Public Prosecutor v Mohamed Nasir bin Mohamed Sali

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 02 August 1999
• Neutral Citation: [1999] SGHC 199
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 62 of 1999
• Date: 02 August 1999
• Year: 1999
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Tan Siong Thye and Mohamed Nasser Ismail (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Citation: [1999] SGHC 199
• Defendant Counsel: Respondent in person
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: s 199 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68),Discretion of judge to consent to composition -Whether aggravated circumstances of alleged offences makes case unsuitable for composition,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Compounding of offences

: This was an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against a decision of the district judge consenting to the composition of an offence under s 199 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) (`CPC`).

Background

The respondent, Mohamed Nasir bin Mohamed, a 34-year-old male, faced three charges of outraging the modesty of the complainant, namely:

First Charge

... that you, on 19 April 1997, at or about 9.30pm, travelling along Jalan Bahar in a motor van registration number unknown, Singapore, did use criminal force on one Siti Haizurah bte Halim, F/19 yrs, intending to outrage her modesty, to wit, by putting her right hand on your penis and masturbated for you and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 354 of the Penal Code (Cap 224).

Second Charge (Amended)

... that you, sometime in 1994, at or about 3pm, inside the toilet at Blk 212, Bukit Batok Street 21, [num ]06-233, Singapore, did use criminal force on one Siti Haizurah bte Halim, F/19 yrs, intending to outrage her modesty, to wit, did force the said Siti Haizurah bte Halim to masturbate for you and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 354 of the Penal Code (Cap 224).

Third Charge (Amended)

... that you, sometime in month of November 1994, at or about 3pm, inside the bedroom at Blk 212, Bukit Batok Street 21, [num ]06-233, Singapore, did use criminal force on one Siti Haizurah bte Halim, F/19 yrs, intending to outrage her modesty, to wit, by lying on top of her body touching her breast and continuously using your hand to touch on her private part and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 354 of the Penal Code (Cap 224).

The prosecution`s appeal

The prosecution referred to PP v Norzian bin Bintat [1995] 3 SLR 462 where it was observed that consent should not be granted for composition when the matter involved issues of public interest or if there were aggravating circumstances surrounding the case. The prosecution argued that the facts of the present case fell within this description and that composition should have been denied. The nature of the offence was grave and serious. The court`s attention was brought to the fact that the respondent was the victim`s uncle. Both parties shared a close relationship. The complainant had referred to the respondent as `Abah`. At the material time, the respondent was a religious teacher. The prosecution contended that, in view of the respondent`s position of influence as a role model in the Muslim community, the public interest demanded that someone in the respondent`s position should not be permitted to buy his way out...