Tan Yao Min v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: See Kee Oon J
• Judgment Date: 07 December 2017
• Neutral Citation: [2017] SGHC 311
• Plaintiff Counsel: The appellant in person
• Docket Number: Magistrate’s Appeal No 9181 of 2017
• Date: 07 December 2017
• Hearing Date: 20 September 2017
• Subject Matter: Sentencing,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Offences,Statutory offences,Criminal Law,Unlawful stalking,Intentionally causing alarm,Criminal Intimidation,Mentally disordered offenders,Protection from Harassment Act
• Published date: 12 December 2017
• Defendant Counsel: Yang Ziliang (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Citation: [2017] SGHC 311
• Year: 2017

See Kee Oon J: Introduction

This was an appeal against sentence imposed by the District Court in respect of three charges arising from the appellant’s obsession with a pair of biological sisters, who were 14 and 18 years old at the material time (referred to as “the younger sister” and “the elder sister” respectively, and collectively as “the sisters”). The appellant’s conduct represented an alarming escalation of his previous conduct in respect of the sisters in October 2010 and March 2015, for which he had undergone a 30-month term in a juvenile home and subsequently 15 months’ supervised probation for each respective set of offences.

In the present case, the appellant pleaded guilty to three charges – one charge of criminal intimidation under s 506 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“the Penal Code”) (“the criminal intimidation charge”), one charge of unlawful stalking under s 7(1) punishable under s 7(6) of the Protection from Harassment Act (Cap 256A, 2015 Rev Ed) (“the POHA”) (“the stalking charge”), and one charge of intentionally causing alarm under s 3(1)(b) punishable under s 3(2) of the POHA (“the alarm charge”). In addition, he consented to have three other charges under ss 3(1)(a), 3(1)(b) and 7(6) of the POHA (“the TIC charges”) in respect of the sisters taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing.

The appellant admitted to the Statement of Facts (“the SOF”) without qualification and the District Judge sentenced him to: Ten months’ imprisonment in respect of the criminal intimidation charge; Two weeks’ imprisonment in respect of the alarm charge; and Eight months’ imprisonment in respect of the stalking charge.

The District Judge ordered the sentences in the criminal intimidation charge and the stalking charge to run consecutively, and the appellant thus received a total sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment.

The District Judge’s reasons for his decision are set out in his grounds of decision (“the GD”) found at Public Prosecutor v Tan Yao Min [2017] SGDC 167. After hearing the parties’ submissions, I dismissed the appeal and I now set out the reasons for my decision.

The charges

I begin by first setting out each of the three proceeded charges in question, as reproduced by the District Judge in the GD (at [3]), as follows:

DAC 912700/2017 [(“the criminal intimidation charge”)]

You, … , are charged that you, on the 12 January 2017, at or about 12:30 P.M., at Blk XXX #XXX, Singapore, did commit criminal intimidation by threatening [the elder sister], to wit, by means of placing a handwritten note in the flyer box attached to the door of Block XXX #XXX which belongs to XXX, stating that ‘I like to kill her’, with the threat to cause death to [the elder sister], and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 506 (second limb) of the Penal Code (Chapter 224, 2008 Revised Edition). (sic.)

MAC 901562/2017 [(“the alarm charge”)]

You, … , are charged that you, on the 20 February 2017, at or about 10:00 A.M., at Block XXX #XXX, Singapore, with intent to cause alarm to XXX, did make threatening communications towards the victim, XXX, to wit, by placing two handwritten letters in the flyer box attached to the door of Block XXX #XXX which belongs to XXX, one of which states that,

“I have lost everything in life. The Police has already given me problem. They even want my brother and I to report to them every month. I have a pending case. It will be harder to be employed by the employee. I hate wasting time. I shouldn’t do that to your family. Now it is too late to say anything. I wish to go to prison so that I can serve my sentence. I even have to send to IMH by the Police. I have wasted 2 weeks at IMH. I feel that life is meaningless. Please pass another letter to the police so that I will suffer earlier. I really have those problems”, and

another which states,

“I love your daughter [the younger sister] [which refers to XXX’s granddaughter]. I even think of having sex with her. I love touching her breast because it can help to release my sexual gratification. Please let your second daughter [which also refers to [the younger sister]] to have sex with me. I will pay her money. The most exciting part of her is her body and looks. I want to possess her. I even want to touch your elder daughter [the elder sister] [which also refers to XXX’s granddaughter] because she is too pretty. I can imagine having sex with both of them on a bed. I definitely can do it everyday to prove that I am a man”,

thereby causing alarm to the said XXX, and you have thereby committed an offence under Section 3(1)(b) of the Protection from Harassment Act (Chapter 256A, 2015 Revised Edition), punishable under Section 3(2) of the said Act. (sic.)

