Yue Roger Jr v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Court: Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
• Judge: Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA,Judith Prakash JA,Steven Chong JA
• Judgment Date: 22 February 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] SGCA 12
• Citation: [2019] SGCA 12
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No 11 of 2018
• Subject Matter: Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Offences,Sentencing,Criminal Law,Rape
• Defendant Counsel: David Khoo and Winston Man (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Peter Keith Fernando, Kavita Pandey and Renuga Devi (Leo Fernando LLC)
• Date: 22 February 2019
• Published date: 27 February 2019
• Hearing Date: 22 February 2019

Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA (delivering the judgment of the court ex tempore):

The appellant, Roger Yue Jr, was convicted by the High Court of seven charges proceeded with at trial, namely, two charges for rape of a minor under 14 years of age, punishable under s 375(1)(b) read with s 375(2) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed), and five charges for sexual penetration of a minor under 14 years of age, punishable under s 376A(1)(a)/s 376A(1)(b) read with s 376A(3) of the Penal Code. These offences were committed against the same victim. The appellant was sentenced to a global imprisonment term of 25 years (see Public Prosecutor v Yue Roger Jr [2018] SGHC 125).

Our decision Conviction

Having carefully considered the appellant’s as well as the Prosecution’s written and oral submissions, we agree with the reasoning and decision of the trial judge on conviction. The trial judge had carefully considered all the relevant evidence as well as arguments in meticulous detail. The Prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant committed two offences of statutory rape and five offences of sexual penetration of a minor under 14 years of age.

First, the trial judge was right to find that the victim’s testimony was on the whole believable and credible. Moreover, the appellant had adduced no evidence to show that the victim had any motive to falsely accuse him. The mere fact that the victim did not complain in a timely manner and had remained in contact with the appellant over the extended duration of the abuse did not rob her of credibility. The trial judge accepted the victim’s explanation for her behaviour, and he was sensitive to the fact that people react in different ways to sexual abuse, including compartmentalising or rationalising their reactions. The trial judge was also particularly sensitive to the fact that a child may react very differently from an adult. We agree with the trial judge’s assessment. This was not an assessment for which the trial judge required psychiatric evidence, especially since the appellant never raised the point that psychiatric evidence was needed to evaluate the victim’s behaviour. There is no basis for the appellant to now argue on appeal that the trial judge needed psychiatric evidence to explain the victim’s behaviour.

Second, the trial judge was right to find that the Prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant’s second statement to the police had...