Public Prosecutor v AUB

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeTay Yong Kwang J
Judgment Date26 June 2015
Neutral Citation[2015] SGHC 166
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Docket NumberCriminal Case No 30 of 2015
Published date30 June 2015
Year2015
Hearing Date27 May 2015
Plaintiff CounselDavid Khoo and Joshua Lim (Attorney-General's Chambers)
Defendant CounselAmarjit Singh and Javern Sim (Gloria James-Civetta & Co)
Subject MatterCriminal Law,Offences,Sexual assault by penetration
Citation[2015] SGHC 166
Tay Yong Kwang J:

The accused is a male Singaporean who is now 47 years old. He pleaded guilty to the following two charges:

That you, [AUB],

1st CHARGE

are charged that you, sometime in 2012, at or about 2230hrs to 2300hrs, at Block [X] Canberra Road #[X], Singapore, did commit sexual assault by penetration on [V], a female who was at the time of offence under 14 years old (DOB: [X] July 1999), to wit, by inserting your middle finger into the vagina of the said [V], without her consent, and you have thereby committed an offence under section 376(2)(a) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed), punishable under s 376(4)(b) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed).

2nd CHARGE (Amended)

are charged that you, on 26 February 2013, at or about 0200hrs, at Block [X] Canberra Road #[X], Singapore, did commit an obscene act with one [V], a female then aged 13 years old (DOB: [X] July 1999), to wit, by using your hand to touch and rub the vagina of the said [V], and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 7(a) of the Children and Young Person’s Act (Cap 38, 2001 Rev Ed).

He also admitted the following offence and consented that it be taken into consideration for the purpose of sentence:

3rd CHARGE (Amended)

That you, [AUB],

are charged that you, sometime in 2012, at Block [X] Canberra Road #[X], Singapore, did commit an obscene act with one [V], a female then aged 13 years old (DOB: [X] July 1999), to wit, by grabbing and squeezing the breasts of the said [V], and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 7(a) of the Children and Young Person’s Act (Cap 38, 2001 Rev Ed).

The punishments provided by law in respect of the first charge are imprisonment of not less than eight years and not more than 20 years and caning of not less than 12 strokes. The offence in the second charge is punishable with a fine not exceeding $10,000 or imprisonment not exceeding five years or both for a first offender.

I sentenced the accused to 12 years’ imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane for the first charge and to 1 year’s imprisonment in respect of the second charge. I ordered both imprisonment terms to run consecutively with effect from 23 July 2014, the date of remand.

The Statement of Facts

The accused admitted all the facts set out in the following statement of facts:

THE ACCUSED

The accused is [AUB], Male / 47 years old (D.O.B.: [X] February 1968). He is the victim’s biological father and was 44 years old and working as a deliveryman at the material time of the offences.

THE VICTIM

The victim is [V], Female / 15 years old (D.O.B: [X] July 1999) and she is presently a student at [X] School (“the School”). The victim is the accused’s biological daughter and is the accused’s eldest child. At the material time of the offences, the victim was between 12 – 13 years of age. The victim has two younger sisters and a younger brother and is presently staying at ‘[X]’, a children’s welfare home. She had been placed at the said welfare home when the offences were discovered, for her protection. At the material time of the offences, the victim resided with the accused together with her mother (the accused’s wife), grandmother and her three siblings at Blk [X] Canberra Road #[X], Singapore (“the Flat”).

FIRST INFORMATION REPORT

The complainant is Chang Yuan Yun, Eunice and she was a social worker attached to the School at the material time. Sometime in the morning of 26 February 2013, the victim approached the complainant in her capacity as a social worker for the School as she felt troubled. During her conversation with the complainant, the victim revealed that she was no longer a virgin and that the accused had sexually assaulted her in the Flat on numerous occasions in 2012 and 2013 whenever the victim’s mother was not at home. The victim’s mother travelled to Malaysia often as she was from Malacca. Whenever she went to Malaysia, she would stay in Malaysia for two to four days. Prior to the revelation by the victim to the complainant, the victim had not informed anyone about the incidents as she was under the impression that no one would believe her as the person who sexually assaulted her was her own father. The victim informed the complainant that she was also worried that the accused would start sexually assaulting her younger sister as she felt that her younger sister was prettier than her and would be reaching puberty soon. The matter was then reported to the principal of the School and it was subsequently decided that the victim be brought to the KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital (“the KKH”) for a medical check-up. On the same day at about 1624hrs, a police report was lodged stating that a case of sexual abuse had been reported.

