Introduction

The accused, a 57 year old man, claimed trial to a charge under s 354(1) of the Penal Code (Cap. 224) for outraging the modesty of a victim, a 23 year old woman. He had only met her twice and was alone with her in a warehouse, making arrangement to ship goods overseas, when he forced himself on her by kissing her and grabbing her breasts. He denied the allegation. He also claimed to have physical disabilities and was therefore physically incapable of committing the said offence.

The accused was originally represented by defence counsel, Mr Peter Ezekiel, under instructions of M/s Violet Netto. However, the accused discharged Mr Peter Ezekiel on 23 November 2015 in the midst of the prosecution’s case. The accused then engaged and was represented by his present counsel, Mr Bachoo Mohan Singh, for the rest of the trial.

The accused was convicted at the end of the trial and sentenced to seven months’ imprisonment. He appealed against the conviction and sentence while the prosecution appealed against the sentence. The accused was granted bail pending both appeals.

Charge

The charge against the accused was amended by the Prosecution in the course of the Prosecution’s case, after the victim had testified. The amendment was that the phrase “attempting to kiss her lips” appearing in the charge was substituted with the phrase “kissing her cheek”. The accused was called to give his defence and he was convicted of the amended charge at the conclusion of the trial. For ease of reference, the redacted amended charge is set out as follows with the substitution of the original phrase made apparent:

“You, [name] are charged that you, on the 2nd day of January 2014, at or about 11.15 am at No.x, Tuas Ave 2, Singapore, did use criminal force on one xxx, F/23 years of age, to wit, by suddenly grabbing her right upper arm and pulling her back towards you, and then placing your left arm over her shoulder and attempting to kiss her lips kissing her cheek and finally, pushing the victim back against the roller shutters and grabbing her breasts with both your hands, knowing it likely that you will thereby outrage the modesty of the said xxx, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 354(1) of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.”

The Prosecution’s Case Summary of Prosecution’s Case

I will adopt (with redactions and minor amendments) the summary of the prosecution’s case as set out in the prosecution’s closing submission¹ as follows:- a. On 2 January 2014, at or about 11.10 am, the accused was alone with one xxx (“the victim”) in the warehouse of XXX International Pte Ltd located at No. x Tuas Ave 2, Singapore (“XXX International”). The accused went to XXX International with two of his workers to collect an empty cardboard box. One of his workers entered the warehouse with the accused but left the accused alone with the victim just before the offence was committed. The said worker left the warehouse because the accused had instructed him to bring the box back to the vehicle. b. The encounter on 2 January 2014 was the second time that the accused had interacted with the victim face-to-face (he had met the victim on a previous occasion on 16 December 2013 at the company and also spoken to her on the phone on other occasions). On this second occasion, when the accused was alone with the victim and when he was paying the victim and signing the invoice, he complimented the victim that her perfume smelt nice. He also stared at her chest. The accused then brushed his hand against the victim’s breast. However, the victim thought that the contact was accidental and did not react. c. After the payment transaction was made and while the accused and the victim were walking towards the exit of the warehouse, the accused suddenly grabbed the right upper arm of the victim and pulled her towards him. He then put his left arm over the victim’s shoulder and kissed the victim on her right cheek. The victim managed to pull away from the accused’s grasp and tried to leave the warehouse. However, the accused turned the victim around and pushed her against the roller shutters of the warehouse. He grabbed her breasts with both hands. The victim pushed the accused’s hands away and exclaimed “Mr Ang!”. The accused then asked her “Do you want to go out with me and have sex only?” or words to that effect. The victim ignored the accused and left the warehouse. She went back to her office which was on the third floor of the building. She was visibly distraught and she complained to her supervisors of what happened. She made a police report on the same day against the accused for molest.

The Prosecution called four witnesses, including the victim to prove its case. Their evidence is summarised as follows.

Evidence of the Victim

The victim was the first witness (PW1) to take the stand for the prosecution. She was employed as an administrative assistant at XXX International (a freight forwarding company) on the day of the offence and at all material dates. Her duties at XXX International included taking the orders of and receiving payments from clients who wanted to ship goods overseas. The clients would collect empty cardboard boxes from her at the company warehouse. The clients would then go off to pack the goods to be shipped into the boxes and then return with the packed boxes back to the company to be shipped. The accused was one such client.

