Public Prosecutor v Pok Raymond

JudgeTay Yong Kwang J
Judgment Date04 February 2003
Neutral Citation[2003] SGHC 18
Published date06 May 2004
Citation[2003] SGHC 18
Plaintiff CounselTan Kiat Pheng and Majory Yeoh (Attorney-GeneralÂ’s Chambers)
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)

1. The Accused, a 26 year old male, was convicted upon his plea of guilt on six charges. I shall refer to them according to the sequence in which they appear in the charge sheet. The first related to the Accused having had fellatio performed on him by a girl, AL (born in November 1984), at the East Coast Park sometime between August and September 1999 when she was 14 years of age. The second charge concerned the Accused having had anal intercourse with the same girl in his flat in December 2000 when she was 16 years old. Both these offences are punishable under section 377 Penal Code which provides for imprisonment for life or for up to 10 years and liability to a fine. The third charge concerned the Accused having had carnal connection with the same AL at the staircase of a block of HDB flats between August and September 1999 when she was 14 years old. This is an offence under section 140 (1)(i) Women's Charter for which the Accused may be imprisoned for up to 5 years and fined a maximum of $10,000.

2. The fifth charge was one of rape committed against a 14 year old girl, LL, on 16 March 2002 at a staircase of a multi-storey carpark in Jurong. The sixth charge related to rape against the same girl one week later in a hotel in Joo Chiat Road. Both these offences are punishable under section 376 (1) Penal Code which provides for an imprisonment term of up to 20 years and a discretionary fine or discretionary caning.

3. The ninth charge against the Accused was one of aggravated rape under section 376 (2) Penal Code for which he must be sentenced to imprisonment for not less than 8 years and not more than 20 years and to caning of not less than 12 strokes. This charge concerned rape against a then 13 year old girl called HQ at a staircase of the same multi-storey carpark in Jurong in March 2002.

4. In addition, the Accused admitted one other charge (the fourth) under section 140 (1)(i) Women's Charter of having had carnal connection with AL when she was 14 years old and two other charges (the seventh and eighth) of rape under section 376 (1) Penal Code in the same hotel against LL in April 2002 and in May 2002. He consented that these three charges be taken into consideration for the purpose of sentence.

The statement of the facts

5. The Accused was an assistant engineer employed by Sony Precision Engineering Centre (Singapore). In August or September 1999, AL came across a message posted by the Accused on an Internet chat room asking any girl to pose as his temporary girlfriend for a few hours and engage in petting with him in return for money. AL was curious and responded. She eventually agreed to the deal but informed the Accused there was to be no sexual intercourse. The rendezvous was set at the Yishun MRT station.

6. When they met on the appointed date, the Accused asked AL to follow him to a block of flats where they took the lift to one of the highest floors. At a staircase landing, they sat down and began kissing and petting. The Accused then put on a condom and told AL to perform oral sex on him by pushing her head towards his penis. AL complied. Later, AL lay down and he got on top of her. They became aroused and engaged in sexual intercourse. When it was over, the Accused gave AL about $400 as promised. This formed the subject of the charge under section 140 (1)(i) Women's Charter.

7. After that first encounter, the Accused contacted AL again. They met at the East Coast Park beach where AL sat on his lap and they kissed. He wanted AL to perform oral sex on him but she did not want to and resisted. He then put his hand behind her head and pulled it towards his penis. She gave in and took him in her mouth reluctantly. This was the fellatio charge.

8. After that, the two of them met each other regularly. Sometimes, they would have sexual intercourse in the Accused's home. On one occasion, he requested to have anal intercourse with her and she consented. This was the subject of the other section 377 Penal Code charge.

9. In February 2001, when AL ended the relationship with the Accused, he became very angry and began to call her persistently. When she refused to rekindle their relationship, he sent her SMS (short message service) messages claiming he had recorded on video tape the two of them having sex. When AL still rebuffed his sexual advances, he threatened to make the said video tape available on the Internet and to her parents and her school.

10. About a year later, LL, then 14 years old, was surfing the Teens' Channel, an Internet chat room for teenagers. She came across a message posted by the Accused, posing as a teenager, stating he would pay $500 to any girl willing to be his temporary girlfriend. Feeling curious, LL responded, calling herself Claire. The Accused followed up by saying his girlfriend had left him recently and he wanted to show his friend he could have another girlfriend quite quickly. He told LL that the temporary girlfriend must be willing to engage in kissing. Initially, LL rejected his offer but after much persuasion, agreed to meet him. They exchanged their mobile telephone numbers.

