Public Prosecutor v NYH

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Soh Tze Bian
• Judgment Date: 09 December 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] SGDC 432
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: DAC 24651-2/2013, Magistrate’s Appeal No. 230/2014/01
• Year: 2014
• Published date: 07 January 2015
• Hearing Date: 25 November 2013,10 March 2014,24 November 2014,14 August 2014,14 May 2014,03 March 2014,04 April 2014,29 November 2013,05 March 2014,02 April 2014,15 May 2014,12 March 2014
• Plaintiff Counsel: DPP Ms Claire Poh & DPP Mr Lee Zuzhao (before 3 March 2014 and from 14 August 2014 onwards) & DPP Ms Agnes Chan (from 3 March 2014 to May 2014)
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Daniel Chia (M/s Coleman Street Chambers LLC)
• Citation: [2014] SGDC 432

District Judge Soh Tze Bian: Charges

The accused person, (AP), Singaporean/male, 33 years of age claimed trial to the following 2 charges (as amended by the prosecution (and as highlighted in bold below but without italics, underlined and square brackets) at the close of the prosecution’s case on 3 April 2014 with no objection from the Defence and allowed by this Court): In DAC 24651/2013 (C1B), the AP, on 16 March 2012, at sometime between 1pm to 4pm, in the PE store room of AB School (ABS) located at address, XXX, did use criminal force on one V1 (M/14 years old), who was then 12 years old, a person under 14 years of age, knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage the modesty of the said V1, by hugging him and kissing him [by inserting his tongue into his mouth], and he has thereby committed an offence punishable under s 354(2) of the Penal Code (Cap 224) (PC) with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 5 years, or with fine, or with caning, or with any combination of such punishments. In DAC 24652/2013 (C2B), the AP, on 3 March 2012, at sometime between 3.40 pm to 4.30 pm, at his workstation at the level 3 staff room of ABS located at address, XXX, did use criminal force on one V1 (M/14 years old), who was then 12 years old, a person under 14 years of age, knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage the modesty of the said V1, by hugging him [and kissing him], and he has thereby committed an offence punishable under s 354(2) of the Penal Code (Cap 224) (PC) with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 5 years, or with fine, or with caning, or with any combination of such punishments.

This trial took place over a period of some 17 days between 25 November 2013 and 14 August 2014. Having considered the written and oral submissions and replies of both parties which they were directed to file and serve by 13 October 2014 and 31 October 2014 respectively as well as further written submissions filed by them on 14 and 21 November 2014, together with the evidence that had been adduced during the trial, which was duly recorded by the digital audio recording and transcription (“DART”) system, I was satisfied that the Prosecution had established its case beyond a reasonable doubt against the AP at the close of the trial in respect of the 2 charges in DAC 24651/2013 and DAC 24652/2013 (as amended by this Court in the exercise of its power under s 128 of the CPC¹) by deleting the words ‘by inserting his tongue into his mouth’ in DAC 24651/2013 and the words ‘and kissing him’ in DAC 24652/2013 (as shown in italics and placed in square brackets in bold and underlined in [1(i)] and [1(ii)] above). Accordingly, I found the AP guilty and convicted him of the 2 charges in DAC 24651/2013 and DAC 24652/2013 as amended in [1(i)] and [1(ii)] above on 24 November 2014 and imposed on him a global sentence of 6 weeks’ imprisonment on 9 December 2014. My reasons are set out below.

Agreed Statement of Facts

Prior to the commencement of the trial, both parties managed to draw up a Statement of Agreed Facts (ASOF). By this very pragmatic and focused approach to fulfilling their duties to the Court and to their respective clients, both parties have saved considerable time for the witnesses, the investigators and the Court. I am therefore deeply appreciative of the pre-trial work done by both parties. The ASOF states as follows:

‘THE PARTIES INVOLVED

1 The accused is NYH, a male Singaporean, NRIC No SXXXXXXXB. The accused is currently 33 years old (Date of Birth: XX September 19XX). The accused stays at XXX, Singapore. The accused was working as a teacher in ABS located at address, XXX from sometime in July 2008. The accused was interdicted on half pay since 30th March 2012, and remains on interdiction. The accused was also one of the teachers in charge of the Boys Brigade Co-Curricular Activity from 2009. 2 The alleged victim is V1, a male Singaporean currently 14 years old (Date of Birth: XX February XXXX). The alleged victim was 12 years old at the time of the alleged offences. In 2012 the alleged victim was in Primary 6 and a member of the Boys Brigade. He was in Class YZ. The alleged victim stays at XXX Singapore. 3 One of the witnesses is PW8, male, 13 years old. In 2012, PW8 was a Primary 6 student in ABS and a member of Boys Brigade PW8 and the alleged victim were classmates in Primary 6.

FACTS PERTAINING TO THE 1ST CHARGE (DAC-24651-2013)

4 In February and March 2012, the Primary 6 batch of Boys Brigade members were preparing for a Boys Brigade competition known as Adventure Quest. The Adventure Quest took place on the 17th March 2012 which was a Saturday. The alleged victim and PW8 were participants of the said Adventure Quest. The accused was one of the teachers in charge of the competition and was involved in training the boys. 5 On the 15th March 2012, which was the Thursday of the 2012 March School Holidays, a training session for the Adventure Quest was held. 6 On the 16th March 2012, the accused met the alleged victim and PW8 at the MacDonalds of Lot One Shopping Centre. The three of them walked to NTUC Supermarket which was at Basement One of Lot One Shopping Centre and bought supplies for the Adventure Quest. Subsequently, the three of them walked back to ABS with the supplies. 7 Upon reaching ABS, the accused, the alleged victim and PW8 proceeded to the Staff Room located at the third level and went to the accused’s workstation. There, PW8, the alleged victim and the accused packed the supplies they had bought into plastic bags. As they were packing, the accused asked the alleged victim to go to the PE Room which was on the ground floor. The Boys Brigade equipment was kept in the PE Room. The accused and alleged victim went to the PE Room to fetch other items which were also required for the Adventure Quest. PW8 was left in the Staff room when the accused and alleged victim proceeded to the PE Room. The accused found the school caretaker who followed him and opened the PE Room door. Following that, the accused placed one cone in front of the door to prevent the door from closing. 8 The only people in the PE Room were the accused and the alleged victim. 9 Subsequently, the accused and the alleged victim left the PE Room and returned to the Staff Room where PW8 was.

FACTS PERTAINING TO THE SECOND CHARGE (DAC-24652-2013)

10 On the 3rd of March 2012, which was a Saturday, there was a Boys Brigade meeting in the morning. The morning session lasted till 12 noon. From 12 noon to 12.30pm, the Primary 6 Boys Brigade batch was scheduled to have lunch. There was a Boys Brigade Adventure Quest training session from 12.30pm to 3.30pm.The Boys Brigade Adventure Quest training session was held in school. 11 The accused was present and in charge of this training session on the 3rd March 2012. PW8 and the alleged victim attended this Adventure Quest training session. 12 Sometime around 2.00pm the alleged victim left the school compound for his tuition class which was held somewhere in the vicinity. Arrangements were made between the alleged victim and the accused for the alleged victim to return to school after his tuition had ended for the alleged victim to catch up on the training he had missed, i.e. how to tie knots. Part of the Adventure Quest competition involved the tying of knots. 13 At around 3.40pm, the alleged victim and the accused were at the accused’s workstation at the staffroom located at level 3 where the accused revised the tying of knots with the alleged victim. 14 The victim lodged a Police Report at Nanyang Neighbourhood Police Centre on the 27th March 2012 at 10.53pm reporting that the accused had molested him. 15 On the 28th March 2012, the accused was escorted into a Police Car and taken to Jurong Police Head Quarters for investigations.’ Trial within a trial (voir dire)

In the course of the evidence-in-chief of the Investigation Officer (IO), SSSgt Norazmin Yap Amran (PW1), the prosecution sought to admit into evidence a statement (marked as P3I) recorded by PW1 from the accused person (AP) pursuant to s 22 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) (CPC). P3I was purportedly recorded by PW1 from the AP on 28 March 2012 from 10.59 pm to 11.45 pm and purportedly signed by the AP on 29 March 2012 at 12.05 am. It is not in dispute that only PW1 and the AP were present at the recording and signing of P3I. The Defence challenged the voluntariness of P3I on the grounds that the AP had given and signed P3I under circumstances of oppression, and further or in the alternative, PW1 had made threats, inducements and/or promises that affected the voluntariness of P3I.

I have carefully considered the written submissions and replies of both parties. I agreed with the Defence submission that as a voir dire covers all situations where the admissibility of a statement is challenged for any reason whatsoever (including oppression and claims by an accused that he was not the author of the statement that contained a confession and that his signature had been obtained by force²) and which requires the calling of evidence of the accused person and other witnesses in support of or against the admissibility of the statement,³ the procedural safeguard of a voir dire is necessary in our present case based on the AP’s aforesaid grounds of challenge to the admissibility of P3I. The prosecution had initially taken the position during the voir dire that a voir dire was not necessary, but had since abandoned its position in its written submissions and conceded on the need for a voir dire in our present case.

It is trite law that the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement had been made voluntarily. While the accused needs only to raise a reasonable doubt,...