Public Prosecutor v Tay Beng Guan Albert

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 01 August 2000
• Neutral Citation: [2000] SGHC 155
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 70 of 2000
• Date: 01 August 2000
• Year: 2000
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Jennifer Marie and Gilbert Koh (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Citation: [2000] SGHC 155
• Defendant Counsel: Ramesh Tiwary (Leo Fernando)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Whether fine sufficient,Offence involving high degree of planning,Intruding upon privacy of woman,Potential repeated viewings and risk of circulation,Use of modern technology to record victim's private moments,Whether need for deterrent custodial sentence,Plea of guilt,Whether plea of guilt has any mitigating value when accused caught red-handed,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Sentencing

: The respondent pleaded guilty in the magistrate`s court on 20 March 2000 to two charges of intruding upon the privacy of a woman under s 509 of the Penal Code (Cap 224). He was sentenced by magistrate Brenda Tan to a fine of $1,000 on each of the two charges. The prosecution appealed against this sentence as being manifestly inadequate. I allowed the appeal and enhanced the sentence to one month`s imprisonment on each charge, to run consecutively, in addition to the fine imposed by the magistrate. I now give my reasons.

The charges

The charges against the respondent read as follows:

MAC 921/2000

You, Tay Beng Guan Albert, m/34 years, NRIC: S1732995-B are charged that, you on 3 January 2000 at about 1pm, at the master bedroom bathroom of Blk 27 Hume Ave [num ]07-01 Hume Park 2, Singapore, intending to insult the modesty of one Lee Hsu Ching Lynette, to wit, by filming her in an undressed state without her knowledge, with your video camcorder, intending to intrude upon the privacy of the said victim, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 509 of the Penal Code (Cap 224).

And

MAC 922/2000

You, Tay Beng Guan Albert, m/34 years, NRIC: S1732995-B are charged that, you sometime in November 1998, in the evening, at the master bedroom bathroom of Blk 27 Hume Ave [num ]07-01 Hume Park 2, Singapore, intending to insult the modesty of one Koh Lay Tin Sandy, to wit, by filming the whole process of how the said subject eased herself in the toilet, without her knowledge, with your video camcorder, intending to intrude upon the privacy of the said victim, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 509 of the Penal Code (Cap 224).

The facts

At about 1pm on 3 January 2000, the respondent and one Lee Hsu Ching Lynette (`Lee`) went to the respondent`s house after a game of squash. Lee was then a colleague of the respondent.

Lee requested to use the guest bathroom to take a shower. The respondent led her to the bathroom located in the master bedroom, where she proceeded to take a shower. After her shower, Lee noticed a camera lens hidden among a basket of soft toys, with the lens pointing directly at the toilet door which was made of glass.

Lee checked and discovered that it was a Sony video-camcorder which was switched on and in recording mode. She then removed the tape and replaced the video-camcorder back in its original position.

Lee brought the tape home to view its contents. The recording showed Lee undressing and stepping into the bathtub, and thereafter stepping out of the bathtub naked, drying herself and covering herself with a bath towel.

Lee then lodged a police report about the incident.

The tape also contained footage of another woman, one Koh Lay Tin Sandy (`Koh`), who was the respondent`s ex-colleague. Investigations revealed that sometime in November 1998 the respondent and Koh had dinner before proceeding to the respondent`s house to listen to music.

At the respondent`s house, Koh requested to use the bathroom and was led by the respondent to the bathroom in the master bedroom. The respondent switched the video-camcorder, which was similarly hidden in a basket of soft toys, to recording mode before allowing Koh to enter the bathroom.

The recording on the tape showed the entire process of Koh relieving herself in the toilet.

The decision below

The magistrate was satisfied that the respondent understood the nature and consequences of his pleas of guilt and found him guilty on both charges.

In mitigation, the respondent submitted that he had fallen for both Lee and Koh but saw no future in getting involved with them as he was married. He committed the present offences because he wanted some sort of closeness with them.

Five specific mitigation factors were highlighted. First, the respondent was filled with deep remorse and pleaded guilty. As such, Lee and Koh were spared the trauma of testifying in court. Also, the respondent co-operated with the police and furnished them with the identity and particulars of Koh. Secondly, the respondent had apologised to Lee and Koh and sought their forgiveness. Thirdly, the respondent was a first offender who had worked his way up from a disadvantaged background and he had resolved not to transgress the law...