11. On the appointed day, 16 March 2002, LL went to meet the Accused at the Boon Lay MRT station. At around 10 am, he walked up to her. He was wearing a cap and sunglasses. After confirming she was the Claire he had contacted, he led her to a multi-storey carpark which was some distance from the station. While they were walking, he took out a red packet from his pocket and showed her a $50 note inside. He then walked ahead of her and did something with his bag before putting the red packet back in his pocket. He had actually taken out the $50 note and replaced it with a piece of paper without LL knowing it.

12. They took the lift to the highest level of the multi-storey carpark. At a staircase landing there, the Accused placed some newspapers on the floor and told her to sit down. He then sat down beside her and gave her the red packet which she put into her bag. He next leaned forward to kiss her lips. She pushed him away as she found it disgusting. He told her they had to kiss to prove to his friend who was watching them from the staircase above that they were a "couple". Despite that, LL refused to engage in kissing. He then asked her to lie down on the floor. Again she refused to do so but he explained they had to act like they were kissing to convince his friend. He got on top of her and kissed her neck. She felt uncomfortable and tried to move away from him.

13. The Accused then stood up and lowered his jeans and his underpants. He wanted to take off LL's panties but she stopped him and held on to her panties. Nevertheless, the Accused pushed her hand aside and removed her panties. She was shocked and frightened and did not know what to do as she thought they would only be kissing. She also feared for her safety as she believed his friend was nearby watching them. Without her consent, the Accused proceeded to penetrate her vagina. He withdrew his penis subsequently and ejaculated onto her thigh.

14. The Accused then dressed up and claimed he had to meet a friend. He told LL to go home by herself and left her alone in the carpark. Still in a state of shock, she tried to gather her thoughts. She then remembered the red packet in her bag. When she took it out, she found nothing more than a piece of paper inside and realized that the Accused had deceived her. This episode was the fifth charge in the series.

15. A few days later, the Accused called LL's mobile telephone and, pretending to be a friend of hers, asked her whether anything had happened to her lately. She could recognize his voice and told him it had nothing to do with him.

15. The next day, he called LL again. This time, he said he had some photographs of her lying down on the landing with "that guy". She disbelieved him and asked him to describe her clothing in the photographs. When he managed to do so accurately, LL began to suspect it was the rapist himself. She asked him how he managed to get the photographs and was told he had purchased them over the Internet. He then told her if she wanted them back, she had to meet him at the Astro Hotel in Joo Chiat Road.

16. One week after the rape at the multi-storey carpark, LL went to the said hotel as arranged and went up to a room on the second level as instructed. When the door of the room opened and the Accused told her to go in, she did not dare to enter as it was dark inside and she could not see who was in the room. He then pulled her inside and closed and locked the door. He told her to sit on the bed but she did not want to as she still could not make out his face. She asked him to switch on the lights but he refused as he said he did not wish to be recognized by her. LL then asked him whether he was the one who had raped her but he denied it. When he went near the toilet where there was some light, she recognized him and was shocked and afraid. She kept saying he was the rapist but he kept denying it.

17. She then asked the Accused to hand the photographs over to her but he said she had to have sexual intercourse with him first. She refused and pleaded for the photographs but he remained adamant about the terms. When she still refused to have sex with him, he told her that if she left the room, he would post the photographs on the Internet....

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Annis bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 5 March 2004
    ...268 – in which sentences of five years’ imprisonment were imposed for s 377 offences. The district judge also considered PP v Pok Raymond [2003] SGHC 18 where sentences of two years’ imprisonment were imposed in respect of each of three s 377 charges preferred against the 85 The district ju......
  • Annis Bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • District Court (Singapore)
    • 6 November 2003
    ...imprisonment for each of the section 377 Penal Code charges. The DPP also brought to the Court’s attention the case of PP v Raymond Pok [2003] SGHC 18 in which the offender received 2 years’ imprisonment per charge for each of the three section 377 Penal Code charges in addition to other 8 ......
  • Public Prosecutor v Lim Beng Cheok
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 13 March 2003 stated in para 45(b) above. 47 Mr Lee sought to distinguish the case of Adam bin Darsin and relied on Public Prosecutor v Raymond Pok [2003] SGHC 18, a decision by Justice Tay Yong Kwang where Tay J sentenced the accused to two years’ imprisonment for each charge under s 377 Penal Code ......
  • Annis bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 5 March 2004
    ...268 – in which sentences of five years’ imprisonment were imposed for s 377 offences. The district judge also considered PP v Pok Raymond [2003] SGHC 18 where sentences of two years’ imprisonment were imposed in respect of each of three s 377 charges preferred against the 85 The district ju......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT