Public Prosecutor v Salim Bin Abdul Rahman

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Judge: Victor Yeo Khee Eng
• Judgment Date: 05 April 2021
• Neutral Citation: [2021] SGDC 59
• Citation: [2021] SGDC 59
• Hearing Date: 18 January 2021,28 December 2020
• Year: 2021
• Published date: 11 April 2021
• Docket Number: District Arrest Case No 920093 of 2020 and 2 Others, Magistrate’s Appeals No 9021-2021-01
• Plaintiff Counsel: DPP Colin Ng (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Defendant Counsel: Accused in person.
• Subject Matter: Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Sentencing,Preventive Detention,Criminal Law,Offences,Outrage of Modesty

Principal District Judge Victor Yeo Khee Eng: Introduction

The Accused, Salim Bin Abdul Rahman, 61 years old, pleaded guilty to a charge of using criminal force to outrage the modesty of a person under 14 years of age (“the Victim”) by putting his left hand over the victim’s shoulder and touching her once on her left chest (over her clothes), an offence punishable under s 354(2) of the Penal Code (Cap. 224, 2008 Rev Ed).

Upon his conviction, the accused admitted to and consented to two (2) charges for theft under section s 379 of the Penal Code (Cap. 224, 2008 Rev Ed) to be taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing. He was sentenced to 12 years' preventive detention. The Accused being dissatisfied filed an appeal against his sentence. He is currently serving sentence.

These are the grounds for the sentence imposed.

The Charge

The proceeded charge read as follows: DAC 920093 of 2020 You, Salim Bin Abdul Rahman, are charged that you, on 1 October 2020, at or about 2.00 p.m., at the staircase landing located at the ground floor of [address], Singapore, did use criminal force on [victim], a person under 14 years of age (female, 10 years old, D.O.B: xx March 2010) (the “victim”), to wit, by putting your left hand over the victim’s shoulders and touching her once on her left chest (over her clothes), knowing it to be likely that you will thereby outrage the modesty of the victim, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 354(2) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed).

Statement of Facts

The Statement of Facts (SOF) which the accused admitted without qualification, is as follows: 1 The accused is Salim Bin Abdul Rahman, a 61-year-old male Singaporean (D.O.B: 20 December 1959). The accused was working as a cleaner at Serangoon North Shopping Centre at the material time. 2 The victim-cum-complainant is [victim’s name], a 10-year-old female Singaporean (D.O.B: xx March 2010). At the material time, she was a Primary 4 student at [school], and was residing at [address] (the “Residence”). 3 The witness is [witness’s name], a 68-year-old female Singaporean. She is the victim’s grandparent. FIRST INFORMATION REPORT 4 On 1 October 2020, at about 3.34 p.m., the victim lodged a police report stating that she was molested by a male subject. The male subject was subsequently established to be the accused. The incident location was given as the staircase landing located at the ground floor of the Residence [address] (the “Staircase”). BACKGROUND FACTS 5 On 1 October 2020, the victim ended her lessons at about 1.40 p.m. She proceeded to take a bus home, and alighted at the bus stop near her Residence. 6 At about 1.46 p.m., while the victim was walking under the sheltered walkway leading to her Residence, she felt someone touching her shoulders from her back. She turned around, and saw the accused. The accused asked the victim where she lived and which school she attended. As the victim did not recognise the accused, she ignored him and did not answer his questions. 7 Despite the victim’s refusal to answer his questions, the accused persisted in striking a conversation with the victim. The accused took out $1.50 from his pocket, handed it to the victim, and told her to keep the $1.50. The victim accepted the $1.50, as she was afraid to incur the wrath of the accused should she reject his gesture. The accused then held the victim’s right hand and told her to follow him to his house. 8 On the same day, at or about 2.00 p.m., the accused and the victim arrived at the Staircase. As the accused was about to make his way up the stairs, the victim refused to follow the accused. The victim informed the accused that she wanted to return home to have her lunch. Thereat, the accused put his left hand over the victim’s shoulders, and touched her once on her left chest (over her clothes). The victim was frightened, and made a dash towards the direction of her Residence. 9 Upon returning home, the victim started crying and informed the witness of her encounter with the accused. The witness tried to calm the victim down, and brought the victim to the police station to lodge a police report. 10 On the same day, at or about 3.34 p.m., the victim lodged a police report at [redacted] Neighbourhood Police Post. 11 Through the Police’s investigative efforts, the identity of the accused was traced. He was arrested on the same day at about 8.06 p.m.. FACTS RELATING TO THE CHARGE 12 Investigations revealed that on 1 October 2020, at about 1.40 p.m., the accused spotted the victim on the bus. At the material time, the accused noticed that the victim was in her school uniform. 13 On the same day, sometime before 1.46 p.m., the accused alighted from the bus and realised that the victim had gotten off at the same stop as him. The accused stated that he then decided to approach the victim as he had “evil thoughts of doing something bad” and wanted himself to “feel good”. 14 At about 1.46 p.m., acting on his “evil thoughts”, the accused approached the victim while the victim was walking under the sheltered walkway. The accused asked the victim where she lived and which school she attended. He then gave $1.50 to the victim, and asked the victim to follow him. 15 At or about 2.00 p.m., the accused and the victim arrived at the Staircase. The accused recalled that thereat, the victim informed him that she had to return home. The accused then placed his left hand over the victim’s shoulders, and touched the victim once on her left chest (over her clothes). Thereafter, the accused and the victim parted ways. PSYCHIATRIC ASSESSMENT OF THE ACCUSED 16 Following the accused’s arrest, the accused was examined by Dr Stephen Phang, a Senior Consultant at the Institute of Mental Health (“IMH”). The report stated that the accused did not suffer from any psychiatric disorder or illness, and he was not of unsound mind at the time of the commission of the offence. Dr Stephen Phang opined that the accused has a high risk of reoffending. A copy of the IMH Report dated 29 October 2020 is annexed hereto at Tab A. CONCLUSION 17 By virtue of the foregoing, the accused did use criminal force on the victim, a person under 14 years of age, to wit, by putting his left hand over the victim’s shoulders and touching the victim once on her left chest (over her clothes), knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage the modesty of the victim. The accused has thereby committed an offence punishable under section 354(2) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed). 18 The accused admits to the commission of the abovementioned offence, and stands charged accordingly.

