Siew Yit Beng v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 03 August 2000
• Neutral Citation: [2000] SGHC 157
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 322 of 1999
• Date: 03 August 2000
• Year: 2000
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Teo Siew Kuey (Chang Teo & Partners)
• Citation: [2000] SGHC 157
• Defendant Counsel: Jennifer Marie and Gilbert Koh (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: information to police,s 90(a) Penal Code (Cap 224),Understands nature of sexual act,Admissibility of evidence,Evidence,Whether that amounts to inducement, threat or promise,Consent,Accused shown result of polygraph test,Whether sentences excessive for false allegation of rape,No remorse by accused,Accused making cautioned statement,Accused confesses to lying,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Whether consent vitiated,Whether being shown result of polygraph test renders confession inadmissible,Whether confession and cautioned statement show knowledge of commission of offence,Criminal Law,Admissibility of confession,General exceptions,Sentencing,Offences

: Introduction

The appellant was charged with two counts of knowingly giving false information to the police when she alleged that she had been raped by one Tan Eng Huat (`Tan`), an offence punishable under s 182 of the Penal Code (Cap 224). She was convicted on both charges and was sentenced to four weeks` imprisonment on each charge. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. She appealed against both her conviction and sentence. Having considered the submissions, I dismissed the appeal and I now set out my reasons.

The background

The appellant was a 40-year-old housewife who had been seeking medical treatment from Tan, her Chinese physician, for aches and pain in various parts of her body for about eight years. On 14 July 1998, the appellant lodged a police report alleging that Tan had outraged her modesty. Corporal Edmund Yong (PW1) recorded a statement from her in which she claimed that she had on various occasions since November 1996 consulted Tan regarding the pain in her spine, left knee and stomach. On the pretext of improving her blood circulation, Tan molested her by massaging her breasts and the areas under her armpits. He also allegedly fondled her nipples.

About a month later, on 21 September 1998, the appellant informed the police that she had more facts to add to her earlier statement. On 22 September 1998, Sgt Eddie Sim Hark Beng (PW2) recorded a further statement from her (exh P5). Apart from affirming the molest incidents, she added that she was raped by Tan at his clinic-cum-residence on 20 June 1998 during her medical treatment. In a further statement dated 23 September 1998 (exh P6), which was also recorded by PW2, the appellant gave more details of the alleged rape. Exhibits P5 and P6 (collectively referred to as the `police statements`) formed the basis of the present charges against the appellant.

On 3 April 1999, Senior Sgt Young Khow Ming (PW3) recorded a further statement from the appellant (exh P7) in the presence of W/Sgt Khairani (PW4). According to him, he needed to clarify more facts with the appellant as the latter had undergone a polygraph test earlier and had been found to be untruthful. During this interview, she retracted her earlier allegations of rape and admitted that they were false because her sexual relationship with Tan was in truth consensual. She explained in the statement that her husband found out about their sexual relationship after reading a letter dated 21 September 1998 (exh D1) from Tan`s lawyers. She gave the false statement because she was afraid that her husband might divorce her if he knew the truth. For ease of reference, I will refer to this statement as the `confession`.

On 20 May 1999, the present charges were brought against her. In her cautioned statement, she did not deny the charges. She stated, "I hope for leniency as my daughter is still young. I ask for a fine sentence. Also I`m going for a surgical operation."

Evidence of the prosecution

At all material times, Tan was a Chinese physician who specialised in finger-massaging. He was introduced to the appellant about ten years ago by a friend of hers. Tan denied all the allegations of molest and rape but he admitted to having a sexual relationship with the appellant. He said that he had sexual intercourse with her on two occasions when the appellant came for treatment, the first time in March 1998 and the second time about three weeks later. According to him, she seduced him into having sexual intercourse with her in the hope that he would cure her of her illness. At first, he was unwilling to accept her sexual advances but he eventually succumbed when she stroked his private parts with her hands. On the second occasion, the appellant again used titillating words to encourage him to have sexual intercourse with her. He testified that she said, as long as he could cure her of her illness, she would let him `play with her`. Tan gave her $100 and $50 respectively after intercourse on both occasions, claiming that he did it out of guilt and also because the appellant had frequently complained about her financial difficulties.

The appellant continued to seek treatment from him after these two occasions. According to Tan, the appellant told him that she consulted other physicians for a month or two after the second incident but none of them could cure her of her illness. Therefore, she resumed treatment with Tan.

