Yue Roger Jr v Public Prosecutor

JurisdictionSingapore
CourtCourt of Three Judges (Singapore)
JudgeAndrew Phang Boon Leong JA,Judith Prakash JA,Steven Chong JA
Judgment Date22 February 2019
Neutral Citation[2019] SGCA 12
Citation[2019] SGCA 12
Docket NumberCriminal Appeal No 11 of 2018
Subject MatterCriminal Procedure and Sentencing,Offences,Sentencing,Criminal Law,Rape
Defendant CounselDavid Khoo and Winston Man (Attorney-General's Chambers)
Plaintiff CounselPeter Keith Fernando, Kavita Pandey and Renuga Devi (Leo Fernando LLC)
Date22 February 2019
Published date27 February 2019
Hearing Date22 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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Public Prosecutor v Rozilawaty binte Eddy Rosmanah
    • Singapore
    • District Court (Singapore)
    • 3 April 2020
    ...SGCA 64, and Public Prosecutor v Isham bin Kayubi [2020] SGHC 44. For s 376(3) of the Penal Code, see Yue Roger Jr v Public Prosecutor [2019] SGCA 12. For s 376(4)(b) of the Penal Code, see Public Prosecutor v BRH [2020] SGHC 52 Seng Hwee Kwang v Public Prosecutor (Oral Judgment, 15 Februar......
  • Public Prosecutor v Natarajan Baskaran and Venkatachalam Thirumurugan
    • Singapore
    • District Court (Singapore)
    • 9 October 2019
    ...[10]-[20], and Public Prosecutor v BVZ [2019] SGHC 83 at [49]-[62]. For s 376(3) of the Penal Code, see Yue Roger Jr v Public Prosecutor [2019] SGCA 12. 25 Seng Hwee Kwang v Public Prosecutor (Oral Judgment, 15 February 2017, Magistrate’s Appeal No 26 For sections 3 and 6 of the Prevention ......
  • Public Prosecutor v Ibrahim bin Bajuri
    • Singapore
    • District Court (Singapore)
    • 13 April 2020
    ...SGCA 64, and Public Prosecutor v Isham bin Kayubi [2020] SGHC 44. For s 376(3) of the Penal Code, see Yue Roger Jr v Public Prosecutor [2019] SGCA 12. For s 376(4)(b) of the Penal Code, see Public Prosecutor v BRH [2020] SGHC 43 Seng Hwee Kwang v Public Prosecutor (Oral Judgment, 15 Februar......
  • Public Prosecutor v Wee Teong Boo and other appeal and another matter
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 10 June 2020
    ...v Yue Roger Jr [2019] 3 SLR 749 (“Yue Roger”) at [34] (a decision that was affirmed by this court in Yue Roger Jr v Public Prosecutor [2019] 1 SLR 829 at [3]): … People react in different ways to sexual abuse and may compartmentalise or rationalise their reactions. A calm, undisturbed dispo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT