Public Prosecutor v Neo Chip Wei

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Low Wee Ping
• Judgment Date: 13 March 2017
• Neutral Citation: [2017] SGDC 71
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: DAC-946443-2016 and another
• Published date: 17 August 2017
• Year: 2017
• Hearing Date: 22 February 2017
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ms Gail Wong
• Defendant Counsel: The accused in person
• Citation: [2017] SGDC 71

District Judge Low Wee Ping: The 2 charges

Neo Chip Wei (the accused), age 32, and a Singapore Citizen, pleaded guilty to the following 2 charges:-

1st charge - DAC-946443-2016

(a) “You... are charged that you, on the 31st day of October 2016, at or about 8 pm, at the second floor corridor at... (Redacted) Singapore, did use criminal force on one... (Redacted) Female / 10 years old, to wit, by touching her at the side of her body at both her lower ribs and waist, knowing it to be likely that you would outrage her modesty, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 354(2) of the Penal Code, Chapter 224 (2008 Rev. Ed.).”; and

2nd charge - MAC-910866-2016

(b) “You... are charged that you, on the 1st day of November 2016, at or about 2pm, at... (Redacted) Singapore... did commit criminal trespass, to wit, by entering into the said unit used as a human dwelling, in possession of... (Redacted), with intent to cause annoyance to the said... (Redacted), and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 448 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224”. The statement of facts

The statement of facts was as follows:- “1. The accused is NEO CHIP WEI, Male / Chinese / 32 years old (D.O.B. 3 December 1984), a Singapore Citizen bearing NRIC No. xxx. He was working as an operations executive at the material time and resided near to the location of the incidents at Block 749 Woodlands Circle, Singapore. 2. The victim is XXXXXXX, female / 10 years old. The accused is not known to the victim. 3. The witness is XXXXXXX, female / 12 years old. The owner of the unit at XXXXXXX, Singapore, is one XXXXXXX, the father of the victim and witness.

FIRST INFORMATION REPORT

4. On the 1 November 2016, at about 7.30pm, the victim lodged a police report at Woodlands East Neighbourhood Police Centre informing that she was molested by an unknown male Chinese subject on the 31st October 2016 at about 8 p.m. and that on 1 November 2016, at about 2 p.m., the same Chinese subject had entered her unit. The first incident location was given as the second floor staircase landing of XXXXXXX Singapore while the second incident location was given as XXXXXXX, Singapore.

FACTS RELATING TO DAC-946443-2016

5. Investigations revealed that on the 31st October 2016, at about 8.00 p.m., the victim was walking up a flight of stairs at XXXXXXX Singapore when she noticed the accused at the bottom of the staircase looking at her. 6. The accused then caught up with the victim at the second floor corridor of the said location and used his both hands to tickle and poke her at the side of her body at the lower ribs and waist while both of them were still walking. The accused continued the act until the victim arrived at the front door of her unit. As the victim was uncomfortable about the whole incident, she quickly entered the unit while the accused left the location.

FACTS RELATING TO MAC-910866-2016

7. Investigations revealed that on 1st November 2016, sometime at about 2.00 p.m., the victim was with the witness in their unit’s bedroom at XXXXXXX Singapore, which is adjacent to the common corridor when the witness noticed the accused walking past their bedroom window slowly while staring at both of them. 8. The witness then informed the victim and when she raised her head, she saw the accused staring at both of them while standing along the corridor. The victim recognised the accused to be the same person who had tickled and poked the both sides of her ribs to her lower waist on the 31st October 2016 and told the witness about it. The victim and witness felt scared and ran to another room to hide. 9. While hiding, both of them realized that their unit’s gate was unlocked therefore they went out of the room to make a check. When they were standing outside the bedroom door within the house, the telephone in their unit rang and at this point of time, the accused was seen running out of their kitchen and ran out of their unit. The accused had entered the unit as the gate was not locked. 10. The victim related the incident to her mother who brought her to the police to lodge a report. Through follow-up investigations, the accused was traced and arrested on 8 December 2016. 11. By virtue of the foregoing, by touching the victim at the ribs and waist, knowing it to be likely that he would outrage the 10-year-old victim’s modesty, the accused has committed an offence of Outrage of Modesty against a female under 14 punishable under Section 354(2) Chapter 224. 12. By entering the victim’s unit at XXXXXXX, Singapore, a place used as a human dwelling, with intent to cause annoyance to the house owner one XXXXXXX, the accused has committed an offence of House Trespass punishable under Section 448 Chapter 224. 13. The accused is charged accordingly”. The prosecutor

The prosecutor was Ms Gail Wong. The accused did not have a defence counsel.

The prosecution’s address

The learned prosecutor, Ms Gail Wong addressed this Court on the sentence. In summary, Ms Wong submitted as follows:- “4. The Prosecution seeks a global sentence of at least 2 years’ imprisonment with 3 strokes of the cane in respect of the Accused.

...

Outrage of Modesty

10. The precedents for cases involving victims under 14 are attached at Annex B. While the precedents show terms lower than 3 years’ imprisonment, it is submitted that an uplift is required in the present case in view of the Accused’s mental condition and the aggravating factors as above, and the sentence should be above 20 months’ imprisonment with 3 strokes of the cane.

…

House Trespass

…

15. However, as no violence was used to enter the home as in Ravindran, it is submitted that a sentence of at least 3 months’ imprisonment for this charge, as per that in PP v Muhamad Nizam bin Ahmad, would be appropriate”. The sentences

This Court sentenced the accused to the following:-

Charge No.	Convicted For	Sentence
1st charge DAC-946443-2016	Section 354(2) Penal Code Outraging of modesty of a female under age 14	2 years’ imprisonment. And 3 stroke of the cane Consecutive
2nd charge MAC-910866-2016	Section 448 Penal Code House trespass	3 months’ imprisonment. Consecutive
Total : 2 years' and 3 months’ imprisonment; and 3 strokes of the cane.

The accused's appeal

The accused has filed a notice of appeal against the sentences imposed. The accused is serving his sentence.

This Court’s...