On 2 January 2014 (the date of the offence) at about 11.00 am, the accused called XXX International. He asked specifically to speak to the victim.² The accused then placed an order with the victim over the phone for the shipment of one box.

The accused arrived at XXX International shortly. The office of XXX International was on the third floor and its warehouse was on the ground floor of the same building. The victim went downstairs and met the accused inside the warehouse on the ground floor. This was only the second time that she had seen the accused in person.³ She had met him on a previous occasion on 16 December 2013 in respect of an earlier transaction.

The accused was accompanied by his foreign national Indian worker (PW3) at the time.⁴ The victim pointed to where a stack of folded empty cardboard boxes were in the warehouse. The accused instructed PW3 to take one box and bring it back to the truck.⁵ The victim said the accused repeated his instruction to PW3 twice.⁶ PW3 complied and left the warehouse leaving the accused alone with the victim.⁷

Whilst the victim was preparing the invoice for payment, the accused remarked to the victim that her perfume smelt nice.⁸ The victim also testified that the accused was staring at her chest.⁹ The accused then handed the money to the victim and in the process, brushed against her breasts.¹⁰ The victim thought it was accidental and did not make a fuss.¹¹

Thereafter, the victim handed the invoice to the accused and walked towards the exit of the warehouse. When she was nearing the door of the exit (shown in the photograph¹² below where the green ‘Exit’ sign is located), the accused pulled the victim backwards on her right upper arm. He then put his left arm over the victim and kissed her on her right cheek¹³.

The victim reacted by pushing the accused away and tried to leave the warehouse. However, the accused pushed the victim against the roller shutters which were next to the exit (as seen in the photograph). When the victim’s back was against the roller shutters, the accused grabbed her breasts with both his hands.¹⁴ He grabbed her breasts over her clothes. The victim said she could “feel he is grabbing” which lasted a few seconds.¹⁵

The accused was shocked.¹⁶ She exclaimed “Mr Ang!” and pushed his hands away.¹⁷ The accused then asked her “do you want to go out with me and have sex only?”¹⁸ The victim did not respond to that and left the warehouse.¹⁹ She went up to her office on the third floor.²⁰ She also said she heard the accused say “sorry” when she left the warehouse.²¹

When she went back to the office, the victim told her manager, Nicholas Wu, that she did not want to deal with the accused anymore.²² She also threw the accused’s money onto her manager’s table in anger.²³ The victim went to her desk and broke down. She then went to the toilet and continued to cry.²⁴ Nicholas Wu’s wife (Felicia) went into the toilet to ask the victim what was the matter.²⁵ However, the victim was too upset to explain fully what had happened.²⁶

When the victim had calmed down, she went back to Nicholas Wu’s office and told him that she was “raped.”²⁷ Nicholas Wu then clarified with her what she meant, pointing out the difference between ‘rape’ and ‘molest’. The victim clarified that she was molested. She briefly told him what happened.²⁸ Nicholas Wu then requested his brother Mark Wu (PW4) to accompany the victim to make a police report²⁹. The victim also briefly told Mark Wu what happened.³⁰

On the very same day, the victim (accompanied by Mark Wu) went to Nanyang NPC to file a police report³¹ that the accused had molested her.

After the offence, the accused called XXX International repeatedly asking to speak to the victim.³² The victim refused to speak to the accused.³³ On one occasion, one “Michael” called the victim and requested the victim to settle the matter with the accused out of court.³⁴ However, the victim declined and said she would let the police handle the matter. The victim told the court that she never wanted to have the matter compounded nor was she prepared to accept any offer to compound.

Evidence of the Investigating Officer

The investigating officer (“IO”), SSI Sabaran Singh (PW2), arrested the accused on on 27 January 2014.³⁵ He recorded a long statement from him that day and two other long statements in March 2014. He then recorded a cautioned statement from him on 2 September 2014 in which the accused stated that...