Public Prosecutor v Lim Teck Weng

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Kaur Jasvender
• Judgment Date: 05 July 2022
• Neutral Citation: [2022] SGDC 148
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: DAC 910264 of 2019 & Ors, Magistrate’s Appeal No. MA-9116-2022-01
• Published date: 09 July 2022
• Year: 2022
• Hearing Date: 09 March 2021,10 March 2021,24 March 2021,26 March 2021,05 April 2021,17 May 2021,15 July 2021,29 October 2021,15 March 2022,27 May 2022,17 June 2022
• Plaintiff Counsel: Colin Ng (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Defendant Counsel: Wee Hong Shern (Ong & Co. LLC)
• Subject Matter: Criminal law,Offence,Section 376A(1)(a) p/u s 376A(2) Penal Code (Cap 224, Rev Ed 2008)
• Citation: [2022] SGDC 148

District Judge Kaur Jasvender:

The accused was convicted on his plea of guilty on three charges of penile-vaginal penetration of a girl under the age of 16 years, which is an offence under s 376A(1)(a) punishable under s 376A(2) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, Rev Ed 2008). Four similar charges of penile-vaginal penetration were taken into consideration (‘TIC’) for the purpose of sentence with the consent of the accused. He was sentenced to 14 months’ imprisonment on each of the three charges, and with two sentences ordered to run consecutively. The aggregate sentence was therefore 28 months’ imprisonment. He has appealed against that sentence and the execution on the sentence was stayed pending the appeal.

Brief case chronology

On 29 March 2019, the accused was charged in court. After several adjournments, the case was fixed for FM (PG) on 2 January 2020. However, the accused did not plead guilty. A pre-trial conference was then fixed. At the request of the defence, another FM (PG) was fixed on 25 February 2020. The accused again did not plead guilty. Eventually, the case went through the criminal case disclosure process. On 22 September 2020, a four day trial was fixed in March 2021.

On 9 March 2021, the accused claimed trial to all seven charges. The trial commenced with an ancillary hearing because the accused sought to challenge the voluntariness of his long statement that was recorded by the investigation officer. In the midst of the accused’s cross-examination by the learned DPP, the accused claimed he was unable to understand the DPP’s questions. As the accused was exempted from National Service due to his low IQ score of 68, learned counsel applied for an adjournment to have the accused examined by a psychiatrist to assess his ability to follow the court proceedings. I granted the request. The accused saw Dr Ung Eng Khean (‘Dr Ung’) on 30th April, 24th May and 25th June 2021 for the assessment. Dr Ung assessed him to have Mild Intellectual Disability and Adjustment Disorder with Anxious Mood secondary to the legal case.

Subsequently, at the request of the prosecution, the accused was assessed at the Institute of Mental Health (‘IMH’) in September 2021. Dr Lim Cui Xi (‘Dr Lim’) also found the accused to have Mild Intellectual Disability. Both Dr Ung and Dr Lim found him fit to plead with the use of simple Chinese.

On 15 March 2022, the case was fixed for continued hearing. The accused then decided to change his plea. His plea was taken afresh and he pleaded guilty. He admitted to the statement of facts without qualification. He also consented to TIC the remaining four charges. Thereafter, the prosecution applied for an adjournment to clarify if the Mild Intellectual Disability had a contributory link to the offending. In a report dated 1 April 2022, Dr Lim stated that there is no contributory link and the accused is able to differentiate what is right and wrong.

Summary of Facts

The accused was between 30 and 31 years old at the material time of the offences. The victim was a secondary three student. She was 14 years in the 1st and 2nd proceeded charge and 15 in the 3rd proceeded charge.

Sometime in April 2018, the victim became part of a group in Singapore that embraces the “Harajuku culture”, a reference to the Harajuku street in Japan (“the Group”). Members of the Group would regularly dress up in “Harajuku” fashion style and meet up on every Saturday near the town area. The accused was an existing member of the Group. The victim participated in the meetings, and joined a WhatsApp group chat with the rest of the members of the Group. Members of the Group would also occasionally organise impromptu lunches on weekdays, which the accused always attended. The victim also attended several of these lunches on weekdays with the accused and began to develop feelings for him.

