Public Prosecutor v Chua Chang Rong

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Soh Tze Bian
• Judgment Date: 03 June 2022
• Neutral Citation: [2022] SGDC 116
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: DAC-913108-2020 & Others, MA-9110-2022-01
• Published date: 30 July 2022
• Year: 2022
• Hearing Date: 17 February 2022,23 March 2022,03 June 2022
• Plaintiff Counsel: DPP Teo Lu Jia & DPP Timothy Ong (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Defendant Counsel: Raphael Louis (Ray Louis Law Corporation)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,theft in dwelling,theft of vibrator,criminal trespass,intent to cause alarm,mandatory treatment order,suspension order
• Citation: [2022] SGDC 116

District Judge Soh Tze Bian: INTRODUCTION & CHARGES

The accused person, Chua Chang Rong (“AP”) had previously pleaded guilty and was convicted on 23 March 2021 by a District Judge who had called for a mandatory treatment order (MTO) report on him and had heard evidence from Dr Guo Song, a psychiatrist from the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) who prepared the report and was questioned by both parties on the report¹. But the District Judge had on 9 December 2021 rejected the AP’s plea on the basis that the third charge (MAC-905469-2020) of criminal trespass under s 447 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“Penal Code”) was not made out, as the AP must admit without qualifications to the fact that he had the “intent to annoy” the victim. The District Judge stated that the AP qualified the plea by taking the position that he had entered the victim’s hostel without her consent to return the vibrator, and also stated that the AP must admit that he had the “intent to annoy” the victim, in addition to intending to enter her room without consent to return the vibrator.

On 17 February 2022, the AP pleaded guilty before me and he was convicted of the following 3 amended charges: DAC-913108-2020 : “…you, sometime between 3 January 2019 to 9 January 2019, at [XXX] Hall in the National University of Singapore located at [XXX], Singapore, a building used as human dwelling, did commit theft of a pink vibrator valued at $40/-, in the possession of [the victim], and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 380 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)”, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years, and shall also be liable to fine. MAC-905469-2020: “…you, on 18 July 2019, at around 11.29 a.m., at the [XXX] Hall of the National University of Singapore, located at [XXX], Singapore, did commit criminal trespass, by entering the room of [the victim] in [XXX] Hall, with intent to annoy the said [victim], and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 447 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)”, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 months, or with fine which may extend to $1,500, or with both. MAC-905470-2020 : “…you, on 22 July 2019, at around 10 p.m., at [XXX], Singapore, with intent to cause alarm to [the victim], did make insulting communication, to wit, by sending messages via a Telegram secret chat to the said victim, such as “my offer will stand whenever you’re horny and wants a real dick to satisfy you” and “I wanna save some special juice for my horny little girl”, thereby causing the said victim alarm, and you have thereby contravened Section 3(1)(b) of the Protection from Harassment Act (Cap 256A, 2015 Rev Ed), which offence is punishable under Section 3(2) of the said Act”, with a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both.

The AP also consented for the following charge in MAC-905468-2020 to be taken into consideration for sentencing :

“…that you, sometime between 3 January 2019 and 9 January 2019, at [XXX] Hall of National University of Singapore, located at [XXX], Singapore, did commit criminal trespass by entering the room of [the victim] in [XXX] Hall, with intent to annoy the said [victim], and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 447 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)”, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 months, or with fine which may extend to $1,500, or with both.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

In view of a gag order, the amended and redacted statement of facts which the AP had admitted without qualification stated as follows:

“INTRODUCTION

1. The accused is Chua Chang Rong, a 28-year-old male Singaporean, NRIC number SXXXXXXXD (D.O.B.: XX June XXXX). At the time of the offences, the accused had graduated from the National University of Singapore (“NUS”) almost one year ago and was working as a products specialist. 2. The victim is XXX, female, 22 years old at the material time, a Singaporean. At the material time, she was a student at NUS and residing in XXX. 3. When the accused was still studying in NUS, he got to know about the victim, who is also known as ‘XXX’, on Instagram. He started following the victim on her Instagram account (@XXX), which is a public account, as he found her attractive. Through the victim’s Instagram updates, the accused found out that the victim was residing in XXX. The victim was not acquainted with the accused.