MAC 901563/2017 [(“the stalking charge”)]

You, … , are charged that you, between 12 January 2017 to 24 February 2017, in Singapore, did unlawfully stalk one [the younger sister] (“the victim”), by engaging in a course of conduct which involved acts associated with stalking, to wit, the activities of: i. Waiting for her at the bench near Blk XXX, the victim’s place of residence; ii. Following her around the neighbourhood in the vicinity of Blk XXX; iii. Trying to make eye contact with her at the bus stop near Blk XXX; iv. Knocking on the bus window next to her seat on bus number XXX at the traffic junction near XXX; iv. Sending her a “Facebook” invite to add her as a friend on “Facebook” application; v. Adding her friend XXX online as a friend on “Facebook” application; and vi. Visiting her father XXX’s workplace, XXX, to speak to his colleague XXX;

thereby causing harassment, alarm and distress to the said victim, when you ought to have known that your conduct was likely to cause harassment, alarm and distress to the said victim, and you have thereby contravened section 7(1) and committed an offence punishable under section 7(6) of the Protection from Harassment Act (Chapter 256A, 2015 Revised Edition). (sic.)

The facts

The SOF is set out in full at [5] of the GD. In respect of the criminal intimidation charge, on 12 January 2017, the appellant left two handwritten notes in the flyer box at the door of the Housing Development Board (“HDB”) unit belonging to the sisters’ uncle (“the flyer box”). The appellant knew that the sisters lived next door to their uncle and would have access to the notes. The first note stated:

I want to have sex with your elder daughter. It is because I want to make her pregnant. I also want to get aids. I want to rape her so that she will suffer in pain. Your daughter will not love other guy. I like to kill her and make myself suffer. [emphasis added in bold]

The second note stated:

I really lost everything and find that life is meaningless. I cannot study and work. I have no friends who can trust me. I really want to go to Prison because I feel that I am quite stupid. I am not smart even though I was so hardworking. Please report me to the police.

Between 12 January and 24 February 2017, the appellant engaged in a course of conduct in respect of the younger sister that led to the stalking charge. He waited for her at the bench near her block, followed her and tried to make eye-contact with her. He followed her to a bus stop near her home, and when the bus she boarded stopped at a traffic light, he knocked on the window of the bus. He sent her a “Facebook” friend request, and added her friend on “Facebook”. He also visited her father’s workplace to speak with his colleague.

As for the conduct that led to the alarm charge, on 20 February 2017, the appellant placed two handwritten letters in the flyer box, which were discovered by the victims’ 73-year-old grandmother, and which were the subject of the alarm charge. The first note stated:

I love your daughter [referring to the younger sister]. I even think of having sex with her. I love touching her breast because it can help to release my sexual gratification. Please let your second daughter [referring to the younger sister] to have sex with me. I will pay her money. The most exciting part of her is her body and looks. I want to possess her. I even want to touch your elder daughter [referring to the elder sister] because she is too pretty. I imagine having sex with both of them on a bed. I definitely can do it everyday to prove that I am a man.

The second note stated:

I have lost everything in life. The police has already given me problem. They even want my brother and I to report to them every month. I have a pending case. It will be harder to be employed by the employee. I hate wasting time. I shouldn’t do that to your family. Now it is too late to say anything. I wish to go to prison so that I can serve my sentence. I even have to send to IMH by the police. I have wasted 2 weeks at IMH. I feel that life is meaningless. Please pass another letter to the police so that I will suffer earlier. I really have those problems.

The District Judge’s decision

In deciding on an appropriate sentence, the District Judge assessed the harm caused by the appellant’s conduct against the backdrop of the appellant’s similar antecedents in respect of other young girls and the younger sister in 2010, and, again, the younger sister in 2015 (the GD at [19]).

On 11 April 2011, when the appellant was 17 years old, he was found guilty of the first set of offences which involved four charges of mischief under s 426 of the Penal Code, one charge of attempted mischief under s 426 read with s 511 of the Penal Code, and one charge of wrongful confinement under s 342 of the Penal Code (the GD at [7]). Seven charges of mischief were taken into consideration. The six proceeded charges largely related to incidents where the appellant had followed young girls home and written on the walls outside their homes asking their parents to let him have sex with their daughters. In respect of two of those charges,...