FACTS PERTAINING TO THE OFFENCE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT BY PENETRATION

As the Flat only had two bedrooms, the victim slept in the Master Bedroom with the accused, her mother and youngest sister whilst the remaining two siblings slept with their grandmother in the second bedroom. Police investigations revealed that sometime in 2012 at night, just before going to sleep, the victim told the accused that her body was aching. The accused then volunteered to give her a body massage and told the victim to take off her clothes and lie face down on the bed. The victim did so but left her panties and bra on. The accused unhooked the victim’s bra and then slathered some cream on the victim’s back and legs and began to massage her. The accused then put his hands under the victim’s body and grabbed and squeezed both the victim’s breasts. The accused then asked the victim to take off her panties and the victim complied. The accused then inserted his middle finger into the victim’s vagina and moved it in and out of her vagina. The victim turned her head and saw that the accused was using his middle finger to penetrate her vagina and she felt pain as he was doing this. The victim was shocked and scared but did not tell the accused to stop as she was afraid of him. The victim did not consent to the act. After some time, the accused stopped penetrating the victim’s vagina with his middle finger. He did not say anything to her and went to sleep shortly thereafter. The victim put her clothes back on and subsequently fell asleep. The victim’s youngest sister was outside the same room at the material time and their mother was on an overseas trip to Malaysia.

FACTS PERTAINING TO THE OFFENCE OF COMMITTING AN OBSCENE ACT ON 26 FEBRUARY 2013

After several months, on 26 February 2013 at or about 2.00 a.m., the victim woke up after her alarm clock had rung. She had, the night before, set her alarm for 2.00 a.m. as she wanted to wake up early to make herself some fried rice that she would consume in school. However, after the alarm sounded, she decided against cooking and wanted to go back to sleep. At the material time, the accused, the victim’s mother and her youngest sister were also sleeping in the same room. As the victim tried to go back to sleep, she felt the accused touching her. The victim knew immediately that it was the accused who was touching her as he was sleeping beside her. The accused then put his hand into the victim’s skirt and under her panties and rubbed and touched her vagina with his fingers. He continued rubbing and touching her vagina for about one – two minutes and thereafter stopped. The victim was too afraid of the accused to move or do anything. She did not consent to the act.

THE ARREST

The Accused was arrested on 27 February 2013 at about 1135hrs at Police Cantonment Complex and was released on police bail pending investigations on 28 February 2013. He was only charged in Court 26 of the State Courts on 23 July 2014. He has been in remand since that date.

POLICE INVESTIGATIONS

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • BPH v Public Prosecutor and another appeal
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 13 November 2019
    ...position which would have justified prospective overruling as the High Court relied on an earlier decision in Public Prosecutor v AUB [2015] SGHC 166 in coming to its decision. Conclusion on the BPH For the foregoing reasons, we did not think that the arguments made on behalf of BPH had any......
  • Public Prosecutor v BLV
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 4 July 2017
    ...Prosecution urged the Court to impose a sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment 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 pen......
  • Pram Nair v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 25 September 2017
    ...should be the same as that for rape, for two reasons. We set out his holding in full: 56 Like Tay J in AUB [Public Prosecutor v AUB [2015] SGHC 166], I am of the view that victims of sexual assault by penetration experience the same emotional scars as rape victims. Furthermore, the act of i......
  • PP v Pram Nair
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 3 October 2016
    ...(refd) Juraimi bin Mohd Sharif v PP MA 519/1993 (refd) Lee Foo Choong Kelvin v PP [1999] 3 SLR(R) 292; [1999] 4 SLR 318 (distd) PP v AUB [2015] SGHC 166 (folld) PP v GBA [2015] SGDC 168 (not folld) PP v Muhammad Fadly bin Abdull Wahab [2016] SGHC 160 (refd) PP v Muhammad Hazly bin Mohamad H......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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