Soh Yang Tick v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 14 January 1998
• Neutral Citation: [1998] SGHC 15
• Date: 14 January 1998
• Subject Matter: Relevant considerations,Independence of supporting evidence,Applicable principles -s 354 Penal Code (Cap 224),s 159 Evidence Act (Cap 97),Using criminal force with intent to outrage modesty,Whether failure to make early police report fatal,Evidence,Offences,Sexual offences,Reliance on victim's testimony alone,Criminal Law
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 37 of 1997
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Defendant Counsel: Lim Jit Hee (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Tan Soo Kiang (Wee Swee Teow & Co)

Judgment:

YONG PUNG HOW CJ

This is an appeal by the appellant against the decision of the trial judge convicting him of two counts of outraging modesty under s 354 of the Penal Code (Cap 224) (`the Code`). He was sentenced to six months` imprisonment on the first charge and two months` imprisonment on the second charge. In addition, he also pleaded guilty to a third charge of possessing undesirable materials under the Undesirable Publications Act (Cap 338). He was fined a sum of $1,000. I allowed the appeal in respect of the first conviction and dismissed the appeal against the second conviction but altered the sentence to a fine of $2,000. I now give my reasons for so doing.

2. The charge

The appellant was charged with two counts of outraging modesty as follows:

(i) That you, Soh Yang Tick @ Soh Yang Kok, m 49 yrs, are charged that you, on 30 April 1996 between 3pm and 4.20pm, at No 1 Keong Siak Road #01-01 AIA Tanjong Pagar Building, Singapore, did use criminal force on one [PW2], , intending to outrage the modesty of the said person, to wit, by using your right hand to touch her back and abdomen and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 354 of the Penal Code (Cap 224).

(ii) That you, Soh Yang Tick @ Soh Yang Kok, m 49 yrs, are charged that you, on 7 May 1996 at about 7.30pm, at No 1 Keong Siak Road #01-01, AIA Tanjong Pagar Building, Singapore, did use criminal force on one [PW2], , intending to outrage the modesty of the said person, to wit, by using your right hand to hit her buttock and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 354 of the Penal Code (Cap 224).

3. The prosecution`s case

The victim in this case was a 27 year old married female (`PW2`). She was the main prosecution witness, the others being her husband (`PW1`) and her close and personal friend (`PW3`). Insofar as PW1 and PW3`s evidence were material and relevant, they supported PW2`s version of the events after the offences had been allegedly committed by the appellant. The prosecution also called four other witnesses, and they were, in order, Mangat Ram (`PW4`), Lim Cheng Wah (`PW5`), Gan Kim Kee (`PW6`) and Veronica Tan (`PW7`). However, their evidence was formal in nature and immaterial to the offences in question, as they were either investigating officers in charge of the investigation of the offences or officers of the Telecommunication Authority of Singapore (`TAS`), who verified the truth and authenticity of the numerous telephone records adduced as evidence in the court below by both the prosecution and the defence.

4.At the time of the alleged offence, PW2 was working as a secretary of the appellant. She had been employed only recently, and her job as a secretary was mainly administrative. It was not in dispute that PW2 first met the appellant while she was still a passenger services agent at Changi Airport. Then, the appellant had asked if she was interested in becoming an insurance agent, an offer which she declined. Nevertheless, they exchanged their contact numbers.

5.A few days later, the appellant contacted her again. They met up once, at the Europa Lounge in the East Coast, but the appellant left shortly after arriving there as he found the place too rowdy to his liking.

6.In January 1996, the appellant placed an advertisement for a secretary in the papers, after one of his two secretaries left the job. PW2 responded to this advertisement, and the appellant hired her subsequently, as he felt, amongst others, that she was willing to learn, had realistic salary expectations and seemed keen to upgrade her skills. On the evening of 1 February 1996, after the appellant had interviewed her, they had dinner at his house with one Wendy Tan (`DW6`), a close friend of the appellant`s. That same night, DW6 did a facial on PW2 using `Nuskin`, a skin care product which the appellant was promoting as part of his diversion into the cosmetic business with DW6. PW2 subsequently started working for the appellant on 26 February 1996.

7.On the day of the first offence, 30 April 1996, PW2 claimed she arrived at the office slightly late that morning. She therefore went and apologised to the appellant, who was already in his room. PW2 recounted the events which occurred. According to her, the appellant asked her to close the door. He said there were rashes on her face and asked if she was stressed, and, if so, why. PW2 replied that it was due to the heavy workload. The appellant then asked when was the last time she made love with her husband, a question which she did not reply to. He persisted in his questioning but she kept quiet.

