Public Prosecutor v XGR (a minor)

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 17 July 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] SGYC 4
• Court: Youth Court (Singapore)
• Parties: Public Prosecutor,XGR (a minor)

Public Prosecutor v XGR (a minor)

[2025] SGYC 4

Youth Arrest Case No 900025 of 2025

Public Prosecutor

XGR (a minor)

Youth Court

Patrick Tay Wei Sheng

Children and Young Persons Act - Young offenders - Dispositional orders - Considerations

Gladys Lim (Deputy Public Prosecutor) for the Prosecution

The youth in person

The parents of the youth in person

Dr Vivien Huan and Mr Muhammad Dzulkifly as advisers.

17 July 2025

District Judge Patrick Tay Wei Sheng:

1. The youth was 16 years of age. Months before his most recent birthday, he penetrated the vagina of his then-10-year-old sister with a pencil. He admitted to three further acts against her: once penetrating her vagina with his finger and twice committing other acts of indecency with her.

2. For the act of penetration with a pencil, the youth was found guilty of a charge of sexually penetrating a minor within s 376A(1) of the Penal Code 1871 (2020 Rev Ed). For the other three acts, each of which constituted an offence within the Penal Code or the Children and Young Persons Act 1993 (2020 Rev Ed) (the “CYPA”), the youth consented to having them taken into consideration in the formulation of the dispositional orders.

3. Upon this finding of guilty, the Prosecution urged me to immediately commit the youth to a Juvenile Rehabilitation Centre (a “JRC”) for 36 months and objected to any assessment of his suitability for any other order. It submitted that he had preyed on a young and vulnerable victim and had while doing so understood the wrongfulness of his acts. It added that the gravity of the offence meant that “the most appropriate punishment is the maximum term of detention in a Juvenile Rehabilitation Centre as that would best give effect to the principles of deterrence and retribution while serving the aims of rehabilitation.”

4. The power of the Youth Court to seek an assessment of the suitability of an offender for different dispositional orders is found in s 47 of the CYPA. Thereunder, it may obtain “information” on the background and state of development of the youth to equip it to formulate orders that are in the best interests of that youth: s 47(9) of the CYPA. To do so, it calls for a report of “a probation officer, an approved welfare officer, a registered medical practitioner or any other person whom the Youth Court thinks fit to provide a report on the child or young person”: s 47(10) of the CYPA.

5. I found it premature to immediately commit the youth to a JRC for 36 months purely because he had committed a grave offence. Such a term would have been the maximum that I could have imposed: s 49(1)(i) of the CYPA. But the paramount consideration in these proceedings was not the gravity of his offence but his welfare and best interests: s 4(b) of the CYPA. Determining this welfare and best interests “would depend on his prospects of rehabilitation under the different sentencing options”: WLK v Public Prosecutor [2023] SGHCF 22 at [10]. To facilitate this determination, I called for a report of an investigating probation officer, who would in preparing that report collate information on the family background, general conduct, home surroundings, school record, medical history and state of development of the youth: s 49(10) of the CYPA. This determination would then be enriched by the insights of two advisers from a panel of advisers appointed by the President whose roles were to “inform and advise” the Youth Court when a report had been prepared in respect of a youth: s 38(1) of the CYPA.

6. Mr Adriel Tham, an investigating probation officer from the Ministry of Social and Family Development, prepared that report. Mr Tham assessed that the youth had anti-social proclivities that, if left unaddressed, would likely lead to further offending. These proclivities included theft, underage smoking, physical aggression, and incestuous behaviour. Exacerbating these proclivities was his general defiance of authority and his inability to abide by structure or routine. Worse, his mother, who was his primary caregiver, lacked the capacity to supervise him. In these circumstances, Mr Tham concluded that the rehabilitation of the youth was best served by committing him to a JRC for 24 months.

7. The Prosecution did not disagree with the assessment of Mr Tham that a 24-month placement in a JRC would conduce to the rehabilitation of the youth. But it maintained that the gravity of the offence had been committed justified a 36-month placement in a JRC. It argued that even as rehabilitation was a key focus of the Youth Court, this focus "can be diminished or eclipsed by considerations of deterrence or retribution where the circumstances warrant". It urged me to give effect to such deterrence and retribution by imposing the "maximum term of detention" in a JRC because the offence involved "predatory behaviour vis-à-vis vulnerable victims".

8. The parents of the youth admitted that they had struggled and would struggle to supervise him in the community. They therefore accepted that it was in his best interests to place him in a JRC. Nevertheless, they asked that this placement be limited than 24 months, within which time they hoped that he would change for the better. Unusually, they also asked to have his younger sister, who was the victim in the offence that was the subject of these proceedings, attend in court to watch the pronouncement of any dispositional orders in respect of the youth. They explained that this would allow her to see that justice had been done and facilitate her recovery from his acts.

9. I declined this request. There was no evidence that witnessing the pronouncement of dispositional orders for of the youth would facilitate his sister’s recovery from his offence. His sister was barely 11 years of age. It was doubtful that she possessed the maturity to understand these proceedings. Indeed, she did not even appear to have understood the significance of the act that was the subject of the offence. Her participation in these proceedings would be of scarce benefit to her. This would not conduce to her welfare or best interests. In any event, my focus in these proceedings was the welfare of the youth and not that of his sister. That welfare would not be furthered by publicising the proceedings in which dispositional orders were made for the youth, even if the publication was only to the extent of his sister. Citing s 46(1) of the CYPA, Amy Tung DJ in Public Prosecutor v GFM (a minor) [2023] SGYC 4 observed that the law strives to insulate from stigmatisation youth offenders dealt with in the Youth Court (at [50]). In a related vein, s 10 of the Family Justice Act 2014 (2020 Rev Ed) provides requires that all matters and proceedings in a Family Justice Court, which includes a Youth Court, “must be heard in private”. Incongruous it would have therefore been to publicise these proceedings simply for a non-party to realise some benefit from watching the pronouncement of the youth’s deserts.

10. Returning to the dispositional orders for the youth, everyone agreed that a stint in a JRC would promote his welfare and best interests. I had the same view. The youth struggled with behavioural issues that made impracticable his rehabilitation in the community. He had, since 2018, been placed on care and protection orders because of the harms that he presented to himself and others as...