On 15 July 1998, the appellant telephoned Tan`s wife Tan Ah Juan (PW6). As a result of what was said during this conversation, PW6 confronted Tan and the latter admitted that he had an illicit affair with the appellant. That marked the beginning of the deterioration of the relationship between Tan and the appellant. Their relationship soured further when the appellant kept demanding to be cured by Tan. In August 1998, she began harassing him by visiting him almost every day and even threatened to commit suicide by jumping off his block of flats if he did not cure her.

Because of her demands and also because his wife asked him to, Tan continued to give treatment to the appellant. However, he could not cure her of her ailments. Eventually, he and his wife agreed to give the appellant $400 for her to seek treatment elsewhere as the appellant claimed that she had spent all her money on consultation fees. The appellant accepted the money but continued to harass them. On Tan`s instructions, his lawyer sent a letter dated 21 September 1998 (exh D1) to the appellant warning her to cease all forms of harassment and nuisance immediately or face legal action. It was also stated in this letter that the appellant seduced Tan and that they had sexual relations.

PW6 testified that as far as she knew, apart from the incidents involving the appellant, her husband did not have any sexual relationship with his other female patients. PW6 was on familiar terms with the appellant. Sometime in July 1998, the appellant called her on the telephone and told her that Tan `did not want to treat her`. She also said that Tan `dared not treat her` and she wanted PW6 to persuade Tan to continue the treatment. The appellant further claimed that Tan had `touched` her which PW6 understood to mean that Tan had molested her. PW6 was certain that the appellant did not allege that Tan had sexual intercourse with her. She only came to know about it when she confronted Tan later regarding the allegation of molest and Tan admitted that he had sexual intercourse with the appellant.

PW6 testified that she and Tan decided to give the appellant $400 to consult other physicians. She said that they were under a lot of pressure to find a cure for her due to her constant harassment. In spite of her anger over the affair, PW6 nevertheless persuaded her husband to try his best to cure the appellant. She pitied the appellant because she was in constant pain and she kept asking her to get Tan to help her.

The defence

The appellant gave evidence that she first sought treatment for her aches and pains from Tan in 1990. He earned her trust by successfully treating her for the pain in her leg, spine and left shoulder. However, Tan started making sexual advances towards her in 1996 or 1997. She claimed that Tan massaged and pressed many areas on her body, including the areas below her armpits and around her breasts under the pretence of giving her treatment and to improve her blood circulation. She testified that Tan discovered a lump in her breast in November 1997 and told her that it was a bruise. He added that it would turn cancerous if it was not massaged properly and she would then have to undergo an operation. Tan allegedly told her not to consult any other doctor and that he could cure the lump for her. Thus, she went back to Tan for treatment periodically, believing that he was the only one who could cure her.

The first incident of rape took place on 4 May 1998. The appellant arrived at Tan`s flat for treatment. After removing her brassiere during the treatment, Tan took off his shirt and sat behind her to massage her neck. He then hugged her from behind and asked her to `let him play` or he would not cure her. She refused. However, Tan persisted and made certain pornographic suggestions to her. He also promised her that he would cure her after that. He then dragged her to a mattress and tried to take off her shorts but he had some difficulty with that. At his request, the appellant took them off herself. After intercourse, Tan continued with his treatment. Before she left, he gave her $50 for her daughter, who was ill at that time, to consult a doctor. She refused and told him that she was not a prostitute.

The second incident took place on 20 June 1998. Tan called her and promised her treatment if she `let him play` a second time. The appellant asked him if he would treat her if she refused his request. He replied in the negative and told her that it was up to her to decide whether she could `bear the pain`. The appellant acceded to his request. She then arranged for her friend, Lim Kuy Yok Pauline (DW2), to baby-sit her daughter because Tan specifically told her not to bring her daughter along. Again, Tan gave her some treatment first before having sexual intercourse with her. This was followed by more treatment. This time, he gave her $100 and she again refused. However, she subsequently accepted it when Tan told her that he would not treat her if she rejected the money.

In July 1998, Tan called her and asked her if she wanted to `play` the third time. Again, he promised to cure her if she let him play. The appellant felt very cheated and angry. She did not go to Tan`s flat. She called Tan`s wife later and told her about the molest. The appellant testified that she felt `cheated` because she believed Tan when he told her that he was the only one who could have cured her. She maintained that she did not let him have sex with her willingly.

She also explained that she did not mention the rape incidents in...