FIRST INFORMATION REPORT

4. On 26 July 2019 at around 12.37 a.m., the Police received an electronic police report lodged by the victim complaining that she had received obscene messages from someone using the alias ‘Bobby’ on a Telegram secret chat. She further reported that ‘Bobby’ claimed to have returned a vibrator to her hostel room, which she previously thought she had lost about six months prior. The reported incident location was XXX, NUS, Singapore.

FACTS PERTAINING TO THE 2nd CHARGE (DAC-913108-2020)

5. Investigations revealed that from 30 December 2018 to 13 January 2019, the victim travelled overseas and posted about her travels on Instagram. The accused saw the victim’s Instagram posts and knew that she was not in Singapore and would not be in her hostel room. He therefore decided to enter her room without her consent, with intent to annoy her, by intentionally looking through her belongings to find swimming suits belonging to her, and to get to know her better. 6. Sometime between 3 and 9 January 2019, the accused travelled to NUS. He then entered XXX by following closely behind a random student who had access to the building. Based on his previous experience of staying in an NUS hostel, the accused knew that most students do not lock their room doors and that students often leave their names on their room doors. He therefore intended to walk around the hostel to look for the victim’s room. After looking around the hostel, he found the victim’s room that had her name marked on the door, which was unlocked. 7. The accused then entered the victim’s room without her consent, with intent to annoy her, by intentionally looking through her belongings to find swimming suits belonging to her, and to get to know her better. 8. Upon entering the victim’s room, the accused looked through her personal belongings, including her clothing and lingerie. He did not find any swimming suits. However, in one of her drawers, he found a pink vibrator and felt sexually aroused. He masturbated with the vibrator in the victim’s room while fantasizing about the victim. The accused then dishonestly took the vibrator that belonged to the victim and returned home with it. 9. By dishonestly taking the vibrator valued at $40 in the possession of the victim, and moving it out of her possession without her consent from her room in XXX, which is a building used as a human dwelling, the accused has thereby committed an offence under s 380 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“Penal Code”).

FACTS PERTAINING TO THE 3rd CHARGE (MAC-905469-2020)

10. After the victim returned from overseas, she was unable to find the vibrator, and assumed that she had simply misplaced it. After the accused stole the vibrator in January 2019, he had used it on some occasions to facilitate his masturbation. 11. On the morning of 18 July 2019, the accused decided to return the vibrator to the victim’s hostel room. At around 10 a.m. that morning, the victim had uploaded a photograph on her Instastory showing that she was at work. The accused saw the victim’s Instastory and therefore knew that she would not be in her hostel room. As the victim was not in her room, he decided to trespass into her room with intent to annoy her, by entering her room without her consent to return the vibrator which he stole. With this intent in mind, he made his way to the XXX. 12. Sometime before 11.29 a.m., the accused entered XXX again by closely following behind another student with access to the hostel. At around 11.29 a.m., the accused then returned to the victim’s hostel room, and entered her room without her consent, to return the vibrator, with intent to annoy her. 13. After he entered her room, instead of merely returning the vibrator, he proceeded to look through her belongings, and observed that there were two new vibrators kept in a box above a cabinet. He fiddled around with the vibrators and took a photograph of them. He also masturbated in the victim’s room. He then returned the vibrator without her consent, which was stolen from her earlier in January 2019, by placing the vibrator into the same box as the other two vibrators. He also saw a copy of the victim’s resume in her room and took a photograph of it, as he wanted to know more about her. The accused left the victim’s room at around 11.52 a.m. 14. By virtue of the foregoing, the accused has thereby committed an offence of criminal trespass under s 447 of the Penal Code.

FACTS PERTAINING TO THE 4th CHARGE (MAC-905470-2020)

15. A few days later, on 22 July 2019, at around 10 p.m., the accused was at his home located at block 203 Petir Road, #XXX, Singapore. He felt sexually aroused thinking about how he had entered the victim’s room and looked through her belongings. He thus decided to message the victim on Telegram via a secret chat. The accused found the victim on Telegram by searching for her Instagram handle, which was the same handle she used on Telegram. The accused did not reveal his phone number or personal details on Telegram and messaged the victim with the username ‘Bobby’. 16. In the Telegram messages, the accused told the victim that he had returned her vibrator as he “wanted to surprise [her]”. The accused also texted that he noticed she bought two new vibrators to “pleasure [herself]”. The victim was confused and shocked, and...