Public Prosecutor v Tee Bee Han

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Imran bin Abdul Hamid
• Judgment Date: 28 March 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] SGDC 90
• Docket Number: DAC 937313/2015 & 4 Others, Magistrate’s Appeal No: 9062/2018/01
• Year: 2018
• Published date: 09 October 2018
• Citation: [2018] SGDC 90
• Plaintiff Counsel: The prosecution was conducted and led by DPP Ms Eunice Lau
• Defendant Counsel: The defence was conducted by Mr Bajwa, assisted by Mr Kertar Singh
• Court: District Court (Singapore)

District Judge Imran bin Abdul Hamid: INTRODUCTION Disclosure

These facts are not disputed.

The accused is Mr Tee Bee Han, born on 14th Sept 75. His registered address is Blk 7, Lorong 7, Toa Payoh, unit #07-195. He worked as a deliveryman. Sometime in 2011/2012, he was in a relationship with redacted (‘K’), born on 31st July 67.

K has 2 daughters¹: redacted (‘V’, PW1), born on 5th Aug 94, and redacted (F, PW 9), born on 26th Feb 91. At the time, V was 17 years old and F was 21 years old.

At or about early 2012², the accused stayed over with K and her family in a 2-bedroom flat at Blk 310, Woodlands Avenue 1, unit #09-18 (‘the unit’). F, the older of the 2 girls, has her own bedroom. V and her mother, K, slept in the master room which has an attached bathroom. They have done so since V’s younger days. When the accused joined their family, he slept with K (and V) in the master room.

On 14th Mar 12, sometime after midnight, V’s cousin, redacted (TB, PW2), who resides in Choa Chua Kang, called the police “to report a case of attempted rape” adding that V was “molested” by her “mother’s friend”. He related that that was “not the first time” the “older man” had tried to do so³. He was with his sister, redacted (TS, PW3), and they were en route to Blk 310, Woodlands Avenue 1. They hurried to the unit after receiving news of an incident between V and the accused.

Subsequently, the first officers, Sgt Gabriel Chan (PW7) and SC/Sgt Hafiz, arrived at the void deck of Blk 310, Woodlands Avenue 1. V was then crying. At about 1.39 am, after conducting preliminary investigations with the others who were present and after receiving instructions from duty investigation officer, Mr Joe Kok (PW10), Sgt Gabriel arrested the accused for attempted rape⁴. At the station, an arrest report for Sexual Assault by Penetration was formally lodged.⁵

At about 2.47 am, Scene of Crime Officer, SI Sukumar took 8 photographs of the unit including the master room where the offences allegedly took place⁶. At about 2.55 am, the white bra worn by V, which was earlier photographed, was seized⁷. After analysis, the accused’s DNA was found on the left cup of the bra⁸. On 16th Aug 12, sketches of the incident place were prepared⁹.

As at 14th Mar 12, the brief facts seemed to suggest allegations pertaining to attempted rape, molest and sexual assault by penetration (SAP), said to have occurred in the master room of the unit. It was also alleged that 13th Mar 12 was not the only occasion something like that had taken place.

Charges

On 21st Oct 15, the accused was charged. On 22nd Aug 16, he claimed trial¹⁰. The 4 charges were as follows¹¹.

DAC 937313/2015, 1st charge: “…are charged that you on 11th Mar 12, sometime between 12 am and 4 am, in Block 310, Woodlands Street 31, #09-18 (‘the unit’)…did sexually penetrate the vagina of the victim…by inserting your finger into her vagina without her consent…thereby committed an offence under section 376(2)(a) punishable under section 376(3) of the Penal Code (‘PC’).”

DAC 937314/2015, 2nd charge: “…are charged that you on 11th Mar 12, sometime between 12 am and 4 am, in the unit…did attempt to rape the victim…by attempting to penetrate the vagina of the victim with your penis, without her consent…thereby committed an offence under section 375(1)(a) punishable under section 375(2) read with section 511 of PC.”

MAC 908739/2015, 3rd charge: “…are charged that you on 11th Mar 12, at about 4 am, in the unit…did use criminal force on the victim…intending to outrage her modesty…by slipping your hand underneath her shirt and bra and touching her breast…thereby committed an offence under section 354(1) of PC.”

DAC 937315/2015, 4th charge: “…are charged that you on 13th Mar 12, at or about 11 pm, in the unit…did attempt to rape the victim…by lying on top of the said victim and rubbing your exposed penis against her vagina, and subsequently against the back of the victim’s hand when she covered her vagina…thereby committed an offence under section 375(1)(a) punishable under section 375(2) read with section 511 of PC.”

The offences were committed on 2 occasions. In essence, the accused denied committing the acts alleged. As for the 11th Mar 12, nothing happened and they slept peacefully in the master room. As for the 13th Mar 12, although F did walk into the master room at the time alleged, the accused had merely pinned down V to the mattress only to tell her to stop disturbing him.

