BMD v Public Prosecutor: Rape & Sexual Assault of Intellectually Disabled Victim
BMD was convicted in the High Court on six charges of rape and sexual assault by penetration against his mildly retarded half-sister. The offences allegedly occurred over two nights in March 2010. BMD appealed against both conviction and sentence. The Court of Appeal of Singapore, comprising Chao Hick Tin JA, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA, and Quentin Loh J, dismissed the appeal, finding no reason to disturb the trial judge's findings on the credibility of witnesses and concluding that the sentences were not manifestly excessive.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
BMD appeals against conviction and sentence for rape and sexual assault of his mildly retarded half-sister. The Court of Appeal dismisses the appeal.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Ng Cheng Thiam of Attorney-General’s Chambers Lin Yinbing of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| BMD | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Sujatha Selvakumar of Law Society Pro Bono Services Office |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Quentin Loh | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Ng Cheng Thiam | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Lin Yinbing | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Pradeep Pillai | Shook Lin & Bok LLP |
| Sujatha Selvakumar | Law Society Pro Bono Services Office |
4. Facts
- The appellant was charged with six counts of sexual offences against his half-sister.
- The victim is mildly retarded with an IQ of 58.
- The alleged offences occurred over two nights in the appellant's flat.
- The victim had sex with an Indian man after the alleged offences.
- The appellant's wife initially gave statements implicating the appellant but later recanted in court.
- DNA evidence did not match the appellant.
- The victim claimed she was forced to comply out of fear of the appellant.
5. Formal Citations
- BMD v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Appeal No 5 of 2013, [2015] SGCA 70
- Public Prosecutor v BMD, , [2013] SGHC 235
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Alleged offences began | |
| Alleged offences ended | |
| Appellant arrested and remanded in custody | |
| High Court found the Appellant guilty of all six charges | |
| Appeal first heard | |
| Appeal hearing | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Credibility of Witness Testimony
- Outcome: The court upheld the trial judge's assessment of the victim's credibility, finding her testimony to be truthful despite inconsistencies and initial failure to disclose information.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Inconsistencies in testimony
- Failure to disclose information
- Mental capacity of witness
- Related Cases:
- [2012] 3 SLR 34
- [1997] 2 SLR(R) 569
- [1960] MLJ 238
- [2015] UKPC 44
- [1955] AC 370
- Admissibility of Evidence
- Outcome: The court found that the trial judge did not err in admitting the wife's statements to the police as evidence, as there is no requirement to prove voluntariness for witness statements under s 147 of the Evidence Act.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Voluntariness of statements
- Impeachment of witness testimony
- Substitution of prior statements
- Related Cases:
- [2001] 1 SLR(R) 362
- Manifest Excessiveness of Sentence
- Outcome: The court held that the sentences were not manifestly excessive, considering the vulnerability of the victim and the aggravating factors present in the case.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Categorization of rape offences
- Aggravating factors
- Familial relationship
- Related Cases:
- [2006] 4 SLR(R) 849
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against Conviction
- Appeal against Sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Rape
- Sexual Assault by Penetration
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
- Sexual Assault Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AOF v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 3 SLR 34 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a complainant's testimony can constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt if it is unusually convincing. |
| Lee Kwang Peng v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR(R) 569 | Singapore | Cited for the rule that the evidence of child witnesses is not taken at face value. |
| Chao Chong & Ors v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [1960] MLJ 238 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that children find it difficult to distinguish between reality and fantasy. |
| The Queen v Crawford (Cayman Islands) | Privy Council | Yes | [2015] UKPC 44 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that an appellate court should be slow to disturb findings of fact by a trial judge which are dependent on oral evidence. |
| Benmax v Austin Motor Co Ltd | House of Lords | Yes | [1955] AC 370 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that the judge may be led to a conclusion about a witness’s credibility by material not available to an appeal court. |
| The King v Baskerville | Court of King's Bench | No | [1916] 2 KB 658 | United Kingdom | Cited regarding the Baskerville standard for corroboration. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mohammed Liton Mohammed Syeed Mallik | High Court | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 601 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that what is important is the substance as well as the relevance of the evidence, and whether it is supportive or confirmative of the weak evidence which it is meant to corroborate. |
| Thiruselvam s/o Nagaratnam v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2001] 1 SLR(R) 362 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there is no requirement under s 147 of the Evidence Act for the party seeking to admit the evidence to prove that a witness made the statement voluntarily. |
| Public Prosecutor v NF | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 849 | Singapore | Cited for the benchmark for sentencing in rape cases. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 375(2) | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 376(2)(a) | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 376(3) | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 376(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) s 8(3) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) s 124 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act s 147(3) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 307(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 328 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code, Cap 68 s 369 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Rape
- Sexual Assault
- Penetration
- Mental Retardation
- Credibility
- DNA Evidence
- Voluntariness
- Sentencing
- Familial Rape
- Corroboration
15.2 Keywords
- rape
- sexual assault
- intellectual disability
- evidence
- appeal
- Singapore
- criminal law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Sexual Offences | 95 |
| Rape | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Penal Code | 70 |
| Criminal Procedure | 60 |
| Sentencing | 60 |
| Evidence | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Sexual Offences
- Evidence
- Appeals