Public Prosecutor v Hoo Swee Tiang

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Luke Tan
• Judgment Date: 22 July 2016
• Neutral Citation: [2016] SGMC 34
• Court: Magistrates' Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: MAC No 900921 of 2014
• Published date: 28 July 2016
• Year: 2016
• Hearing Date: 11 May 2016,17 May 2016,10 May 2016,01 July 2016,09 May 2016,11 August 2015,12 August 2015,13 August 2015
• Plaintiff Counsel: Yang Ziliang and Siti Adrianni Binte Marhain
• Defendant Counsel: Quek Mong Hua and Jonathan Cho
• Citation: [2016] SGMC 34

District Judge Luke Tan: Introduction

The Accused, Hoo Swee Tiang, is a male Singaporean. He claimed trial to a charge of outrage of modesty (OM), an offence under section 354(1) of the Penal Code, Chapter 224 (MAC 900921/2014), committed against a 30-year-old female complainant (“the Complainant”). A similar charge against the Accused (MAC 900922/2014) was stood down at the start of the hearing. The charge that was proceeded with reads:

“You, Hoo Swee Tiang, Male / 31 years old are charged that you, on the 10th day of April 2013 at or about 6.30 pm, inside the MRT train travelling between City Hall MRT station and Eunos MRT station, Singapore, did use criminal force on XXX, Female, 30 years old, to wit, by touching the rear inner part of both of her exposed thighs with your hand, knowing it likely that you would 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”

In essence, it was alleged that on the 10th day of April 2013 at or about 6.30 pm, the Accused and the Complainant were both inside the carriage of an east-bound MRT train that was travelling between City Hall MRT station and Eunos MRT station. In the course of the journey, while the Accused was standing just behind the Complainant, he placed his hand in between her legs, and subsequently used his thumb to stroke her inner thigh. This was done without her consent. When the Complainant discovered the Accused’s actions, she turned around in a state of shock and stared at him. She continued staring at him until he alighted at the next stop. The Complainant made a police report later that same day.

On the following day (11th April 2013), the Complainant and one of her former colleagues, PW2 “Idah”, who had offered to accompany her on the MRT train, saw the Accused at the City Hall MRT station. They gave chase but the Accused managed to elude them. On the third day (12th April 2013), the Complainant spotted the Accused in an MRT train again. When the Accused got off the train, she confronted him. The Accused was subsequently arrested by the police. Aside from the reports made to the police by the Complainant, the Prosecution also produced CCTV footages and still photos showing the Complainant and the Accused at the MRT stations on the 3 dates in question.

A written statement recorded from the Accused (P1) was tendered in evidence after an ancillary hearing was held to establish that the statement was voluntarily given.

DPP Yang Ziliang (“DPP Yang”) essentially summed up the Prosecution’s case at paragraph 2 of the Prosecution’s Closing Submissions (PS2) as follows: The clear and cogent evidence of the Complainant showed that on 10 April 2013 sometime after 6.00pm, while she was travelling in the MRT train departing City Hall MRT for Eunos MRT, the Accused had molested her by putting his right hand (which was holding a book with the spine downwards) in between her exposed thighs. She felt the contact on the exposed skin of her inner thighs, on the higher end near her buttocks. The contact lasted for about 30 seconds, after which she felt some stroking action on her left inner thigh, which she later realized was due to the Accused’s thumb. She stared at the Accused, who then exited at the next underground station; The Accused’s statement P11, where at para 6 he admitted to his right hand, which was holding a book, coming into contact with a lady’s thigh in between her legs. He admitted that he did not remove her hand because he “…was feeling good and [he] enjoyed this kind of skin contact with female”. As the train moved, his right hand brushed against her legs, and he again did not remove his hand from her leg. A while later, she turned her head and glared at him without saying anything to him. At that moment, he moved his right hand away from her. He remembered that the contact between his right hand and the lady’s legs happened when they were inside the train somewhere in-between City Hall MRT Station and Lavendar MRT Station. The Accused’s behaviour on 11 April 2013, the day after the incident, as captured on the CCTV footages P5 and P6, was consistent with him realizing he had been spotted by the person who he had molested the day before. Also, his account of what happened that evening could not be believed.