The accused admitted to the Statement of Facts without qualification and accordingly, he was convicted of the proceeded charge. He further admitted to and consented to have two other theft charges under s 379 of the Penal Code to be taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing.

Antecedents

The accused admitted to the following antecedents:

Date of conviction	Age	Charge(s)	Sentence(s)
4 May 1990	30	1 x s 380 of the Penal Code [Theft in dwelling]	1-day imprisonment with a $4000 fine (in-default 20 days’ imprisonment) [Fine not paid]
31 March 2000	40	1 x s 8(b)(i) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (“MDA”) [Consumption of a controlled drug]	12 months’ imprisonment [Consecutive]
1 x R 15(3)(f) of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations (“MDR”) [Failure to report for urine tests]	2 months’ imprisonment [Consecutive]
1 x s 379 of the Penal Code [Theft]	4 months’ imprisonment [Consecutive]
1 x s 379 of the Penal Code [Theft]	4 months’ imprisonment
TIC: - 2 x R 15(3)(f) MDR - 1 x s 379 of the Penal Code
8 October 2001	41	3 x R 15(3)(f) MDR [Failure to report for urine tests]	8 months’ imprisonment per charge [Two counts ran consecutively]
13 June 2003	43	1 x s 35(1) of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act [Fraudulent possession of property]	4 weeks’ imprisonment
5 August 2004	44	1 x s 392 of the Penal Code [Robbery]	3 years’ imprisonment and 9 strokes of the cane
1 x s 57(11) of the Immigration Act (“IA”) [Permitting premises to be kept or used as a place for illegal immigrants]	1 year’s imprisonment [Consecutive]
TIC: - 1 x s 57(11) IA - 1 x s 392 of the Penal Code - 2 x s 379 of the Penal Code
20 November 2007	47	1 x s 380 of the Penal Code [Theft in dwelling]	8 months’ imprisonment
8 December 2009	49	5 x s 354(2) of the Penal Code [Outrage of modesty of a person below 14 years of age]	10 years’ Prevention Detention
1 x s 57(1)(e) IA [Employment of illegal immigrant]
TIC: 4 x s 354(2) of the Penal Code

Prosecution’s Address on Sentence

The prosecution submitted that a sentence of at least 12 years of preventive detention (“PD”) would be expedient for the protection of the public.

The learned DPP submitted that the accused satisfies the pre-conditions laid down in s 304(2)(a) CPC as he is above the age of 30 years, and he is convicted of an offence punishable with imprisonment for 2 years or more, and has been convicted at least 3 times since he reached the age of 16 years of offences punishable with such a sentence. Specifically, the learned DPP highlighted that there were seven (7) such occasions between the period of 1990 to 2009 where the accused was sentenced to imprisonment.

The learned DPP submitted that the accused’s antecedents showed that he is a habitual criminal, exhibiting a wide range of criminality, and he had re-offended with a degree of regularity and has displayed a consistent pattern of criminal behaviour.

Further, the accused...