PP v Haliffie Bin Mamat: Rape and Robbery Conviction in Car - Singapore High Court
In Public Prosecutor v Haliffie Bin Mamat, the High Court of Singapore found Haliffie Bin Mamat guilty of rape and robbery. The victim, V, accepted a ride from the accused and was subsequently raped and robbed in his car. The court, presided over by Kan Ting Chiu SJ, sentenced the accused to 10 years imprisonment with 6 strokes of the cane for rape and 3 years imprisonment with 12 strokes of the cane for robbery. The accused appealed the rape conviction, but not the robbery conviction.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Guilty verdict for rape and robbery
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Haliffie Bin Mamat was convicted of rape and robbery after offering a woman a ride. The High Court sentenced him to 10 years for rape and 3 years for robbery.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Prosecution | Government Agency | Guilty verdict for rape and robbery | Won | Crystal Tan of Attorney-General’s Chambers Sellakumaran Sellamuthoo of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| HALIFFIE BIN MAMAT | Defendant | Individual | Guilty of rape and robbery | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Kan Ting Chiu | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Crystal Tan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Sellakumaran Sellamuthoo | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Lionel Leo | WongPartnership LLP |
| Joel Chng | WongPartnership LLP |
4. Facts
- V accepted a ride from the accused after failing to find a taxi.
- The accused drove V to a bridge along Kallang Bahru Road.
- V claimed the accused raped her in the car.
- V reported the incident to a taxi driver and police.
- DNA evidence from V's fingernails matched the accused.
- The accused admitted to robbing V but claimed the sex was consensual.
- The accused sold one of V's phones and her EZlink card was recovered from him.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Haliffie Bin Mamat, Criminal Case No 16 of 2014, [2015] SGHC 224
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Rape and robbery occurred | |
| Accused arrested | |
| Accused made cautioned statement | |
| First investigation statement taken from accused | |
| Criminal Case No 16 of 2014 filed | |
| Yunizar Binte Hambali gave evidence | |
| NE 21 May 2015 p82 ll 16–17 | |
| Accused's examination-in-chief | |
| Judgment issued by High Court | |
| Appeals dismissed by Court of Appeal |
7. Legal Issues
- Rape
- Outcome: The court found the accused guilty of rape.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Consent
- Voluntarily causing hurt
- Robbery
- Outcome: The court found the accused guilty of robbery.
- Category: Substantive
- Sentencing
- Outcome: The court imposed consecutive sentences for rape and robbery, totaling 13 years imprisonment and 18 strokes of the cane.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Concurrent vs. Consecutive Sentences
- Totality Principle
- One-Transaction Rule
- Related Cases:
- [2014] 2 SLR 998
- [2006] 4 SLR 849
- [2005] 3 SLR 1
8. Remedies Sought
- Conviction
- Imprisonment
- Caning
9. Cause of Actions
- Rape
- Robbery
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Sexual Assault
- Theft
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mohamed Shouffee bin Adam v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 998 | Singapore | Cited for the considerations for imposing concurrent and consecutive sentences on convictions for multiple offences. |
| Public Prosecutor v NF | Unknown | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR 849 | Singapore | Cited for setting the benchmark sentence for Category 1 rapes at ten years imprisonment and not less than six strokes of the cane. |
| Dinesh Singh Bhatia s/o Amarjeet Singh v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited for explaining the function and use of sentencing benchmarks. |
| Anandagoda v The Queen | Privy Council | Yes | (1962) 28 MLJ 289 | Unknown | Cited for the test of whether a statement is a confession. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code | Singapore |
| section 375(1)(a) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| section 375(3)(a)(i) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| section 392 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Rd) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 23 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Article 35(8) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) | Singapore |
| s 11(1) Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 128(1) Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| section 319 Penal Code | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Rape
- Robbery
- Consent
- Voluntarily causing hurt
- Cautioned statement
- DNA evidence
- Sentencing
- Concurrent sentences
- Consecutive sentences
- Totality principle
- One-transaction rule
15.2 Keywords
- Rape
- Robbery
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
- High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Criminal Law | 95 |
| Penal Code | 90 |
| Sexual Offences | 90 |
| Offences | 80 |
| Theft | 60 |
| Criminal Procedure | 50 |
| Public Prosecutor | 40 |
| Criminal Breach of Trust | 30 |
| Criminal Revision | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Rape
- Robbery
- Sentencing