At the end of the Prosecution’s case, as there was sufficient evidence to make out each and every element of the charge, I called on the Accused to enter his defence. The Accused testified in his own defence. He also called three witnesses for the purpose of giving evidence as to his good character.

In essence, the case for the Defence was that the allegation made against the Accused was based on the Complainant’s mistaken identification of the Accused as the culprit.¹In the Defence Closing Submissions (DS1)², the Defence Counsel, Mr Quek Mong Hua (“Mr Quek”) also submitted that it was doubtful whether the Complainant had even been molested on 10th April 2013. In addition, Mr Quek raised issues concerning the decision of the Prosecution to proceed with only one charge and to stand down the remaining charge.

At the end of the trial, based on the evidence before me, I was of the view that there was sufficient evidence to prove the case against the Accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and I convicted the Accused accordingly.

Following his conviction, and after considering sentencing submissions and the documents put up by DPP Yang, as well as the mitigation plea by Mr Quek, I imposed a sentence of 6 weeks imprisonment on the Accused.

The Accused has filed an appeal against both his conviction and sentence. The Prosecution also subsequently filed an appeal against sentence. I now set out my detailed grounds of decision.

The Prosecution’s Case

The Prosecution called a total of eight witnesses for the entire trial, including the Complainant, her former colleague (Idah), a representative from Transit Link, and several police officers. An outline of the evidence of the more pertinent witnesses, for the main trial, is set down below. The evidence relating to the ancillary hearing will be discussed separately.

Evidence of the Complainant, CCTV footages and the police reports

In April 2013, the Complainant was working at Orchard Privilege Banking. Her office was located across Somerset MRT Station.

10th April 2013: The outrage of modesty offence and the FIR

The Complainant testified that on 10th April 2013, she left her office at about 6.00 plus and took the MRT train at Somerset station to return home. The journey required her to take a train from Somerset MRT station towards City Hall MRT station, after which she would board a train on the East-West line towards Pasir Ris, before alighting at Eunos MRT Station. For this journey, she changed out of her work attire, and dressed in green racer back top and chequered shorts.

The Complainant testified that when she boarded the train at the City Hall MRT station towards Pasir Ris, the train was very crowded. While she was on the train, the Complainant was standing near the door of the train, in front of the reserved seat, and reading her book. While in that position, she testified that was molested. She described the experience in answer to a question from the DPP. “Q You say you were molested, can you describe what you mean? A I felt something in between my legs and it was cold. And I was reading a book, thinking that it could be someone else’s bag, or you know, shopping bag, so for the good 30 seconds, I actually didn’t turn back and see what’s up at behind me. And when I finally turned around, I mean I saw his hand, you know, quickly go back to his side, and the hand was in between my leg. So, and when his hand was in between my legs, and when the reason why I turned around is because I actually felt that there’s a movement like, like that, a very light movement. So a bag wouldn’t move, you see, so I turned around and then to my horror, it’s a hand.” ³.

[emphasis mine]

The Complainant also identified the Accused as the person who had placed his hand in between her thighs. She further gave the following testimony in response to the DPP⁴:

“DPP:	How far away from you was this man when you turned around and saw his hand going back?
Witness:	When I turned around, he was beside me on my left. And there was nobody in between, so he was just---he is the person right next to me on my left.”

[emphasis mine]

The Complainant further testified that before the Accused withdrew his hand, she could feel a stroking motion between her thighs. This was from the direct skin to skin contact of the Accused’s thumb with her left inner thigh. She only realised that it was the Accused’s hand that was placed between her legs, after she felt the stroking on her thigh by the Accused’s thumb. While the initial contact by the Accused hand with her thigh lasted for about 30 seconds, the stroking of her inner left thigh by the Accused with his thumb lasted for a further 5 seconds. She also described the Accused as holding a book in the same hand that he placed in between her thighs. The spine of the book was facing downwards⁵.

The Complainant also testified that after she turned to face him, she “…was staring at him all the way, just staring at him”. She didn’t know what to do as she was in shock⁶.

The Accused also did not say anything, but simply looked straight ahead. He also got off the train at the next station. While the Complainant could not remember which station the Accused got off, she remembered that it was an underground station on the East-West line towards Pasir Ris. The Complainant also testified that when the Accused touched her in that manner, she was very upset and felt that “he has touched somewhere that he shouldn’t.” She also felt “very outraged and disgusted after that.”⁷

She also...