Public Prosecutor v Wee Teong Boo: Rape, Sexual Assault, Outrage of Modesty

In Public Prosecutor v Wee Teong Boo, the High Court of Singapore heard a case against Dr. Wee Teong Boo, who was charged with rape and outrage of modesty against a patient, V. The alleged incidents occurred during purported medical examinations at Dr. Wee's clinic. The court acquitted Dr. Wee of the rape charge but convicted him of sexual assault by penetration and outrage of modesty. Dr. Wee was sentenced to imprisonment and ordered to pay compensation. Both the prosecution and the accused have appealed the decision.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Accused acquitted on rape charge, convicted of sexual assault by penetration and outrage of modesty.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Wee Teong Boo was acquitted of rape but convicted of sexual assault and outrage of modesty. The court sentenced him to imprisonment and compensation.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorProsecutionGovernment AgencyPartialPartial
Wong Kok Weng of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Chew Xin Ying of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Sharmila Sripathy-Shanaz of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Amanda Chong of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Wee Teong BooDefenseIndividualPartialPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chua Lee MingJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Wong Kok WengAttorney-General’s Chambers
Chew Xin YingAttorney-General’s Chambers
Sharmila Sripathy-ShanazAttorney-General’s Chambers
Amanda ChongAttorney-General’s Chambers
Edmond PereiraEdmond Pereira Law Corporation
Vickie TanEdmond Pereira Law Corporation
Amardeep SinghEdmond Pereira Law Corporation

4. Facts

  1. The accused, Dr. Wee Teong Boo, was a general practitioner at his own clinic.
  2. The victim, V, was a 23-year-old female student and a patient of the accused.
  3. V visited the accused's clinic on 25 November 2015 and 30 December 2015.
  4. V alleged that the accused committed outrage of modesty on 25 November 2015.
  5. V alleged that the accused committed rape on 30 December 2015.
  6. The accused claimed he performed an internal pelvic examination on V with her consent.
  7. The accused claimed he suffered from erectile dysfunction.
  8. Medical examinations revealed injuries consistent with digital penetration.
  9. The accused did not wear gloves or use lubricant during the alleged internal pelvic examination.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Public Prosecutor v Wee Teong Boo, Criminal Case No 85 of 2017, [2019] SGHC 198

6. Timeline

DateEvent
V sought treatment at the accused’s clinic.
First treatment of V by the accused.
V discovered she was allergic to ciprofloxacin.
Last of 22 treatments of V by the accused.
Outrage of modesty offence occurred.
V visited the polyclinic to have lumps checked.
Rape and sexual assault offences occurred.
V lodged a police report.
Accused was arrested.
Seizure of boxer shorts.
Accused consulted Dr. Peter Lim with complaints of erectile dysfunction.
Doppler ultrasonography carried out by Dr. Gan.
Dr. Tung issued her report.
Dr. Peter Lim issued his report.
Accused saw Dr. Teo at Changi General Hospital.
Dr. Teo issued his first report.
Second penile Doppler ultrasonography administered by Dr. Wong.
Dr. Teo issued his second report.
Dr. Sheena left Singapore.
Accused underwent haemodynamic test for erectile function administered by Dr. Sriram Narayanan.
Judgment Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Rape
    • Outcome: Accused acquitted on the rape charge.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Sexual Assault by Penetration
    • Outcome: Accused convicted of sexual assault by penetration.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Outrage of Modesty
    • Outcome: Accused convicted of outrage of modesty.
    • Category: Substantive
  4. Consent
    • Outcome: Court found that V did not consent to the digital penetration.
    • Category: Substantive
  5. Admissibility of Evidence
    • Outcome: Court addressed the Prosecution's duty of disclosure of unused material.
    • Category: Procedural
  6. Alternative Charges
    • Outcome: Court exercised its powers under s 139 of the CPC to convict the accused of the offence of sexual assault by penetration.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Conviction of the Accused
  2. Imprisonment
  3. Compensation

9. Cause of Actions

  • Rape
  • Sexual Assault by Penetration
  • Outrage of Modesty

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Law
  • Sexual Offences

11. Industries

  • Healthcare

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
AOF v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2012] 3 SLR 34SingaporeCited for the principles regarding the assessment of a complainant's testimony in the absence of corroboration, emphasizing the need for 'fine-tooth comb' scrutiny, especially in sexual abuse cases.
Public Prosecutor v Yue Roger JrHigh CourtYes[2019] 3 SLR 749SingaporeCited for the principle that victims of sexual assault should not be expected to react in a stereotypical way.
Public Prosecutor v BDAHigh CourtYes[2018] SGHC 72SingaporeCited for the principle that victims of sexual assault should not be expected to react in a stereotypical way.
Pram Nair v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2017] 2 SLR 1015SingaporeCited for laying down the sentencing framework for the offence of sexual penetration of the vagina using a finger.
Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2017] 2 SLR 449SingaporeCited for the framework for determining the offence-specific and offender-specific aggravating factors in offences of statutory rape, which can be transposed to offences of digital penetration.
Kunasekaran s/o Kalimuthu Somasundara v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2018] 4 SLR 580SingaporeCited for laying out the sentencing framework for outrage of modesty offences.
Public Prosecutor v Raveen BalakrishnanHigh CourtYes[2018] 5 SLR 799SingaporeCited for the principle that sentences for separate and unrelated offences should run consecutively.
Amin bin Abdullah v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2017] 5 SLR 904SingaporeCited for the principle that there are no grounds to justify enhancing the sentence of imprisonment in the present case.
Soh Meiyun v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2014] 3 SLR 299SingaporeCited for the principle that a court must make a compensation order if it is satisfied that it is appropriate to do so.
Muhammad bin Kadar and another v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2011] 3 SLR 1205SingaporeCited for the Prosecution's duty to disclose unused material to the defence.
R v Tay Thye JooN/AYes[1933] MLJ 35N/ACited for the proposition that section 138 only applies when it is doubtful what offences the facts prove, not when it is doubtful as to what facts can be proved.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 375(1)(a)Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 375(2)Singapore
Penal Code s 354(1)Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 139Singapore
Penal Code s 376(2)(a)Singapore
Penal Code s 377C(d)Singapore
Penal Code s 90(a)(ii)Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code s 325(1)(b)Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code s 325(2)Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code s 359(1)(a)Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code s 359(2)Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code s 138Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) s 8(3)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Rape
  • Sexual Assault
  • Outrage of Modesty
  • Consent
  • Erectile Dysfunction
  • Internal Pelvic Examination
  • Digital Penetration
  • Penile Penetration
  • PID
  • UTI
  • LGTI
  • Chaperone
  • Medical Examination

15.2 Keywords

  • Rape
  • Sexual Assault
  • Outrage of Modesty
  • Medical Examination
  • Consent
  • Erectile Dysfunction
  • Singapore
  • Criminal Law

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Sexual Offences95
Sexual assault by penetration95
Criminal Law90
Criminal Procedure85
Penal Code80
Charge80
Consent of Public Prosecutor20
Irregularities in proceedings20
Defective consent of Public Prosecutor20
Curative powers of court20
Obstructing, preventing, perverting or defeating course of justice20
Alteration20
Public Prosecutor20

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Sexual Offences
  • Medical Law