On or around 1 May 2018, the victim texted the accused saying that she felt insecure about her hair, which she had just cut a few days before. The accused suggested that they meet up at a shopping centre. When they met, the accused said that he needed to straighten her hair before he could help to cut it. He suggested that they go to his house to straighten her hair. The victim agreed and went with the accused to his house.

At his house, he used a straightener to straighten the victim’s hair and helped her to cut it thereafter in the living room. Sometime later, the accused’s father returned home, and they went into the accused’s room. The victim started to study on the floor while the accused rested on the bed playing with his mobile phone. After about 20 to 30 minutes, the accused suggested to the victim to rest with him on the bed. She then lay down beside the accused on the bed. As the victim could not sleep, she started to poke at the accused in fun. The accused did likewise and in the process accidentally touched the victim’s waist and breast area and started to get aroused. At some point in time, the victim also accidentally brushed against the accused’s penis over his shorts. The victim apologised but the accused said she had aroused him.

The accused then lifted up the victim’s shirt and bra and took her hand and guided her hand to his penis. The accused asked the victim for a “blow job” but the victim did not know how to do it. The accused pulled down his pants and boxers, and pushed the victim’s head towards his crotch area. He told her to wrap her hand around his penis, stroke it up and down and put his penis into her mouth. The victim complied and put the accused’s penis into her mouth. They then proceeded to lie down on the bed and the accused asked the victim if she wanted to have sexual intercourse. The victim eventually agreed. The accused put on a condom and penetrated the victim’s vagina with his penis before ejaculating in the condom (subject matter of the 1st charge: DAC-910264-2019).

The accused and the victim continued to engage in penile-vaginal and penile-oral intercourse at the accused’s residence on subsequent occasions. Sometime in early July 2018, the victim went to the accused’s house. Thereat, the victim fellated the accused. The accused thereafter put on a condom and penetrated the victim’s vagina with his penis before ejaculating in the condom (subject matter of the 4th charge: DAC-910267-2019).

Sometime in October 2018, the victim went to the accused’s house. Thereat, the victim fellated the accused. The accused thereafter put on a condom and penetrated the victim’s vagina with his penis before ejaculating in the condom (subject matter of the 7th charge: DAC-910270-2019).

The accused was aware that he was having sex with the victim who was a minor and that this was against the law.

The offences came to light when the victim’s step-sister received an anonymous message on the Instagram mobile phone application telling her to “handle” the victim and to stop her from sleeping with “people that are taken”. The victim’s step-sister was aware that the victim was spending time with people from the Group, and informed the victim’s mother accordingly. The mother confronted the victim, and the victim confessed to having sex with the accused. The mother and the victim’s step-sister then confronted the accused. The accused retorted that it was the victim who asked him for sex. The mother was enraged and proceeded to lodge a police report thereafter.

Address on Sentence

The prosecution submitted that the underlying rationale of s 376A is to protect minors as they are incapable of giving informed consent (see Public Prosecutor v AOM [2011] 2 SLR 1057 at [34]). In order to achieve this objective, the primary sentencing considerations are deterrence and retribution.

The prosecution sought individual sentences of 15 months’ imprisonment, and an aggregate sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment. It relied on Yap Lee Kok v Public Prosecutor [2021] SGHC 78 and submitted that the relevant sentencing range for each charge is between 14 to 16 months’ imprisonment. The case of AQW v Public Prosecutor [2015] 4 SLR 150 (‘AQW’) was distinguished on the ground that it involved penile-oral penetration, whereas penile-vaginal penetration involved a graver degree of violation. It was highlighted that the accused was between 30 and 31 years at the time of the offences and he had suggested to the victim to rest with him on the bed. It was submitted that the accused morally corrupted the victim as he taught her how to fellate him.

The DPP highlighted the impact of the offending...