Wong Soon Lee v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 17 September 2002
• Neutral Citation: [2002] SGHC 216
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 72 of 2002
• Date: 17 September 2002
• Year: 2002
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Appellant in person
• Citation: [2002] SGHC 216
• Defendant Counsel: Hamidul Haq and Hui Choon Kuen (Deputy Public Prosecutors)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Whether caning sentence manifestly excessive,Whether accused claiming trial adversely affects sentence,Sentencing,Sentence of 12 months' imprisonment and three strokes of cane,Accused having young son with rare blood disease,Using criminal force knowing it to be likely to outrage modesty,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,s 354 Penal Code (Cap 224),Whether prison sentence manifestly excessive,Mitigation,Whether hardship caused to son because of accused's imprisonment carries any mitigating value,Benchmark sentence for outrage of modesty cases,Accused having antecedents not strictly similar to present offence,Whether judge can take such antecedents into account

Judgment

GROUNDS OF DECISION

The appellant was convicted in the district court on one count of outrage of modesty pursuant to s 354 of the Penal Code (Cap 224) and was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment and three strokes of the cane. Initially, the appellant appealed against both conviction and sentence. Subsequently, at the hearing on 3 September, the appellant dropped his appeal on conviction and proceeded with his appeal on sentence only. I allowed his appeal in part. I allowed the sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment to remain but set aside the three strokes of the cane. I now give my reasons.

The facts

2 The appellant was charged as follows:

You,

Name: Wong Soon Lee, M/44 years

NRIC No: S 1252347E

Nationality: Singaporean

DOB: 13.03.1957

are charged that you, on the 26^th day of July 2001, sometime after 9pm, inside the premises of "Take Off" pub located at Paramount Shopping Centre along Katong Road, Singapore, did use criminal force on one Nah Sze Ling, F/24 years old, to wit, by touching her breast with your left hand, knowing it to be likely that you will thereby outrage the modesty of the said Nah Sze Lin, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 354 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.

3 On 26 July 2001, at around 8 p.m., the complainant Nah Sze Ling Tricia ("Tricia") went to the Take-Off Pub ("the pub") at Paramount Shopping Centre with her friend Doreen Leong Siew Peng ("Doreen"). Both of them were flight stewardesses at the time of the incident. The pub belonged to Kelly, a colleague of the two flight stewardesses.

4 When Tricia and Doreen arrived, they went to sit at the bar counter. The appellant was already there. They did not notice him at first, but, after a while, they realised that he was staring at them. He tried to get their attention by mumbling something to them. Doreen and Tricia ignored him. He then shouted at them, saying that if they were not happy, they need not sit there. Doreen and Tricia noticed that he was drunk and slurring in his speech.

5 Tricia and Doreen then complained to Kelley about the appellant’s behaviour. Kelley told the appellant that Doreen was his wife and asked him to leave them alone. This was in fact not true, but it seemed to work as the appellant stopped trying to harass them. After a while, however, the appellant started staring at them again.

6 After that, three more of Tricia’s colleagues arrived: Ng May Na ("May Na"), Ang Teck Cheng ("TC") and Penny Yong Pin Fong ("Penny"). They joined Tricia and Doreen at the bar counter. Upon arrival, Tricia and Doreen told them about how the appellant had been staring at them. TC went up to the appellant and told him to relax, have a drink and not disturb the girls. TC heard the appellant reply something along the lines of, "she’s the boss’ wife, it’s okay, never mind, it’s okay". TC then placed himself between the appellant and Tricia. Subsequently, the appellant reached out across TC and touched Tricia’s left breast. Tricia exclaimed and slapped the appellant before running out of the pub. TC, Penny and May Na witnessed the appellant touching Tricia’s left breast.

7 Tricia and her friends subsequently called the police. At about 9.47 p.m., Sgt James Siew ("Sgt Siew") arrived at the scene. He saw Tricia and Doreen crying and looking upset. Sgt Siew then interviewed the appellant and observed that he smelt of alcohol. The appellant was sent to Changi General Hospital for a medical examination and was examined by one Dr. Goh Ting Hui ("Dr. Goh"). Dr. Goh noted that he smelt of alcohol. A blood sample was collected from the appellant at 2.10 a.m. A blood test conducted on the sample revealed that there was 191 mg ethanol per 100 ml of blood.

8 The respondent’s case below was that the appellant had intentionally touched the left breast of the complainant with his left hand knowing it to be likely that he would thereby outrage her modesty. The appellant’s case below was that he had drunk a lot of alcohol that evening. Prior to drinking at the pub, he had been to one Barrel Pub in Siglap at about 4 p.m. where he drank about three to four glasses of beer and whiskey. After that, he proceeded to the pub where he continued drinking whiskey. He claimed that, when he woke up at the police lock-up, he had no recollection of what had taken place in the pub.

The decision below

9 The trial judge found that the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the accused on the charge. In sentencing the appellant, the trial judge noted that the benchmark sentence for outrage of modesty cases where the victim’s private parts or sexual organs are intruded is a nine month jail term and caning: see Chandresh Patel v PP [1995] 1 CLAS 323. She also noted that the appellant had previous brushes with the law arising from excessive alcohol consumption. In August 1986 he was fined and disqualified from driving for one year for drink driving. Again, in July 1989, he was fined and disqualified for driving for two years for failing to provide a blood/urine specimen for testing under s 69 of the Road Traffic Act. The trial judge also found that the appellant had voluntarily induced his state of drunkenness and he had done so in a public place. Therefore, it was quite foreseeable that he could have caused trouble to himself and the people around him. In light of these factors, the trial judge was of the view that a sentence above the benchmark should be imposed and ordered the appellant to be sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment and three strokes of the cane.

Appeal against sentence

10 In his...