Outcome

After assessing the evidence, observed the witnesses testify and after perusing parties’ submissions, I was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the 4 offences and he was convicted.

On 6th Feb 18, for sentencing, the DPP, Ms Eunice Lau, submitted a medical report (‘MR’)¹² dated 29th Jan 18 prepared by psychiatrist, Dr Francis Ngui (PW12-NH). In short, he opined that V suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (‘PTSD’) with Major Depression (‘MDD’). On 14th Feb 18, the Defence applied for Dr Francis to be called to testify. Adopting the approach in PP v UI¹³ , a Newton Hearing was held on 28th Feb 18. After reviewing the evidence, I was satisfied that V suffers from PTSD with MDD due to the sexual assaults. I accept Dr Francis’ opinion that V is at a “high risk” of “recurrent self-harm”¹⁴.

Having earlier perused the parties’ submissions on sentence, including the mitigation plea, on 5th Mar 18, he was sentenced as follows.

DAC/MAC	Offence	Punishment Passed
DAC 937313/15	Digital-Vaginal Penetration committed on 11th Mar 12: Offence under s376(2) p/u s376(3). Punishment Prescribed: “…shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 20 years, and shall also be liable to a fine or to caning.	7 years, 4 strokes
DAC937314/15	Attempted rape, committed on 11th Mar 12: Offence under s375(1)(a) p/u s375(2) r/w s511. Punishment Prescribed: “…shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 20 years, and shall also be liable to a fine or to caning.” S511: “…the longest term of imprisonment that may be imposed…shall not exceed one half of the longest term provided for the offence…”	6 years, 4 strokes
MAC908739/15	Outrage of modesty by essentially touching victim’s breast, committed on 11th Mar 12: Offence under s354(1). Punishment Prescribed: “…shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine, or with caning…”	1 year, 3 strokes
DAC937315/15	Attempted rape, committed on 13th Mar 12, offence under s375(1)(a) p/u s375(2) r/w s511. Punishment Prescribed: see DAC 937314/15.	6 years, 4 strokes
Pursuant to s307, CPC, imprisonment terms in DAC 937313/15 and DAC937315/15 are consecutive, the rest is concurrent. Aggregate: 13 years imprisonment, 15 strokes15.

Appeal

The accused has filed an appeal¹⁶. These are the detailed reasons.

FACTS & EVIDENCE Summary of the Prosecution’s Case

For the trial, the prosecution called 11 witnesses to testify¹⁷. K was offered to the Defence as a witness but she was not called to testify.

SN	ID LABEL	Name of Witness	Role
PW1	“V”	Redacted	Victim
PW2	“TB”	Redacted	Supporting witness First Information Report, P1
PW3	“TS”	Redacted	Supporting witness
PW4	N.A	Dr Wayne Yap	Accused’s Examining Doctor Medical Report 8th July 12, P11
PW5	N.A	Dr Ng Yew Yee	Accused’s Examining Doctor Medical Report 6th Aug 12, P6
PW6	N.A	Dr Lee Li Yen Candy	H.S.A Witness Lab Report, DN-1234-00661, P5
PW7	N.A	Sgt Gabriel Chan	First attending officer Arrest Report, P2
PW8	“S”	Redacted	Supporting witness
PW9	“F”	Redacted	Supporting witness
PW10	N.A	Joe Kok Jian Wei	Investigation Officer
PW11	N.A	Thomas Ong	Recorder, Cautioned Statements P13 – P16

The prosecution indicated its intention to admit into evidence the accused’s s23, CPC statements (‘the cautioned statements’, CS), recorded on 14th Oct 15.

Offence referred to in the Cautioned Statement	Time Recorded
1st charge: S376(2)(a) p/u s376(3), PC	10.20 am to 11.05 am
2nd charge: S375(1)(a) p/u s375(2) r/w s511, PC	1.20 am to 12.10 pm
3rd charge: S354(1), PC	12.45 pm to 1.15 pm
4th charge: S376(2)(a) p/u s376(3), PC	1.30 m to 1.50 pm

The Defence objected, contending that the accused was forced to admit and sign the statements; that he was induced by the recorder’s assurance of a lighter punishment. It was also alleged that the statements were not read to the accused capitalizing on an existing error in the handwritten charge pertaining to the 4th charge (attempted rape on 13th Mar 12) where it was written down as an attempt “with her consent” whilst the typed charge for the same statement stated that it was an attempt “without her consent”.

Following an ancillary hearing, I found that the statements were voluntarily recorded and allowed their admission.

In the main, the DPP submitted that V’s evidence was cogent and comprehensive, covering pre-incidents interactions with the accused, the incidents of 11th and 13th Mar 12, and the trauma she suffered as a result. Although distressed when recounting the incidents, she nevertheless gave a coherent and textured account of the offences.

In her testimony, V related that her father passed away in Dec 2010¹⁸. She looked up to the accused as an elder and called him, “Uncle”.¹⁹ She said that the accused started...