8.At this juncture, this conversation was interrupted by a telephone call. Consequently, the appellant left for a meeting. Although PW2 could not confirm what meeting it was, she maintained that it was a meeting which was held within the AIA premises. She also confirmed that she did not, at that time or at any time soon after tell anyone about what had just happened with the appellant.

9.That afternoon, PW2 lunched with Sharon Chan (`DW2`), who was the other secretary of the appellant. PW2 made no mention of what occurred in the morning. Thereafter, DW2 left for the AIA headquarters at Raffles Place. PW2 also remembered that DW6 came to the appellant`s office while he was still at his meeting. One Anna Toh (`DW7`), who was helping DW6 to sell Nuskin products, was also in the office at that time.

10.PW2 testified that the appellant returned to his office after the meeting at about 1pm. He proceeded to have lunch with DW6. At about 3pm, he returned again to the office. At this time, only DW7 and her friend, Stella Goh, were in the office.

11.The appellant then asked PW2 to come to his room. Again, he asked her to shut the door. This time however, PW2 said the appellant asked her if she believed he could satisfy her. He also made several suggestive comments. All this while, PW2 kept quiet, as she was afraid and confused.

12.The appellant then started describing the things that he would do to her if they were alone in a hotel room. He continued making lewd remarks, and often pestered PW2 for her reactions to these remarks. PW2 claimed she felt disgusted with the appellant, and thus kept quiet. However, after much pestering from the appellant, she finally replied, thinking that some reaction would silence the appellant. It did not.

13.At this moment, the appellant stood up and walked towards his safe, from which he took out a pornographic book, and he read the entire foreword to her. Just before this, the appellant also asked her to close the blinds in this office, but he finally had to do this himself when she had difficulty closing them. Thereafter, the appellant took out another book and proceeded also to read parts of the foreword to her. While reading, PW2 claimed that the appellant tried to touch her, but she moved away. During the trial, PW2 identified these two books and confirmed the forewords which were read to her.

14.After reading the two books, the appellant got up and asked PW2 to embrace him. She refused, and only gave him a light touch on his arm. The appellant sat down and asked PW2 to walk towards him. She did so. He put out his hand to reach for PW2`s private parts. She stepped backwards and stopped his hand. PW2 then said that the appellant re-assured her, and put his hand inside the jacket which she was wearing and touched her back. He moved his right hand slowly from her back towards her abdomen.

15.PW2 explained she was really frightened and lost, and did not know what to do. She did not scream, nor did she put up any resistance. The appellant continued touching her, moving his right hand from her abdomen and towards her breasts. At this moment, PW2 came back to her senses and instinctively pushed his hand away. She felt very offended. Just then, they were interrupted. During the trial, PW2 admitted she could not remember what it was that interrupted them. Thereafter, the appellant opened the blinds and PW2 left his room.

16.PW2 claimed that, after she came out of the appellant`s room, she immediately told DW2 what had happened. DW2 had now returned to the office from the AIA headquarters. According to her, DW2 warned her about the appellant. During the trial, however, DW2 denied ever being approached by PW2 to confide in her, nor did she warn PW2 to be careful of the appellant.

17.PW2 continued to work until past 7pm that day. Before she left that evening, she alleged the appellant came up to her from behind and put his hand on her shoulder. He whispered into her ear that she was like a little girl.

18.Two days after this incident, PW2 took medical leave. This was on 3 and 4 May 1996. The following week, she told a good friend, Cindy Ng (`Cindy`) about what had happened. Cindy`s advice was that she should resign and lodge a police report. PW2 also confided in PW3 about the appellant`s behaviour, and PW3 confirmed this. PW3`s reaction was that she should either report the matter to AIA`s headquarters or lodge a police report. Since PW2 was not keen to report the matter to the police, PW3 therefore wrote a letter to AIA`s headquarters on her behalf complaining about the appellant`s behaviour. However, PW2 did not see the contents of this letter. In the trial below, this letter was exhibited as part of the prosecution`s case.

19.Other than Cindy and PW3, PW2 also mentioned the same incident to PW1 and Anthony Ng, another friend of hers.

20.On 7 May 1996, less than a week after the first alleged incident, PW2 claimed that the appellant outraged her modesty again. This time however, the circumstances were quite different. That day, at about 7.30pm, just before PW2 was about to leave the office with DW2 after work, the appellant came out of his office and was surprised to see DW2 and PW2 still there. The appellant then remarked to PW2 that she would make a good insurance agent even though she had taken several off days for medical reasons...