Public Prosecutor v VN (A Minor)

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lim Keng Yeow
• Judgment Date: 15 November 2007
• Neutral Citation: [2007] SGJC 5
• Published date: 03 April 2008
• Court: Juvenile Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: INSP Ting Nge Kong
• Defendant Counsel: The Juvenile in person

15 November 2007

District Judge Lim Keng Yeow:

1. On 13 September 2007, VN, a male juvenile (“the Juvenile”), was charged with the following two offences:

JAC 1255/2007

You, VN, M/12yrs, DOB: XX Apr 1995 are charged that you, on the 12^th day of June 2006 at or about 3.00pm, along the corridor, outside the unit of Blk 113 Pending Rd #07-XXX, Singapore, did use criminal force on one HH, F/16 yrs, with intention to outrage her modesty, to wit, by using your right hand to pinch the right side of her buttocks and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 354 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.

JAC 1257/2007

You, VN, M/12yrs, DOB: XX Apr 1995 are charged that you, on the 4^th day of January 2007 at or about 1.40pm, outside the unit #07-286 of Blk 899C Woodlands Drive 50, Singapore, did voluntarily cause hurt to one Abubo Emma Ben, f/34 yrs, to wit, by pulling her hair, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 323 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.

2. The Juvenile pleaded guilty to the charges and admitted to the Statement of Facts (“SOF”, exhibit “A”) without qualification. He was found guilty of the charges. A remaining charge was taken into consideration for purposes of the court order. This charge read:

JAC 1256/2007

You, VN, M/12yrs, DOB: XX Apr 1995 are charged that you, on the 4^th day of January 2007 at or about 1.40pm, outside the unit #07-286 of Blk 899C Woodlands Drive 50, Singapore, intending to insult the modesty of one Abubo Emma Ben, f/34 yrs, you did pull down your pants and exposed your penis intending that such gesture shall be seen by the said Abubo Emma Ben and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 509 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.

3. In mitigation, he said that he was sorry for what he did. When asked whether he was sorry before his arrest, he answered, “No”. His parents then pleaded for leniency on his behalf, saying that he was at a very impressionable age, he studied well in school and that he will mend his ways.

4. The matter was adjourned for a Probation Report (“PSR”) to be prepared.

The Probation Report

5. Mr Andre Wai, the probation officer from Probation Services Branch (PSB), Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS), submitted a report to the Court highlighting the background of the Juvenile and his risk factors. He rated the Juvenile using the standard “Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory” (YLS/CMI) and assessed his risk of re-offending to be “High”. He did not recommend probation.

The Court’s Decision

6. On 16 October 2007, having considered fully the facts and circumstances of this case, I decided that probation was not appropriate and ordered that the Juvenile be sent to an Approved School for 2½ years under Section 44(1)(i) of the Children and Young Persons Act (Cap 38, 2001 Rev Ed) (“CYPA”). The Juvenile was then about 12 years and 6 months.

7. In arriving at this decision, I was mindful of Section 28 of the CYPA, which provides that the Court, in dealing with a child or young person who is brought before it, either as being in need of care or protection, or as an offender or otherwise, shall have regard to the welfare of the child or young person and shall, in a proper case, take steps for removing him from undesirable surroundings, and for ensuing that proper provision is made for his education and training.

8. Section 28 CYPA does not mean that the court ignores principles of sentencing applicable to all offenders, including the principle of proportionality. It does mean, however, that general sentencing principles must be balanced with the greater need and preponderant consideration in the Juvenile Court for the juvenile to be reformed, rehabilitated and re-integrated into society, and for provision to be made for his education and training.

9. While a 2½-year Approved School Order seems harsh given the tender age of the Juvenile, there are a number of factors that, to my mind, require its imposition.

The Offences and Manner of Commission

JAC 1255/2007

10. According to the SOF, the Juvenile entered the same lift as the victim at Blk 113 Pending Road. She got off at the 6^th floor. He stayed on and got off at the 11^th floor. Then he went down the stairs to the 7^th floor where he saw her walking along the corridor towards her unit. As she was opening her gate, the Juvenile walked past her and pinched the right side of her buttocks.

11. When separately asked by the probation officer and the MCYS psychologist about the offence, his comments shed more light on it. In paragraph 14 of her report dated 9 October 2007, the psychologist stated as follows:

From his account, it appeared that there was some degree of planning… (The Juvenile) related that in mid-2006, he had been walking around his neighbourhood when he saw the 16-year-old victim. (The Juvenile) stated that he had followed the victim to the lift, but had waited to see which floor she was going to before pressing another floor so as not to arouse her suspicion. He added that he followed her as he had thoughts of touching her.

Whether the Juvenile refrained from taking action in the lift because it was fitted with a camera is not known. But it is clear from his account of the facts that it was not a “spur of the moment” act of folly. It was executed with an intelligent measure of care, deliberateness and calculation.

JAC1257/2007

12. In the SOF, the prosecuting officer cancelled out facts relating to JAC1256/2007 as the charge was not proceeded with. Although the bare facts in the SOF relating to JAC 1257/2007 were sufficient to make out the offence, reference had to be made again to the Juvenile’s own remarks on the offence as reported by the probation officer (in paragraph 1.2.1of the PSR) and the psychologist (paragraphs 15-17 of her report) for vital information on the context of the voluntary causing hurt offence.

13. According to the Juvenile, he left school by himself that day although he was to wait for his mother. In paragraph 15 of the psychologist’s report, details on what happened subsequently were provided as follows:

(The Juvenile) reported that he had been at a convenience store in January 2007 when he spotted the 34-year-old victim across the street. He stated that she was pretty, and he had followed her with the intention of touching her. (The Juvenile) shared that once she got into the lift, he took note of which level she stopped at and proceeded to run up the stairs to look for her. He related that in order not to arouse her suspicions, he had approached her and asked her for the time. (The Juvenile) then stated that he pulled down his pants and underwear himself as he thought it would be “fun to disturb” the victim. (The Juvenile) even admitted to pulling her hair when the victim shouted as he thought that doing so would scare her and stop her from calling out.

14. It is significant how the Juvenile was careful not to arouse suspicion, and how he tried, rather intelligently, to avoid it in at least 2 ways. Firstly, having followed her into a lift, he did not get off at the same level as the victim. He took note of the level at which she would get off, then got off first and ran up the stairs to look for her. Secondly, when he found her at level 7, he first pretended to ask her for the time in...